secrets-engine confirmed T03, and re-verifying against the regenerated
destroy fixture found something neither repository can fix alone: a
pdp_digest recorded at issue time can never equal the request_digest of a
request that carries the claim in its context, because the claim is part
of the context that is hashed. Embedding the claim changes the very
digest the claim would need to name.
Not fixture staleness. It holds for every dual-control request whose
claim travels in context -- the shape GH-DEC-2026-008 had just ruled
mandatory. Left unresolved that ruling was unimplementable for exactly
the case it was written for, and destroy would have been permanently
un-allowable in production, failing closed forever on a check that could
never pass.
flex-auth owns the canonical request digest, so the fix is ours.
binding.approval_binding_digest is the same material with
context.approval removed, emitted only when a claim was carried. An
approval issued against a claim-free Check records that Check's
request_digest; the claim-bearing request reproduces it here.
DELIBERATELY ADDITIVE, and the reason matters. The tempting fix is to
drop context.approval from request_digest entirely. That is wrong:
request_digest is the replay identity, and two requests differing only in
which approval was presented must not share one, because their decisions
differ -- one allows, the other denies dual_control_required. Collapsing
them would let an allow obtained with a valid claim be replayed against a
request carrying none. So request_digest still covers the claim and still
moves; approval_binding_digest deliberately does not, and is documented
as not a replay identity. The tests assert the two functions DISAGREE on
a claim-bearing request, which is approval-engine's formulation of how to
defend a distinction that looks like duplication.
The fixture now demonstrates the property rather than asserting it: its
claim's pdp_digest equals the envelope's approval_binding_digest with
pdp_path true, and changing the claim's contents moved request_digest
while leaving approval_binding_digest untouched. Two files a consumer can
diff.
Also picked up approval-engine's new required binding.pdp_path via the
cross-repo schema test added yesterday -- which is the test doing exactly
what it was built for, one day later.
T03 is done. secrets-engine's own digest-material defect, which our two
real envelopes caught, is recorded in the workplan.
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 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
secrets-engine delivered the action vocabulary T01 asked for: twelve
actions read out of cli.py, not the example vocabulary. The gate earned
its keep -- four would have been inferred wrongly, and revoke, the
obvious thirteenth, does not exist as an action at all. It gates as
deactivate, which is also reached from lifecycle deactivate.
docs/secrets-engine-action-vocabulary.md records the list and the four
traps. examples/secrets-engine/ carries the package, both manifests, a
loadable registry snapshot, 26 fixtures, five check requests, and a
README. validate -kind policy is valid with 22/22 Rego tests and 26/26
fixtures.
allow_ttl is 15m, stated in the package rather than inherited from the
engine default: these decisions authorize live secret operations, so the
reliance window belongs where a reviewer sees it. Per FLEX-DEC-2026-004
it is authority to issue, not authority to keep using what the operation
produced.
destroy is the dual-control case, gated on a context.approval claim
marked approved with two distinct approvers, repeated entries counting
once. flex-auth checks what the claim says and deliberately does not
re-derive its temporal validity, signature, or supersession -- those are
approval-engine's to assert and the PEP's to verify against the live
claim, per the split accepted in FLEX-DEC-2026-006. It stays in the
package though its handler raises before the gate, so the rule is
reviewed and fixtured before SECRETS-WP-0007-T04 opens the path.
Following the FLEX-WP-0010-T02 precedent the denial ladder has no
action_not_granted branch: one subject holding all twelve actions could
never reach it, and a rule that cannot fail reads as control that is not
there. Registering a second calling identity is the revisit trigger.
Not deployed. No flex-auth-secrets-engine pin exists yet (T04), so their
policy pin stays unset and fail-closed until T05.
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
