B2: key-cape (Tooling), net-kingdom (Taxonomy) and ops-mason (Staff) now declare in their own files. Verified by the survey rather than taken on report: 14 of 14 counterparts declared, 0 undeclared. ops-mason sent no reply and needed none — under §11 the file is the declaration. Every T04 finding is answered, so FLEX-WP-0030 is finished. B5's residual ping belongs to FLEX-WP-0020. key-cape stated the identity boundary from its side for the first time and cautioned that principal_type must not be read as authentication-derived until GH-DEC-2026-013/-016 §5 is answered. Checked against every published package: only the two informed-decision packages gate on a human subject, and both also require principal_type_source == "authentication-derived", which informed-decision derives from the verified code-flow MFA event rather than from key-cape's claim. No change needed; the assessment and a warning about the legacy "otherwise -> human" fallback are in docs/iam-profile-consumption.md. tenant-engine confirmed FLEX-DEC-2026-016's reading of commitment (b): the fixed-record exclusion is consistent with it. Recorded under point 3; v3 stands. 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
12 KiB
Boundaries review — flex-auth against its security-relevant counterparts
Derived artifact (§11). Derives from
net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md(status: proposed,source_revision: gate-house@516ed4e), from each counterpart'sINTENT.md/layer.yamlas of the date below, and from flex-auth's owndecisions/decisions.md. Derived at: 2026-09-21. Reviewer:flex-auth(Engine / PDP). Carried byFLEX-WP-0030.
Why this exists
INTENT.md was carrying a standard version it should not (FLEX-WP-0030 T01).
Fixing one line meant reading what the declaration actually asserts, and the
declaration asserts a boundary — which is only half of a boundary. The other half
is held by someone else, and flex-auth had never checked whether the other halves
were stated at all.
They are not, in four cases. That is the finding of this review, and it was not the one being looked for.
The rule this review holds itself to
§11 is explicit: "A layer stated about a repository by another repository is
not a declaration." So nothing below grades a peer. flex-auth reports what it can
observe from outside, names the owner, and says which of three states the boundary
is in. unstated is not recorded as agreed — that conflation is the whole
reason the four cases below went unnoticed.
Boundary status
| Counterpart | Boundary | State |
|---|---|---|
gate-house |
owns invariants, authority ceilings, operating modes; flex-auth authors no doctrine and consumes authority context as claims | agreed in substance, undeclared in form — no layer: key (B2) |
key-cape / NetKingdom SSO |
identity source; flex-auth consumes verified claims as normative input and never redefines them | asserted from one side only — no layer: key (B2) |
ops-warden |
consumer / PEP; owns SSH CA, OpenBao signing, actor inventory and its own stance map. flex-auth owns the decision, never the credential | agreed, and the most exercised boundary in the estate |
secrets-engine |
consumer / PEP; owns credential lifecycle downstream of a decision | agreed |
approval-engine |
owns the approval object, its storage and lifecycle; flex-auth validates approvals as input claims and never mutates them | agreed — GH-DEC-2026-005, accepted in FLEX-DEC-2026-006 against flex-auth's own proposal |
zone-engine |
zone membership compiles into the registry snapshot flex-auth consumes; per-zone stance is the consumer's | held by flex-auth since 2026-08-19; not contested, not confirmed |
user-engine |
PIP; supplies subject facts | agreed |
tenant-engine |
PIP and consumer. What CheckRequest.tenant denotes on the write API — caller, target, or guardrail scope — is unanswered since 2026-09-15 |
unclear, and live — FLEX-WP-0022, re-asked 2026-09-20 |
audit-core |
holds custody of evidence; flex-auth emits the decision record | ruled 2026-09-21, against flex-auth — flex-auth is the §4 source; custody is never source (GH-DEC-2026-018); audit-core confirmed independently and declined the role (AUDIT-IN-0005). G2 is now a dated gap |
maturity-engine |
PIP; supplies maturity claims. §9.5 forbids ranking blocked-clean below conforming | agreed |
kings-guard |
Staff; raised the authentication/assurance evidence gap that flex-auth declined (§13, FLEX-DEC-2026-002) |
agreed, by mutual declining |
ops-mason |
catalogued PEP-shaped in §4 | undeclared twice over — no stance map (§13.1 marks it), no layer: key (B2) |
Findings raised for resolution
Full statements in workplans/FLEX-WP-0030-boundary-declaration-cleanup.md T04.
| # | Finding | Owner | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Corrected 2026-09-21. Nine of nine repositories carrying both §11 forms declare a different layer: value in each. §11 does not say which form governs |
gate-house |
Ruled GH-DEC-2026-017 §1–§2: INTENT.md governs, sidecar is derived and must agree, the disagreement is still reported; comparison folds ASCII case. flex-auth's validator changed |
| B2 | gate-house, key-cape, ops-mason, net-kingdom carry no machine-readable layer declaration |
each named repository | gate-house declared Staff in the ruling commit; three remain |
| B3 | flex-auth declares no emission guarantee; whether it owes one turns on an unruled boundary with audit-core |
gate-house, audit-core |
Ruled against flex-auth GH-DEC-2026-018; per-class inventory published in cadence.yaml; delivery is dated gap G2 |
| B4 | a layer declaration should not pin a standard version; if §11 agrees it should say so generally | gate-house |
Ruled as asked GH-DEC-2026-017 §5, A12 |
| B5 | canon names access-engine; the repository still answers to flex-auth and the rename has not landed |
gate-house to note |
A13 notes it; ping when FLEX-WP-0020 lands |
What flex-auth is not claiming
- Not a conformance finding against anyone. B1 and B2 are observations about
form. A repository may be entirely conformant in substance and simply not have
written the key;
gate-houseis the clearest case. - Not a request that any peer change casing. B1 may equally be resolved by ruling the vocabulary case-insensitive, which would make flex-auth's validator the thing that changes. (It was, and it did — see the second correction.)
