GH-WP-0004-T12: rule the §11 findings and refuse the §9.6 release
GH-DEC-2026-024 accepts the completeness non-claim on load-bearing emission where the guarantee is not completeness, accepts the evidence-source values yes / no / unassessed with audit-core marked no, and refuses a failure-path release exception. v0.8 is not flipped. Assistant: grok Assistant-Session: 01a10946-16b2-7771-88ac-c6a2b3c91813
This commit is contained in:
parent
755c36ae19
commit
0192273e1b
4 changed files with 293 additions and 17 deletions
|
|
@ -4121,3 +4121,229 @@ ops-mason declared the contact rather than treating it as out of scope, and name
|
|||
open question in its `blocked_on` field instead of assigning an owner. The custodian recorded
|
||||
both founder decisions and corrected its own first version's bare "operator" to the founder
|
||||
exercising `GOVERN`.
|
||||
|
||||
## GH-DEC-2026-024 — The completeness non-claim binds load-bearing emission where it is not completeness; evidence source is yes, no, or unassessed; a failure-path release is refused
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
id: GH-DEC-2026-024
|
||||
kind: decision
|
||||
title: The completeness non-claim binds load-bearing emission where it is not completeness;
|
||||
evidence source is yes, no, or unassessed; a failure-path release is refused
|
||||
status: resolved
|
||||
owner: Bernd Worsch
|
||||
repo: gate-house
|
||||
standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md
|
||||
source_note: audit-core history/2026-09-23-v0.8-section-11-review.md findings 1 and
|
||||
2; AUDIT-IN-0005; AUDIT-IN-0006 / FLEX-DEC-2026-018; gate-house message 715cf1f2
|
||||
(2026-10-03), a reading now ruled; GH-DEC-2026-018
|
||||
requested_dispositions:
|
||||
- approved
|
||||
- revised
|
||||
- rejected
|
||||
affects:
|
||||
- gate-house
|
||||
- net-kingdom
|
||||
- audit-core
|
||||
- access-engine
|
||||
created: '2026-10-04T23:42:32.322356Z'
|
||||
updated: '2026-10-04T23:42:38.792330Z'
|
||||
rationale: Accepts audit-core's 2026-09-23 section 11 review and rules the section
|
||||
9.6 question AUDIT-IN-0006 referred, which gate-house message 715cf1f2 left as a
|
||||
reading. (1) The completeness non-claim binds load-bearing emission guarantees as
|
||||
well as attributive ones, where the declared guarantee is not itself completeness.
|
||||
An outbox and a detection surface state the controls, not a proof that every event
|
||||
was sent. A2 of the v0.8 amendment set is amended. The canon is not edited; publication
|
||||
remains net-kingdom's. (2) The evidence-source column is yes, no, or unassessed.
|
||||
audit-core is no, which GH-DEC-2026-018 and AUDIT-IN-0005 already decided; no new
|
||||
status is invented. The binary yes-or-dash column is amended. (3) Section 9.6 admits
|
||||
no exception that lets a load-bearing source declare a detectable, direction-limited
|
||||
failure-path release and still count as conforming. A release that proceeds when
|
||||
the required emission did not happen fails open. Rule 17 does not admit it. Section
|
||||
11 gains no declaration for it. The conflict with fail-closed is resolved by refusal.
|
||||
v0.8 is not flipped.
|
||||
decided_by: Bernd Worsch
|
||||
decided_at: '2026-10-04T23:42:38.792330Z'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
`audit-core` returned its §11 review on 2026-09-23
|
||||
(`history/2026-09-23-v0.8-section-11-review.md`), not a decline. Two findings are
|
||||
against the cut. Only the attributive arm of the emission-guarantee check must say
|
||||
that completeness is not claimed, so a load-bearing declaration of an outbox, a
|
||||
cadence and a detection surface reads as a completeness claim, and neither control
|
||||
supports that reading. And A10's evidence-source column carries `yes` or `—`, while
|
||||
an unassessed row also carries `—`, so a run cannot tell `audit-core` — assessed as
|
||||
custodian, not source — from a row nobody has assessed.
|
||||
|
||||
Separately, on 2026-09-24 (`AUDIT-IN-0006`, from `FLEX-DEC-2026-018`), `audit-core`
|
||||
asked whether §9.6 admits a declared, detectable, direction-limited failure-path
|
||||
release for a load-bearing source, and whether §11 should read such a declaration.
|
||||
The case is a deny, a redact, or a not-applicable that proceeds when the outbox
|
||||
commit fails and is counted as `released_uncommitted`. Gate House replied on
|
||||
2026-10-03 (message `715cf1f2`) with a reading of the current text and left the
|
||||
ruling to this record. That reading stands. The conflict it named is no longer open.
|
||||
|
||||
Section numbers are those of the proposed v0.8 text. v0.7 stays accepted. Nothing
|
||||
in `net-kingdom` canon is edited by this record.
