Fix the destroy rule: it was written against an invented claim shape

approval-engine flagged the class one message earlier -- a contract whose
examples contradict its prose gets implemented as its examples -- and
yesterday's package was a fresh instance of it, committed while flagging
it.

The published rule required context.approval.status == "approved" and
counted context.approval.approvals[].subject_id. Neither field exists.
approval-engine's approval_claim.schema.json has `state` (whose operative
value is `valid`, not `approved`) and carries no approver list at all. The
rule was unsatisfiable: every live destroy would have denied
dual_control_required no matter how good the approval was. It failed
closed, so it was never a hole, but it was policy written against a shape
of our own devising rather than a published one.

The rule now consumes valid_now from the real claim, guarded on kind and
issuer. valid_now is the summary predicate that already folds in the
distinct-approver threshold, with reason_code insufficient_approvers for
a claim that failed it -- so this is also the correct layering, not just
the correct shape. Counting approvers here is exactly the duplication
GH-DEC-2026-005 removes; the compensating property is reconstructability
at the issuer under 9.6, which is approval-engine's.

Recorded as a correction section in the package and the vocabulary doc
rather than quietly rewritten. 25 Rego tests and 29 fixtures pass,
covering insufficient_approvers, consumed, revoked, approved-but-not-yet-
valid, foreign issuer, and wrong kind.

Two things the package deliberately does not do, both now written down:
it does not compare binding.pdp_digest, because the request digest is
computed after policy evaluation and a Rego rule cannot see it; and it
makes no cross-check that the claim was approved for this action and
target, because the claim's binding uses approval-engine's vocabulary and
no mapping between the two is published. Inventing one would silently
accept a claim approved for something else. Both belong to the PEP until
a mapping exists, and that is worth closing before SECRETS-WP-0007-T04
makes destroy reachable.

Also swept the other published fixtures on approval-engine's reasoning.
One more instance: the inner decision in examples/caring/action_authorization.json
declared contract_version flex-auth.decision-record.v1 while its
provenance omitted policy_package_digest, registry_snapshot_digest, and
input_claim_digests -- all published contract fields since 2026-09-02.
Completed. The remaining example context vocabularies are consumer-owned
and match their integrations.

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

examples/caring/action_authorization.json

@@ -107,6 +107,11 @@
       "mode": "standalone",
       "policy_package": "secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle",
       "policy_version": "v1",
+      "policy_package_digest": "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
+      "registry_snapshot_digest": "sha256:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb",
+      "input_claim_digests": {
+        "context": "sha256:cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc"
+      },
       "decision_time": "2026-08-23T10:00:30Z",
       "policy_package_note": "Reserved coordinate, not yet published (FLEX-DEC-2026-005). Illustrative only."
     }