2026-09-06 08:14:14 +02:00
|
|
|
# T03 replay fixtures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real `DecisionEnvelope`s emitted from the published package, for secrets-engine
|
|
|
|
|
to verify its digest join (`627810b`) unchanged. `FLEX-WP-0021-T03`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| File | From |
|
|
|
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
|
|
|
| `decision_rotate.json` | `../check_request_allow_rotate.json` — plain allow, empty context |
|
|
|
|
|
| `decision_destroy_dual_control.json` | `../check_request_allow_destroy_dual_control.json` — dual control, valid approval-claim |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regenerate either with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
|
|
|
go run ./cmd/flex-auth check \
|
|
|
|
|
-policy examples/secrets-engine/policy_package.md \
|
|
|
|
|
-registry examples/secrets-engine/registry_snapshot.json \
|
|
|
|
|
-request examples/secrets-engine/check_request_allow_rotate.json
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## What is stable and what is not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Stable across runs** — these are the fields to pin a contract test against:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Field | `rotate` | `destroy` |
|
|
|
|
|
| --- | --- | --- |
|
Publish approval_binding_digest: a claim cannot name the request carrying it
secrets-engine confirmed T03, and re-verifying against the regenerated
destroy fixture found something neither repository can fix alone: a
pdp_digest recorded at issue time can never equal the request_digest of a
request that carries the claim in its context, because the claim is part
of the context that is hashed. Embedding the claim changes the very
digest the claim would need to name.
Not fixture staleness. It holds for every dual-control request whose
claim travels in context -- the shape GH-DEC-2026-008 had just ruled
mandatory. Left unresolved that ruling was unimplementable for exactly
the case it was written for, and destroy would have been permanently
un-allowable in production, failing closed forever on a check that could
never pass.
flex-auth owns the canonical request digest, so the fix is ours.
binding.approval_binding_digest is the same material with
context.approval removed, emitted only when a claim was carried. An
approval issued against a claim-free Check records that Check's
request_digest; the claim-bearing request reproduces it here.
DELIBERATELY ADDITIVE, and the reason matters. The tempting fix is to
drop context.approval from request_digest entirely. That is wrong:
request_digest is the replay identity, and two requests differing only in
which approval was presented must not share one, because their decisions
differ -- one allows, the other denies dual_control_required. Collapsing
them would let an allow obtained with a valid claim be replayed against a
request carrying none. So request_digest still covers the claim and still
moves; approval_binding_digest deliberately does not, and is documented
as not a replay identity. The tests assert the two functions DISAGREE on
a claim-bearing request, which is approval-engine's formulation of how to
defend a distinction that looks like duplication.
The fixture now demonstrates the property rather than asserting it: its
claim's pdp_digest equals the envelope's approval_binding_digest with
pdp_path true, and changing the claim's contents moved request_digest
while leaving approval_binding_digest untouched. Two files a consumer can
diff.
Also picked up approval-engine's new required binding.pdp_path via the
cross-repo schema test added yesterday -- which is the test doing exactly
what it was built for, one day later.
T03 is done. secrets-engine's own digest-material defect, which our two
real envelopes caught, is recorded in the workplan.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JTbVXpEiXA7mNJVpDnEPcB
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 412054@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 3968fae1-8d59-4209-9bd6-c22594b8ab19
2026-09-06 14:52:33 +02:00
|
|
|
| `binding.request_digest` | `sha256:de67324f…4345` | `sha256:c749ee2…091a` |
|
2026-09-06 08:14:14 +02:00
|
|
|
| `provenance.policy_package_digest` | `sha256:fe0070b7…bd8c` | same |
|
|
|
|
|
| `provenance.registry_snapshot_digest` | `sha256:f5a309bc…40bb` | same |
|
Publish approval_binding_digest: a claim cannot name the request carrying it
secrets-engine confirmed T03, and re-verifying against the regenerated
destroy fixture found something neither repository can fix alone: a
pdp_digest recorded at issue time can never equal the request_digest of a
request that carries the claim in its context, because the claim is part
of the context that is hashed. Embedding the claim changes the very
digest the claim would need to name.
Not fixture staleness. It holds for every dual-control request whose
claim travels in context -- the shape GH-DEC-2026-008 had just ruled
mandatory. Left unresolved that ruling was unimplementable for exactly
the case it was written for, and destroy would have been permanently
un-allowable in production, failing closed forever on a check that could
never pass.
flex-auth owns the canonical request digest, so the fix is ours.
binding.approval_binding_digest is the same material with
context.approval removed, emitted only when a claim was carried. An
approval issued against a claim-free Check records that Check's
request_digest; the claim-bearing request reproduces it here.