- Not a grade. §9.3's two-owner split is flex-auth's own finding and it cuts here: the PDP does not get to score the repositories whose facts it consumes.
Correction — B1, 2026-09-21
The first published version of B1 was wrong, and it was wrong in a way this review exists to prevent.
It reported that the estate spelled layer: three ways across repositories,
and named eight as non-conformant on casing. That came from an ad-hoc shell
survey run while writing this document. The survey took the first ^layer: match
per repository across two files without recording which file it came from, so it
reported one value where there were two.
Re-run mechanically (tools/survey_layer_declarations.go, receipt at
docs/evidence/2026-09-21-layer-declaration-survey.json), the finding is
different and stronger:
| Repositories carrying both §11 forms | 9 |
| Of those, forms that disagree | 9 of 9 |
| Shape | INTENT.md says Engine / Staff; layer.yaml says engine / staff |
| Repositories with only one form | 1 — flex-auth, which has no layer.yaml |
The disagreement is within each repository, between the two forms §11 permits, and it is universal rather than sloppy — two generators, two conventions, no repository mixing them. Nobody is inconsistent with anybody else.
That relocates the question. §11 accepts "a layer: key in the INTENT.md
frontmatter, or an equivalent declaration file" and does not say which
governs when a repository carries both and they disagree. A conformance run
reading INTENT.md and one reading layer.yaml reach different answers for nine
repositories, and both are following §11.
flex-auth is the only declared repository that cannot exhibit this, and only because it never wrote the second file — not a virtue.
What this cost. The wrong version went to gate-house and five engine
repositories before it was checked. Corrections were sent the same day. The
review had already said a mechanical check nobody can re-run is an assertion, and
then asserted B1 from a shell pipeline — which is why B1 is now a command with
tests and a receipt, and why this correction is recorded here rather than edited
away. A published review corrected silently is FLEX-DEC-2026-008's defect, and
that rule does not have an exception for the reviewer.
Correction — the validator, 2026-09-21
This review treated flex-auth's validator as the §3 vocabulary. It was not, and it was wrong.
internal/layer admitted {Staff, Engine, Tooling}. §3 enumerates four
layers — Taxonomy, Tooling, Engines, Staff — and §3.1 defines Taxonomy, which
§4 catalogues twice (info-tech-canon, net-kingdom) and which the standard
itself is an instance of. The three-token set was built from §4's role-typed
catalog rows rather than from §3's layer table, so it took §4's spelling
(Engine) and lost §3's fourth row. Where this review and its survey said
"outside the §3 vocabulary as written", they meant "outside flex-auth's
validator", and the difference is the finding.
railiance-master's Taxonomy declaration was conforming all along; the
validator was the divergent artifact. railiance-master said so with the
citations (§3.1, §4, §7, §17) against a record that had named it
non-conformant. GH-DEC-2026-017 §3 ruled the same.
How it happened is §11's derived-artifact rule inverted: an artifact derived from canon came to stand in for canon, because canon left the token set to be inferred from two tables that disagree and the validator was the only executable statement of one. flex-auth wrote that artifact.
Fixed in internal/layer, per GH-DEC-2026-017 §2–§4 and A9, A11:
- four tokens, closed:
Taxonomy,Tooling,Engine,Staff; - ASCII case folded before comparing; a lowercase declaration is conforming;
- §4's column spelling is canonical, so
enginereports asEngineandEngines(§3's plural heading) is not the token; INTENT.mdgoverns; a disagreement between the two forms is still reported, and a spelling-only disagreement is distinguished from a disagreement about a layer (there are nine of the first and none of the second);- a run states its scope. §11 binds §4. The survey now leads with its scope
(
estate-wideor§4 catalog,--catalog-only), and reports a repository outside §4 that declares as declared voluntarily, outside catalog scope — never as a non-conformance. This review's own survey was estate-wide over fourteen counterparts and said nothing about which question it answered.
A second defect surfaced while fixing the first: the survey decoded peers'
files into flex-auth's own declaration struct, so a peer field sharing a name
with one of flex-auth's in a different shape (audit-core's list-shaped
emission_guarantee) made that peer's layer.yaml silently disappear. Peers
are now read for layer and role only. A surveyor's schema is a house rule
too. Receipt: docs/evidence/2026-09-21-layer-declaration-survey-after-ghdec017.json.
Addendum — B2 closed, 2026-09-21
The status table above is left as derived. Three rows have since moved, each
verified in the counterpart's own file (receipt
docs/evidence/2026-09-21-layer-declaration-survey-b2-closed.json):
| Counterpart | Was | Now |
|---|---|---|
key-cape |
asserted from one side only | agreed, stated from both sides — declares Tooling (key-cape@9cb9507); expects nothing of flex-auth beyond standard token verification |
ops-mason |
undeclared twice over | declares Staff (ops-mason@0ff263a); the §13.1 stance-map mark is gate-house's and unchanged |
net-kingdom |
undeclared | declares Taxonomy (net-kingdom@0b10b4b) |
gate-house declared earlier the same day. Fourteen of fourteen counterparts now
declare. The tenant-engine row closed under FLEX-WP-0022 (TEN-DEC-2026-002,
FLEX-DEC-2026-016); the audit-core row was ruled against flex-auth
(GH-DEC-2026-018), and delivery is FLEX-WP-0031.
One boundary remains held by flex-auth alone: zone-engine has confirmed the
casing ruling but not the membership/stance boundary it was asked about.