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. The completeness non-claim binds load-bearing sources where the guarantee is not completeness
|
||||
|
||||
**Accepted.** `audit-core`'s first finding is right, and it is the bound on rule 13
|
||||
applied to the check that was written to make §9.6 observable.
|
||||
|
||||
§9.6 says an append-only archive proves records were not altered or truncated after
|
||||
arrival. It cannot prove a record was never sent. INTENT states the same bound on
|
||||
rule 13: completeness is the emitting system's obligation, discharged by making
|
||||
emission atomic with the state change, and no archive can retrofit it. The §9.6
|
||||
decomposition then assigns the controls:
|
||||
|
||||
- accidental omission is prevented by emission atomicity, the local outbox;
|
||||
- adversarial omission is detected after the fact by cadence and reconciliation;
|
||||
- adversarial omission at a compromised source, including a source that suppresses
|
||||
an event and its own count together, is prevented by nothing in this model.
|
||||
|
||||
Heartbeat and reconciliation cover loss, outage, drain failure and accident. They
|
||||
are not a completeness proof. The outbox gives atomicity at the source, not
|
||||
completeness at the archive. A load-bearing declaration that names those controls
|
||||
and stops has stated no bound, and a reader will take it as the claim the
|
||||
attributive arm is forbidden to make. That reading has already been quoted as if it
|
||||
were one.
|
||||
|
||||
**The non-claim is required on the load-bearing arm where the guarantee is not
|
||||
actually completeness.** Atomic emission with the state change is the completeness
|
||||
obligation, and the declaration may say that. Detection, and custody of what
|
||||
arrived, are not that obligation. The declaration states the controls, not their
|
||||
sufficiency. A load-bearing guarantee that omits the non-claim is not conforming,
|
||||
for the same reason an attributive guarantee that implies completeness is not.
|
||||
|
||||
A2 of `docs/amendments/v0.8-amendment-set.md` is amended so the load-bearing arm
|
||||
carries the explicit non-claim. The longer arm already assembled in the proposed
|
||||
cut — volume versus rare, heartbeat and reconciliation — is otherwise unchanged;
|
||||
the non-claim is added to that arm at publication. Publication remains
|
||||
`net-kingdom`'s under `GH-WP-0004-T10`. This repository does not edit the canon.
|
||||
v0.8 is not flipped.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. The evidence-source column is `yes`, `no`, or `unassessed`, and `audit-core` is `no`
|
||||
|
||||
**Accepted.** This is `GH-DEC-2026-018` and `AUDIT-IN-0005`, recorded in the column
|
||||
those records required. It is not a new classification of `audit-core`.
|
||||
|
||||
`GH-DEC-2026-018` §1: a custodian is never the source of what it holds, and
|
||||
`audit-core`'s `Evidence` role is custody. `AUDIT-IN-0005`: `audit-core` is not the
|
||||
§4 source of the decision record; the emitter is. The column A10 drafted could not
|
||||
say that. `yes` or `—`, with `—` also meaning not yet assessed, makes the assessed
|
||||
answer and the missing answer the same mark. That is the inference A10 exists to
|
||||
remove.
|
||||
|
||||
**The column carries exactly three values: `yes`, `no`, `unassessed`.**
|
||||
|
||||
- `access-engine` stays `yes`, per `GH-DEC-2026-018` §2.
|
||||
- `audit-core` is `no`. No other status is invented for it.
|
||||
- A row not assessed in those two records carries `unassessed`. Silence is not
|
||||
`no`. §11 reports `unassessed` as unassessed, not as conforming and not as
|
||||
not-a-source.
|
||||
|
||||
`—` is not a value of this column. The binary text in
|
||||
`docs/amendments/v0.8-section-11-declaration-amendments.md` A10 is amended.
