flex-auth/.repo-manager
tegwick 0e2efa8fcf
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
Align INTENT and SCOPE to security layer model v0.7; plan conformance work
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- Superseded ADR-0006 citation corrected to ADR-0009, which retires the global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
2026-08-29 14:43:49 +02:00
..
index.json Align INTENT and SCOPE to security layer model v0.7; plan conformance work 2026-08-29 14:43:49 +02:00