Make the layer declaration a boundary, and review the boundaries it implies.

INTENT.md pinned standard_version: "0.7" in the frontmatter §11 requires. That
conflated two things the standard separates itself: assent "records assent to a
BOUNDARY, given at the version named. It is not assent to the current text."
flex-auth is Engine/PDP at v0.6, v0.7, v0.8 and after; the role does not change
when the text is amended. The field was also decorative — parsed into
Declaration.StandardVersion and never validated — so the version was load-bearing
only via a test asserting it equalled 0.7.

That test is inverted rather than deleted: internal/layer now rejects a version
pin in the declaration and requires conformance_record to name a file that
exists. Version-scoped state moves to docs/conformance/security-layer-conformance.md,
a derived artifact carrying what it derives from and the version derived at, as
§11 requires of derived artifacts.

SCOPE.md: gap assessment replaces "conforming with one declared gap" with three
gaps, each with an owner and a route. G2 is new — flex-auth declares no emission
guarantee where §11 requires one of every §4 source of evidence. It is recorded
as a gap rather than as conformance because the flattering reading, that
audit-core is the source and flex-auth merely produces, has been asserted by
nobody but flex-auth. Also corrects the stance register from two rows to five.

Fixing one line meant reading what the declaration asserts, and a boundary is
only half held here. docs/conformance/boundaries-review.md checks the other
halves across twelve counterparts and finds four security-relevant repositories
with no layer declaration at all — including key-cape, the identity source whose
claims flex-auth consumes as normative input. That boundary is asserted from one
side only. Recorded as unstated, never as agreed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-21 00:11:56 +02:00
parent 5a2e1959e5
commit c0d0d92e9f
7 changed files with 470 additions and 26 deletions

