tegwick
b30c858d46
FLEX-IN-0002 asked for review of v0.3; v0.4 supersedes it, so the assessment is against v0.4 plus the in-place section 11 amendment. Assent, with one rule contested: - Section 9.3 conflates two failure cases. Input degradation inside a reachable engine is flex-auth's fallback and is accepted. Engine unreachability is not: there is no evaluator in the path to express anything, which is why flex-auth has held that fail-open is not expressible by a PDP at all. As written 9.3 also collides with ops-warden ADR-0009 (accepted, superseding ADR-0006), which retires the global flag for a total per-zone map in the consumer PEP — the correct design, since the alternative makes flex-auth a hard dependency of the SSH certificate the tunnel carrying the policy call depends on. - Section 13 names access-engine as intended owner of two capabilities never reviewed here. Containment is plausible and recorded as proposed owner only. Authentication/assurance evidence is declined as stated: flex-auth consumes assurance claims and never re-defines them. - Three consistency defects: frontmatter status proposed vs section 14 "accepted"; "seven of fifteen"/"remaining eight" against sixteen estate-authored catalog rows and nine listed; "all three repositories" above a table of four. FLEX-IN-0002's two questions answered: the approval boundary unblocks T03 design, but T05 needs the approval claim bound to the same request digest NewDecisionBinding computes, and a named owner and ordering for single consumption. The maturity claim route works as a request claim, not as registry content, until the self-declared provenance digest gap closes. 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 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| index.json | ||