DELIBERATELY ADDITIVE, and the reason matters. The tempting fix is to
drop context.approval from request_digest entirely. That is wrong:
request_digest is the replay identity, and two requests differing only in
which approval was presented must not share one, because their decisions
differ -- one allows, the other denies dual_control_required. Collapsing
them would let an allow obtained with a valid claim be replayed against a
request carrying none. So request_digest still covers the claim and still
moves; approval_binding_digest deliberately does not, and is documented
as not a replay identity. The tests assert the two functions DISAGREE on
a claim-bearing request, which is approval-engine's formulation of how to
defend a distinction that looks like duplication.
The fixture now demonstrates the property rather than asserting it: its
claim's pdp_digest equals the envelope's approval_binding_digest with
pdp_path true, and changing the claim's contents moved request_digest
while leaving approval_binding_digest untouched. Two files a consumer can
diff.
Also picked up approval-engine's new required binding.pdp_path via the
cross-repo schema test added yesterday -- which is the test doing exactly
what it was built for, one day later.
T03 is done. secrets-engine's own digest-material defect, which our two
real envelopes caught, is recorded in the workplan.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JTbVXpEiXA7mNJVpDnEPcB
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 412054@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 3968fae1-8d59-4209-9bd6-c22594b8ab19
2026-09-06 14:52:33 +02:00
|
|
|
| `provenance.input_claim_digests.context` | absent (empty context) | `sha256:8b73d29…2800` |
|
2026-09-06 08:14:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verified identical across two runs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Publish approval_binding_digest: a claim cannot name the request carrying it
secrets-engine confirmed T03, and re-verifying against the regenerated
destroy fixture found something neither repository can fix alone: a
pdp_digest recorded at issue time can never equal the request_digest of a
request that carries the claim in its context, because the claim is part
of the context that is hashed. Embedding the claim changes the very
digest the claim would need to name.
Not fixture staleness. It holds for every dual-control request whose
claim travels in context -- the shape GH-DEC-2026-008 had just ruled
mandatory. Left unresolved that ruling was unimplementable for exactly
the case it was written for, and destroy would have been permanently
un-allowable in production, failing closed forever on a check that could
never pass.
flex-auth owns the canonical request digest, so the fix is ours.
binding.approval_binding_digest is the same material with
context.approval removed, emitted only when a claim was carried. An
approval issued against a claim-free Check records that Check's
request_digest; the claim-bearing request reproduces it here.
DELIBERATELY ADDITIVE, and the reason matters. The tempting fix is to
drop context.approval from request_digest entirely. That is wrong:
request_digest is the replay identity, and two requests differing only in
which approval was presented must not share one, because their decisions
differ -- one allows, the other denies dual_control_required. Collapsing
them would let an allow obtained with a valid claim be replayed against a
request carrying none. So request_digest still covers the claim and still
moves; approval_binding_digest deliberately does not, and is documented
as not a replay identity. The tests assert the two functions DISAGREE on
a claim-bearing request, which is approval-engine's formulation of how to
defend a distinction that looks like duplication.
The fixture now demonstrates the property rather than asserting it: its
claim's pdp_digest equals the envelope's approval_binding_digest with
pdp_path true, and changing the claim's contents moved request_digest
while leaving approval_binding_digest untouched. Two files a consumer can
diff.
Also picked up approval-engine's new required binding.pdp_path via the
cross-repo schema test added yesterday -- which is the test doing exactly
what it was built for, one day later.
T03 is done. secrets-engine's own digest-material defect, which our two
real envelopes caught, is recorded in the workplan.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JTbVXpEiXA7mNJVpDnEPcB
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 412054@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 3968fae1-8d59-4209-9bd6-c22594b8ab19
2026-09-06 14:52:33 +02:00
|
|
|
| `binding.approval_binding_digest` | absent (no claim) | `sha256:fa07bec…cd56` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That last row is the value an approval's `pdp_digest` must equal — never
|
|
|
|
|
`request_digest`, which a claim can never match on the request that carries it.