|
||||
Other §4 rows are not marked here.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. No §9.6 exception for a failure-path release
|
||||
|
||||
**Refused.** A load-bearing source may not declare a detectable, direction-limited
|
||||
failure-path release and still count as conforming. §11 does not gain a
|
||||
declaration for it. The exception is not added to the standard.
|
||||
|
||||
The 2026-10-03 reading (message `715cf1f2`) stands as the reading of the current
|
||||
text, and it is now the ruling:
|
||||
|
||||
1. §9.6 admits no such exception. Its table gives a load-bearing event one
|
||||
obligation: emission MUST be atomic with the state change. A denial is one of
|
||||
the examples. The declared trade — completeness MUST NOT be claimed — is
|
||||
attached to attributive evidence only. It is not a licence to skip atomicity on
|
||||
a load-bearing class and describe the skip.
|
||||
2. §11's emission-guarantee check reads no such declaration. A load-bearing source
|
||||
declares an outbox, a cadence and the governing detection surface. There is no
|
||||
field for a failure-path release. Releasing deny, redact, or not-applicable
|
||||
uncommitted is a §9.6 non-conformance for those classes, not a conformant
|
||||
exception.
|
||||
3. `audit-core` was right not to prefer withholding. Telling a decision point how
|
||||
to release routes an authorization choice through the audit fabric. This record
|
||||
does not do that either. It rules whether the release counts as conforming. It
|
||||
does not.
|
||||
|
||||
**The conflict with fail-closed is resolved by refusal.** Message `715cf1f2` left
|
||||
it open: the proposed failure direction is toward restriction, and a withheld deny
|
||||
that an open-for-scope consumer reads as proceed would manufacture permission.
|
||||
That conflict is real. It does not admit the exception.
|
||||
|
||||
The distinguishing case under rule 17 is the case that separates the proposal from
|
||||
the conformant state. The conformant state is §9.6: the load-bearing emission
|
||||
happens with the state change, or the change does not. The proposal is that the
|
||||
release proceeds when the required emission did not happen, and that
|
||||
`released_uncommitted` makes the miss detectable afterwards. **A release that
|
||||
proceeds when the required emission did not happen fails open.** Detection after
|
||||
the fact is not failing closed. Direction-limited is not failing closed. A promise
|
||||
that fails open is a permission; a promise that fails closed is a gap; only the
|
||||
second is a thing a register can hold. Rule 17 does not admit this one. Rule 14
|
||||
is the same point from the other side: failure of a critical authorization
|
||||
dependency fails closed, and an unavailable emission is not a permission to act
|
||||
without the record.
|
||||
|
||||
Naming the classes, the failure condition and `released_uncommitted` as a §11
|
||||
detection surface would make that permission look like a conforming trade.
|
||||
`completeness_trade` keeps its attributive meaning. It is not extended to
|
||||
load-bearing classes. `audit-core`'s registration claims no atomicity for those
|
||||
classes until this ruling; the ruling is that they may not be released that way
|
||||
and still conform. What `access-engine` does instead is its implementation, under
|
||||
the obligation the text already states.
|
||||
|
||||
## What this does not rule
|
||||
|
||||
- **Not ruled: which other §4 rows are sources.** `access-engine` is `yes` and
|
||||
`audit-core` is `no`. Every other row stays `unassessed` until it is assessed.
|
||||
This record does not assign them.
|
||||
- **Not ruled: `access-engine`'s class inventory.** `GH-DEC-2026-018` §4 still
|
||||
holds. This record does not classify deny, redact, or not-applicable, and it
|
||||
does not publish a cadence.
|
||||
- **Not ruled: the registration mechanics of `AUDIT-IN-0006`.** Sender shape,
|
||||
`may_read`, tenants, heartbeats, envelope and the token lane are `audit-core`'s.
|
||||
They stay deferred on the outbox, as that intake already says. This record
|
||||
registers nothing.
|
||||
- **Not ruled: how `access-engine` withholds.** The statute says the load-bearing
|
||||
release does not proceed without the emission. The mechanism is not specified
|
||||
here, and it is not specified by `audit-core`.
|
||||
- **Not ruled: v0.8 acceptance.** The hold under `GH-DEC-2026-019` stands. T09 and
|
||||
T10 stay wait. v0.8 is not flipped.
|
||||
- **Not ruled: `GH-DEC-2026-023`.** It remains a draft. This record does not move it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reversal condition
|
||||
|
||||
§1 reverses if a load-bearing control is found whose soundness really is
|
||||
completeness of the archive. §9.6 says no control in this model has that. The
|
||||
non-claim would then be the false statement. It does not reverse because atomicity
|
||||
prevents accidental omission: that obligation stays, and it is not what the
|
||||
non-claim denies.
