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
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
approval-engine filed APPROVAL-IN-0002: secrets-engine built its PEP
validator against our ActionAuthorization schema, pointed it at
GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim, and it rejects every response. Both
envelopes declare schema_version 0.1, so it fails late and reads like an
approval-engine outage rather than a contract mismatch.
FLEX-DEC-2026-006 accepts the deferral and argues against flex-auth's own
proposal. The composed object had the PIP republish our decision, which
crosses the same layer boundary we invoked to decline authentication
evidence and to win section 17's schema. The claim-plus-DecisionEnvelope
split drops no check; each verification lands on the layer that owns it.
approval-engine asked, before the decision, whether the open G3 finding
argues for ratifying now. It does not: G3 is already closed the other
way. FLEX-WP-0019 added lifetime to the DecisionEnvelope itself, required
on every allow by schema conditional, published 2026-09-02. The trigger
resolved by adding a field rather than by composition, so the decision
stands alone and needs no bundle.
The provenance.authority == state-hub constant is our defect and is
fixed at source. It came from examples/caring/action_authorization.json,
which contradicted the same contract's ownership section. That fixture
now names approval-engine as the approval fact's authority and flex-auth
as the decision's, and its stale secrets-engine.lifecycle pin is
corrected to the reserved coordinate from FLEX-DEC-2026-005.
The contract doc and schema are marked deferred-not-withdrawn so no
other consumer builds a validator against them. The execute-time half is
untouched: /v1/check, binding, the canonical digest, and
flex-auth.decision-record.v1 stay published.
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
Close the remaining PDP obligations: mechanical layer declaration check,
registry-snapshot digest in provenance, explicit allow TTL, per-input-class
freshness deadlines, and the published decision-record contract. Document
the canonical request digest as the §6.4.2 replay test.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a06256-fb71-7102-b3a9-27e6734257d0