|
|
|
|
|
It equals the `request_digest` of the same request with `context.approval`
|
|
|
|
|
removed, which is verifiable from this directory: strip the context from
|
|
|
|
|
`../check_request_allow_destroy_dual_control.json`, re-run `check`, and the
|
|
|
|
|
claim-free request digest is the same value (it denies `dual_control_required`,
|
|
|
|
|
which is the point).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**This fixture verifies itself.** The claim inside the request carries
|
|
|
|
|
`binding.pdp_digest` equal to the envelope's `approval_binding_digest`, and
|
|
|
|
|
`binding.pdp_path: true`. Compare the two values in the two files. Note that
|
|
|
|
|
`request_digest` moved when the claim's contents changed while
|
|
|
|
|
`approval_binding_digest` did not — that is the stability property, demonstrated
|
|
|
|
|
in the artifact rather than asserted in prose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-09-06 08:14:14 +02:00
|
|
|
**Not stable:** `id`, `provenance.decision_time`, and `lifetime.not_before` /
|
|
|
|
|
`lifetime.expires_at` move with the clock. `lifetime.ttl` is `15m` from the
|
|
|
|
|
package's `allow_ttl`. Do not pin the record as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
`input_claim_digests.context` appears only when the request carries a non-empty
|
|
|
|
|
context — which is why both fixtures are here rather than just one. A consumer
|
|
|
|
|
asserting the field is always present would pass on `destroy` and fail on
|
|
|
|
|
`rotate`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add schemaguard; correct check_request subject.type against shipped reality
approval-engine suggested a conformance check after the examples-contradict-
prose class hit a third repository -- theirs. Fifteen lines, they said, and
it would have caught our caring fixture and our provenance omission. Worth
stealing, so we stole it.
internal/schemaguard validates published examples against published schemas.
It implements only the JSON Schema subset these schemas use, and the property
that makes it trustworthy is that an unrecognised keyword FAILS rather than
skips: a validator that silently approves what it does not understand invites
reliance it cannot support. It found three things on first run.
ONE, AND THE LARGEST: check_request.schema.json pointed subject.type at
CARING's subject_type enum (Human, Service, ...), and no consumer sends that
vocabulary. user-engine sends human, tenant-engine and secrets-engine send
service, and ops-warden sends adm/agt/atm -- an actor-type vocabulary CARING
does not model at all. Our published schema declared three live integrations
non-conformant. A rule that outlaws shipped correct behaviour is the rule
that is wrong, so the $ref is replaced with an opaque non-empty string and a
description saying why. CARING's enum remains correct where it belongs: the
registry's subject_manifest.yaml, where Service is right.
TWO: policy_package_note, which this session added to the caring example's
decision provenance, is undeclared under additionalProperties:false. Our own
annotation broke the conformance it was annotating. Moved to the envelope's
outer provenance.
THREE: the secrets-engine fixtures carried partial approval-claims, missing
binding, freshness and validity. A partial claim in a fixture is how a
consumer learns the wrong shape -- the same mechanism that produced the
destroy defect. They are now complete and valid against approval-engine's
schema, including the now-required binding.pdp_digest, and a test validates
them against that schema when the sibling repo is present.
The destroy replay fixture is regenerated accordingly and the replay README's
pinned digests updated, since a stale digest table is the same defect wearing
a different hat.
Closed the binding-mapping open item. approval-engine declined to publish a
vocabulary mapping and their reasoning is better than the request: a PIP
asserting secrets.kv.destroy MEANS destroy would author semantics over two
vocabularies it owns neither of, and a wrong mapping silently accepts a claim
approved for a different action. pdp_digest is the mapping precisely because
it does not translate. It is now always present and nullable, so the destroy
gate is pdp_digest non-null and equal, enforced at the PEP.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JTbVXpEiXA7mNJVpDnEPcB
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 412054@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 3968fae1-8d59-4209-9bd6-c22594b8ab19
2026-09-06 14:21:28 +02:00
|
|
|
The `destroy` request's `context.approval` is a **complete** approval-claim,
|
|
|
|
|
valid against `approval-engine/schemas/approval_claim.schema.json` including the
|
|
|
|
|
now-required `binding.pdp_digest`. It was regenerated on 2026-09-06 when that
|
|
|
|
|
claim was completed, so its digests differ from the first emission — a partial
|
|
|
|
|
claim in a fixture is how a consumer learns the wrong shape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-09-06 08:14:14 +02:00
|
|
|
## Not a deployment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These come from `flex-auth/local` in `standalone` mode
|
|
|
|
|
(`provenance.evaluator` / `mode`), not from a cluster pin. No
|
|
|
|
|
`flex-auth-secrets-engine` pin exists yet (`FLEX-WP-0021-T04`), and the consumer
|
|
|
|
|
policy pin stays unset until `T05`.
|