C-21 flagged the ready workplan as possibly stale: reviewed against 5753b47,
HEAD had moved. Checked rather than assumed — nothing since 5753b47 touches Go
or schemas. Every commit between is documentation or work-record only, and the
last implementation change is d402408 (2026-08-23).
reviewed_against_commit now names the implementation state reviewed rather than
the HEAD at review time, so it moves when the code moves, which is when the
review needs redoing. C-21 compares against HEAD and cannot distinguish a doc
commit from a code one, so it will keep warning softly on this plan; the record
is accurate and that is the trade taken deliberately.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012sgN4GH5ZYT8pJVkCR6dcP
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 4014348@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: a993abda-65a0-4ea8-8ccd-0fcd78c92ac0
C-34 flagged status=ready without a DoR assessment. The warning was right: the
plan claimed repo-state review with no review metadata, and work-item-dor.md
prefers DoR-Failed for a ready claim in that state.
Adds reviewed_at, reviewed_against_commit (5753b47 — the code state the
alignment review actually checked each obligation against), the origin pointer
to the review, and quality_dor: DoR-Ok with the criteria walked in the note.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012sgN4GH5ZYT8pJVkCR6dcP
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 4014348@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: a993abda-65a0-4ea8-8ccd-0fcd78c92ac0
The standard was accepted at v0.7 on 2026-08-29. Four of flex-auth's review
findings are in the accepted text: 9.3's two-owner split, 6.4.2 scoped to the
decision's own binding with our canonical request digest as its mechanical test,
9.7.2 split by role, and 17 moving the decision-record schema to access-engine.
INTENT.md
- Machine-readable layer declaration in frontmatter (layer: Engine, role: PDP),
which section 11 requires and we did not have. audit-core noted our
declaration was legible only by following the decision trail.
- PDP failure semantics stated: our outage is consumer residue, not input
degradation; fail-open is not expressible by a PDP at all.
- Four owned obligations added: the decision-record schema as our contract, the
request digest as the published replay test, a lifetime on every allow, and
visibility deadlines per input class.
- A Layer Conformance section stating the state honestly: conforming with one
declared gap, no Tooling client, not PEP-shaped.
- Vocabulary correction: earlier text dropped "control plane" as Staff
vocabulary. Section 8 binds it to the Engine layer, which is why kings-guard
was asked to release it. The term is ours; we prefer "decision engine" for
precision, not boundary.
SCOPE.md
- Layer and role in the one-liner; the four obligations In Scope; five
boundaries established in review but never written down Out of Scope.
- Three capability blocks marked planned for workplans completed in May are now
current; two blocks added.
- Superseded ADR-0006 citation corrected to ADR-0009, which retires the global
flag outright rather than deferring it.
history/2026-08-29-layer-model-v0.7-alignment-review.md checks each obligation
against the code and finds six gaps. FLEX-WP-0019 closes them, with T02 before
T04 because a visibility deadline for registry-borne facts is unfalsifiable
until provenance can identify the snapshot a decision read.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012sgN4GH5ZYT8pJVkCR6dcP
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 4014348@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: a993abda-65a0-4ea8-8ccd-0fcd78c92ac0
