§9.4 forbids audit-core answering whether an approval is still valid: a
consumer branching on such an answer would route an authorization decision
through the audit fabric. The prohibition was honoured by absence, which is
not the estate's idiom — §6.4 obligation 3 requires a published stance to
equal shipped behaviour asserted by test.
Written against shapes rather than today's route list, so adding a validity
surface later fails here rather than passing quietly. Plausible verdict paths
must 404 rather than 403: a distinguishable forbidden would imply a surface
exists behind auth. No backend class, Postgres included, may carry a
verdict-shaped method name. The declaration must stay in layer.yaml,
INTENT.md and SCOPE.md.
The last test guards the opposite error — an approval-shaped event class is
still ingestible, because the prohibition bounds the verdict, not the record.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185wifnLzCxjEY2MT1XbK7L
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 713962@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 2718d99d-d3ff-478f-83a2-3a30f01a02fc
tegwick
948e8a3e8f