Commit graph

9 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
3081067325 State tenant-engine's tenant relation in the write-api package, v3.
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 2s
Build and Publish Container Image / build-and-push (push) Successful in 1m24s
tenant-engine named the relation in TEN-DEC-2026-002: `tenant` is the target
tenant record and always equals `resource.id`; the write API is cross-tenant
by design and `tenant.guardrail.read` does not differ. v2 carried no tenant
rule and a constant fixture tenant, so the deliberate scope and an omitted
rule were indistinguishable.

tenant-engine.write-api.mutate v3 (FLEX-DEC-2026-016):
- allowed requires tenant_is_target; a mismatch or absent tenant is denied
  tenant_not_target (object.get, so an absent key names the right cause).
- the cross-tenant scope is stated in the package and quantified by
  test_tenant_never_changes_effect over every action, three subjects and
  four tenants, with guards against passing by denying everything.
- fixtures rotate tenant across four tenants; five cross-tenant allows and
  two tenant_not_target denies added (42 fixtures, 33 tests, all pass).
- user-engine's tenant:platform exclusion is named as a fixed-record rule,
  not a subject/tenant relation, and tested separately.

Closes FLEX-WP-0022 (T01, T02 done). Also records TEN-IN-0004 and
SECRETS-IN-0002 on FLEX-WP-0020 and acknowledges the GH-DEC-2026-017
replies on FLEX-WP-0030-T04.

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

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 63291@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8bd77868-ca68-4f49-bb1e-d539ecc0d703
2026-09-21 07:39:57 +02:00
bd3d270531 chore: write back FLEX-WP-0030 T06-T08 and FLEX-WP-0031 hub IDs
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 5s
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 63291@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8bd77868-ca68-4f49-bb1e-d539ecc0d703
2026-09-21 06:37:01 +02:00
80ffe729d4 Apply gate-house's section 11 rulings: four-token validator, emission guarantee, resource.system.
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 5s
Build and Publish Container Image / build-and-push (push) Successful in 1m11s
GH-DEC-2026-017: the validator admitted {Staff, Engine, Tooling}, built from
section 4's catalog rows, and rejected Taxonomy, which section 3.1 defines.
railiance-master was conforming; the validator was the divergent artifact.
Now four tokens, ASCII case folded, section 4's spelling canonical, INTENT.md
governing while form disagreements are still reported, and every run states
its scope (section 11 binds section 4; volunteers are not non-conformances).
Also fixes the survey silently dropping audit-core's layer.yaml by decoding
peers into flex-auth's own struct.

GH-DEC-2026-018: flex-auth is a section 4 source of evidence. G2 closes as a
question and reopens as a dated gap (review 2026-10-19). cadence.yaml
publishes the per-event-class inventory: deny, redact, not_applicable and
audit_only rare load-bearing (heartbeat and reconciliation, rate forbidden);
allow volume load-bearing (expected-rate and reconciliation). INTENT.md
declares source_of_evidence and names it; tests assert both. Delivery is
FLEX-WP-0031.

FLEX-DEC-2026-015: resource.system follows the runtime, not the repository,
answering ops-warden's WARDEN-IN-0003.

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

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 63291@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8bd77868-ca68-4f49-bb1e-d539ecc0d703
2026-09-21 06:35:30 +02:00
d6c9e3bad4 chore: sync FLEX-WP-0030 T05 hub ID and status
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 2s
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
2026-09-21 01:26:46 +02:00
custodian-sync
9fb7cb658f chore(consistency): renormalize lifecycle state [auto]
Updated by fix-consistency on 2026-09-21:
  - workplan status: ready → active

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 28468@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: c76569b2-6056-4dad-aea4-49cd7a018f5d
2026-09-21 01:26:23 +02:00
e8d6d08f79 Make the B1 survey a command, which immediately falsified B1.
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
Build and Publish Container Image / build-and-push (push) Successful in 1m4s
B1 was found with a shell pipeline and published as a finding. The review it
appeared in had already argued that a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an
assertion, and §11's entire claim is mechanical checkability — so asserting B1
unmechanically was that defect committed by the repository reporting it.

tools/survey_layer_declarations.go reads both §11 forms per repository, reports
intra-repository disagreement, and writes a receipt. Run once, it showed the
published B1 was wrong: the estate does not spell layer: three ways across
repositories. The original pipeline took the first ^layer: match per repository
without recording which file it came from, reporting one value where there were
two.

The corrected finding is stronger. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11
forms declare a different value in each: INTENT.md says Engine/Staff, layer.yaml
says engine/staff. The disagreement is within each repository, between the two
forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than careless — two generators, two
conventions. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else.

That relocates the question from casing to precedence: §11 accepts either form
and does not say which governs when both exist and disagree, so a conformance run
reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine
repositories while both follow §11. flex-auth is the only declared repository
that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file.

The correction is recorded in the review rather than edited away: a published
review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and that rule has no
exception for the reviewer.

Four tests cover the disagreement case, the refusal to fold case, a missing
declaration, and the single-form shape that must not read as self-disagreement.
The survey checks only the §3 vocabulary and never applies flex-auth's house
rules to peers.

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
2026-09-21 01:24:15 +02:00
7e1bbaab6e chore: write back FLEX-WP-0030 hub IDs and refresh WORK-RECORDS.md
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 2s
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
2026-09-21 00:16:22 +02:00
d76f6b76e1 Raise the boundaries-review findings with their owners and record T01-T03 done.
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 2s
Build and Publish Container Image / build-and-push (push) Successful in 1m11s
Eleven messages sent. Every finding is open until its owner answers; T04 stays
in progress rather than done, because a finding is not closed by silence.

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
2026-09-21 00:15:30 +02:00
c0d0d92e9f 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
2026-09-21 00:11:56 +02:00