flex-auth/workplans/FLEX-WP-0019-layer-model-conformance.md

id	type	title	domain	repo	status	owner	topic_slug	planning_priority	planning_order	created	updated	reviewed_at	reviewed_against_commit	reviewed_note	origin	quality_dor	quality_dor_at	quality_dor_by	quality_dor_note	state_hub_workstream_id
FLEX-WP-0019	workplan	Layer model v0.7 conformance: provenance, lifetimes, deadlines, and the decision contract	infotech	flex-auth	ready	codex	netkingdom	P1	119	2026-08-29	2026-08-29	2026-08-29	d402408	d402408 is the last commit to touch implementation (Go sources and schemas); the assessment was performed with the working tree at 5753b47, and every commit between the two is documentation or work-record only. This field names the implementation state reviewed rather than the HEAD at review time, so it moves when the code moves — which is when the review actually needs redoing.	history/2026-08-29-layer-model-v0.7-alignment-review.md	DoR-Ok	2026-08-29	claude-code	Assessed against policies/work-item-dor.md. Shared criteria: outcome per task, scope-out stated (G7 needs nothing, G8 stays with FLEX-WP-0017), owning repo and executor in frontmatter, the one internal dependency stated (T02 before T04) with no external hard blocker, and a verification signal per task. Workplan criteria: goal stated, six tasks decomposed, and repo-state review recorded above — each obligation was checked against code at 5753b47 in the alignment review, not against documentation.	84b9dc5a-71f2-5c70-ace6-78242b13d0f1

FLEX-WP-0019 - Layer model v0.7 conformance

The NetKingdom Security Layer Model was accepted at v0.7 on 2026-08-29 and INTENT.md/SCOPE.md were aligned to it. The alignment review (history/2026-08-29-layer-model-v0.7-alignment-review.md) identified six gaps between what flex-auth now states and what it implements. This workplan closes them.

Two are conformance obligations rather than features: the registry-snapshot digest (§9.7.2 promotes it from housekeeping to a prerequisite, on flex-auth's own argument) and the per-input-class visibility deadlines that depend on it.

Ordering is load-bearing. T02 precedes T04 — publishing a visibility deadline for registry-borne facts before provenance can identify the snapshot would publish a number nobody can check.

Assert the layer declaration mechanically

id: FLEX-WP-0019-T01
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "f72b1305-114e-5ba2-b84c-f6cc0b524178"

INTENT.md frontmatter carries layer: Engine, role: PDP per §11. Add a conformance check and test asserting the declaration parses, states a layer in the §3 vocabulary, states a role because the layer is Engine, and that no Tooling client exists in the tree — the Engine-side analogue of ops-warden's scripts/check_layer_conformance.py, which is offered estate-wide as a reference form.

Closes G1's remaining half. Wire it into make test.

Add the registry-snapshot digest to decision provenance

id: FLEX-WP-0019-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "7a980074-8488-5ab1-9202-60878adb261d"

DecisionProvenance carries no digest of the registry snapshot that supplied resource, subject, and relationship facts, so a decision that turned on registry content cannot be replayed from its own record (§6.1). This is flex-auth's one declared gap in §13 and a conformance prerequisite under §9.7.2.

Reuse the canonical-JSON plus SHA-256 pattern already in pkg/api/canonical.go over registry.Snapshot, which is already deterministic and has a test asserting it (TestStoreLoadsAndSavesDeterministicSnapshot). Thread the digest into DecisionProvenance, through the standalone engine and through every delegated adapter that shares the canonical constructor, and into schemas/decision_envelope.schema.json. Add regression coverage that a changed snapshot changes the digest and that two decisions over the same snapshot agree.

Give every allow an explicit lifetime

id: FLEX-WP-0019-T03
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "9d9c0e7a-56e2-5c71-9110-cea973243c22"

§9.7.1 requires every allow to carry an explicit lifetime — a TTL, or a binding to a session or obligation that ends. DecisionEnvelope has no lifetime field; ActionAuthorizationValidity has one but belongs to the durable approval object, not the decision.

The struct field is trivial; the semantics are not. flex-auth has no session concept, so the first honest shape is a policy-package-declared TTL with an explicit default, and a deny for any allow that would otherwise have no stated end. That is a policy-surface change: it needs package schema support, fixtures covering declared TTL, defaulted TTL, and the no-stated-end deny, and it must appear in the decision record and the published schema.

State revocation visibility deadlines per input class

id: FLEX-WP-0019-T04
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "d5917b24-2efb-503e-9a9d-837702cafc1c"

§9.7.2 requires a PDP to state a deadline per input class, because a decision is a join over sources with unrelated refresh behaviour. Enumerate the classes flex-auth actually joins — approval-claim freshness, registry snapshot cadence, policy package activation, directory ETag — and state a deadline for each, with the mechanism that bounds it rather than an aspiration.

Depends on T02: the registry deadline is unfalsifiable until provenance can identify the snapshot a decision read. Publish as docs/decision-input-freshness.md and reference it from INTENT.md.

Publish the decision-record schema as flex-auth's contract

id: FLEX-WP-0019-T05
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "f7f501d7-6862-5542-88f7-78b704524706"

§17 moves the decision-record schema from Taxonomy to access-engine, on flex-auth's own argument that a decision record is the PDP's output artifact. schemas/decision_envelope.schema.json exists and describes binding and provenance, but carries no lifetime (T03), no snapshot digest (T02), no policy-package digest — name and version only — and no input-claim digests.

Complete it, version it as a published contract rather than an internal shape, and document it in docs/ as the artifact consumers may rely on. Taxonomy holds only the shared field vocabulary the claim schema references; this schema is flex-auth's.

Publish the request digest as the replay test

id: FLEX-WP-0019-T06
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "bc109ee3-14b0-5603-a655-0d7376c2a41c"

§6.4.2 makes replay permitted iff the canonical request digest matches and the decision's lifetime holds, and names flex-auth's digest as the mechanical test. The digest is computed and regression-tested but is documented nowhere a consumer would look.

Publish what it is computed over, what normalization applies, its stability guarantees across versions, and worked examples of a permitted retry and a refused replay. Consumers cannot honour §6.4.2 against an undocumented digest, and negative caching under §6.4.2 needs the same guidance.