View file

@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
---
id: FLEX-WP-0030
type: workplan
title: "The layer declaration pins a version it should not, and four security-relevant peers do not declare at all"
domain: infotech
repo: flex-auth
status: ready
flavor: review
owner: claude
topic_slug: netkingdom
planning_priority: P1
planning_order: 300
related_workplans:
- FLEX-WP-0019
- FLEX-WP-0029
created: "2026-09-21"
updated: "2026-09-21"
---
# FLEX-WP-0030 — Boundary declaration cleanup and estate boundaries review
`INTENT.md` declares `standard_version: "0.7"` in the frontmatter that §11
requires. That conflates two things the standard itself separates. The standard's
own frontmatter says it outright:
> `assented_by` records assent to a **BOUNDARY**, given at the version named.
> It is not assent to the current text.
A layer is a boundary. flex-auth is Engine / PDP whether the standard is at v0.6,
v0.7, v0.8 or v1.0 — the role does not change when the text is amended. Pinning a
version in the boundary declaration makes every standard revision look like it
invalidates the declaration, and generates exactly the churn seen this month:
v0.8 lands, the file still says `0.7`, and a reader cannot tell whether that is
staleness or a deliberate position.
**It is also decorative.** `internal/layer/conformance.go:40` parses
`standard_version` into `Declaration.StandardVersion` and `ValidateDeclaration`
never reads it. The field is enforced by nothing, in a file whose entire purpose
is being mechanically checkable.
## 1. Make the declaration version-agnostic
```task
id: FLEX-WP-0030-T01
status: todo
priority: high
```
Owner: `flex-auth`.
- Drop `standard_version` from the `INTENT.md` frontmatter. §11 requires a
`layer:` key; it does not require a version, and flex-auth's own validator
does not check one.
- Replace versioned prose references (`security-layer-model_v0.7.md`) with the
unversioned standard path. `INTENT.md` is declared "aspirational and stable"
in its own words; a stable file should not carry a number that moves quarterly.
- Move version-scoped conformance state out of `INTENT.md` into a conformance
record that is *supposed* to move: which version was reviewed, the conformance
state, and each declared gap with owner, blocker and review date (§11's
four-state table).
- That split also satisfies §11's derived-artifact rule, which requires a
derived artifact to name what it derives from **and the version it was derived
at**. The boundary declaration is not derived; the conformance record is, and
it is the artifact that should carry the version.
- Keep `internal/layer` green, and decide whether `StandardVersion` stays as a
tolerated-but-unused field or is removed. Do not leave a parsed field that
nothing validates without saying which it is.
Gate: `INTENT.md` names no standard version; conformance state is version-stamped
somewhere that is maintained; `go test ./internal/layer/...` passes.
## 2. Update SCOPE.md and assess the gaps
```task
id: FLEX-WP-0030-T02
status: todo
priority: high
```
Owner: `flex-auth`.
`SCOPE.md`'s Current State is accurate but drifting: it says §13.1's register has
**two rows** (it has five — `FLEX-WP-0029` owns that), and it states conformance
as "conforming with one declared gap" without naming where the gap list is
maintained.
Assess and state, per gap: what it is, who owns it, what unblocks it, and when it
is next reviewed. Known candidates:
| Candidate gap | State |
| --- | --- |
| Registry-snapshot digest in decision provenance | declared, `FLEX-WP-0019`, §9.7.2 conformance prerequisite |
| Emission guarantee not declared (see T04 / B3) | **unassessed** — may be a second declared gap |
| Stance-register review stale at five rows | `FLEX-WP-0029` |
Gate: every gap in `SCOPE.md` has an owner and a route; no gap is described only
as a sentence.
## 3. Publish the boundaries review
```task
id: FLEX-WP-0030-T03
status: todo
priority: high
```
Owner: `flex-auth`.
Review flex-auth's boundary against every security-relevant repository it names
or is named by, and publish findings as a derived artifact marked with the
version it was derived at. Five findings are already identified in T04; the
review is the durable form of them.
Cover at minimum: `gate-house` (doctrine), `key-cape` (identity claims in),
`ops-warden`, `secrets-engine`, `user-engine`, `tenant-engine`, `zone-engine`,
`approval-engine`, `audit-core`, `maturity-engine`, `kings-guard`, `ops-mason`.
Gate: the review states, for each counterpart, whether the boundary is agreed,
contested, or unstated — and does not record "unstated" as if it were "agreed".
## 4. Raise the conflicting and unclear boundaries for resolution
```task
id: FLEX-WP-0030-T04
status: todo
priority: high
```
Owner: `flex-auth` to raise; the named owner resolves each.
### B1 — `layer:` case is inconsistent, and §11 calls the check mechanical
| Value written | Repositories |
| --- | --- |
| `Engine` | `flex-auth`, `maturity-engine` |
| `engine` | `secrets-engine`, `approval-engine`, `user-engine`, `tenant-engine`, `zone-engine`, `audit-core` |
| `staff` | `ops-warden`, `kings-guard` |
flex-auth's own validator rejects anything outside `{Staff, Engine, Tooling}`
(`internal/layer/conformance.go:86`), so run across the estate it would fail
eight of ten declarations on casing alone. Either the §3 vocabulary is
case-insensitive and every checker MUST fold case, or it is not and eight
declarations are non-conformant. Today each repository's checker only reads its
own file, so the disagreement is invisible by construction.
Owner: `gate-house`. This is the §11 mechanical-checkability claim meeting its
first cross-repository run.
### B2 — four security-relevant repositories carry no layer declaration
`gate-house`, `key-cape`, `ops-mason`, and `net-kingdom` have no `layer:` key in
`INTENT.md` and no equivalent declaration file. §11 requires one of every
estate-authored repository in §4, and is explicit that a layer stated *about* a
repository by another repository is not a declaration.
Two matter directly to flex-auth:
- **`key-cape`** is the identity source whose verified claims flex-auth consumes
as normative input and never redefines. That boundary is load-bearing for
every decision flex-auth renders, and it is asserted only from flex-auth's
side.
- **`gate-house`** authors the obligation. A doctrine owner that has not
discharged its own §11 obligation is the standard's §9.1 defect pointed at
itself.
`ops-mason` is already marked non-conformant in §13.1 for publishing no stance
map; a missing layer declaration is the same gap one level up.
Owner: each named repository. flex-auth raises, does not grade.
### B3 — flex-auth declares no emission guarantee, and may owe one
§11 requires every repository catalogued in §4 **as a source of evidence** to
declare its emission guarantee — class, cadence, and detection surface — in its
machine-readable layer declaration, and says a source that declares none is not
conforming.
flex-auth produces the decision record, which §17 moved to flex-auth as its own
contract and calls "the one thing in the estate only `access-engine` produces".
flex-auth's frontmatter declares no emission guarantee.
The unclear boundary is whether flex-auth is a §4 *source of evidence* or merely
the producer of an artifact that `audit-core` is the source of. The answer
decides whether this is a second declared gap or nothing at all. flex-auth should
not answer it alone, and should not assume the flattering reading.
Owner: `gate-house` to rule; `audit-core` to confirm which side of the line it
holds.
### B4 — the declaration pins a version the standard says is not part of the boundary
Raised here as the general form of T01, because if flex-auth is right that a
layer declaration should not carry a standard version, the fix belongs in §11 and
not only in flex-auth's file. If §11 wants a version, it should say so and say
what it means when the standard moves.
Owner: `gate-house`.
### B5 — canon names a repository that does not resolve
v0.8 refers to the PDP as `access-engine` throughout (§4 catalog row, §13.1,
§17), while the repository, runtime, namespace, images, and API vocabulary all
remain `flex-auth` per `FLEX-DEC-2026-013`, and the rename has not landed —
`access-engine` raw returns 404, verified 2026-09-20 under `FLEX-WP-0020`.
Neither side is wrong: the rename is ruled and sequenced, and canon named the
end state. But a reader of v0.8 cannot resolve the repository it keeps naming,
and `reuse-surface` already probed the 404 independently. Worth one line in the
standard recording that the coordinate is pending rather than broken.
Owner: `gate-house` to note; `flex-auth` to ping when `FLEX-WP-0020` lands.
Gate: every finding above is sent to its named owner with what would resolve it.
An unanswered finding stays open and is not closed by silence.
## Out of scope
- Bumping flex-auth to declare v0.8. v0.8 is `status: proposed`; T01 removes the
version from the declaration entirely, which makes the question moot rather
than answering it.
- Grading any peer repository's conformance. flex-auth reports what it can
observe and names the owner; §9.3's two-owner split cuts here too.
- `FLEX-WP-0029`'s stance-register second edition. Adjacent, separately owned.