|
||||
|
||||
§2 reverses on the condition `GH-DEC-2026-018` §5 already names: a §4 row that is
|
||||
a source in one capacity and not another. The repair is a per-class marking, not a
|
||||
return to `yes` or `—`.
|
||||
|
||||
§3 reverses if the release is shown to fail closed on the distinguishing case —
|
||||
the required emission did not happen, and the protected release did not proceed.
|
||||
A release that proceeds is not that case. A later detection of `released_uncommitted`
|
||||
is not that case.
|
||||
|
||||
## Provenance
|
||||
|
||||
`audit-core` returned the review it was asked for, against a cut whose emission
|
||||
wording it had caused to exist, and the non-claim it asked for is one its own
|
||||
declaration already states for both kinds. The column defect is the same line as
|
||||
`AUDIT-IN-0005`, which it answered about itself rather than taking the source
|
||||
role. The exception question came from `access-engine`'s `FLEX-DEC-2026-018`
|
||||
through `AUDIT-IN-0006`. `audit-core` referred the statute question here instead
|
||||
of deciding it in the registration, and said plainly that preferring withholding
|
||||
was not its to say. The 2026-10-03 reply stated the reading and left the conflict
|
||||
open. This record closes it by refusal.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -3,9 +3,9 @@
|
|||
**Repository:** gate-house (author)
|
||||
**Publisher:** net-kingdom
|
||||
**Project family:** NetKingdom security layer
|
||||
**Status:** cut — assembled into `net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md` (proposed) at `net-kingdom@66eeaba`; circulating for assent
|
||||
**Version:** 1.0
|
||||
**Date:** 2026-09-06
|
||||
**Status:** cut — assembled into `net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md` (proposed) at `net-kingdom@66eeaba`; circulating for assent. A2's load-bearing arm was revised in this file on 2026-10-05; the cut is not edited by that revision.
|
||||
**Version:** 1.1 — A2 revised 2026-10-05 (`GH-DEC-2026-024` §1). Not a new cut, and v0.8 is not flipped.
|
||||
**Date:** 2026-10-05
|
||||
**Workplan:** `GH-WP-0003`
|
||||
**Base:** `net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md` (accepted)
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -87,14 +87,27 @@ names, in the same contract; the statute continues to name them and to point at
|
|||
the next engine catalogued as an evidence source from reintroducing the same gap
|
||||
silently, because the obligation §9.6 creates is not on the conformance list.
|
||||
|
||||
**Revised 2026-10-05 (`GH-DEC-2026-024` §1).** `audit-core`'s §11 review found that
|
||||
only the attributive arm carried an explicit completeness non-claim, so a
|
||||
load-bearing declaration of an outbox, a cadence and a detection surface was
|
||||
readable as a completeness claim. It is not, except where the guarantee actually
|
||||
is completeness — emission atomic with the state change. The load-bearing arm now
|
||||
carries the same explicit non-claim where the guarantee is not itself completeness.
|
||||
The longer arm already assembled in the proposed cut (volume versus rare, heartbeat
|
||||
and reconciliation) is otherwise unchanged; the non-claim is added to that arm at
|
||||
publication. Publication remains `net-kingdom`'s. This file does not edit the canon,
|
||||
and v0.8 is not flipped. No failure-path release exception is added to §9.6 or to
|
||||
§11 (`GH-DEC-2026-024` §3).
|
||||
|
||||
**Add to §11's "Mechanically checkable" list:**
|
||||
|
||||
> - every repository catalogued in §4 as a source of evidence declares its **emission
|
||||
> guarantee** in its machine-readable layer declaration: for a **load-bearing**
|
||||
> source, a local transactional outbox (§9.4) plus a detection surface — heartbeat
|
||||
> or reconciliation, per §9.6 — and its declared cadence; for an **attributive**
|
||||
> source, the trade it makes and an explicit statement that completeness is not
|
||||
> claimed.
|
||||
> or reconciliation, per §9.6 — and its declared cadence, and, where that guarantee
|
||||
> is not itself completeness, an explicit statement that completeness is not
|
||||
> claimed; for an **attributive** source, the trade it makes and an explicit
|
||||
> statement that completeness is not claimed.
|
||||
|
||||
**Add after the list:**
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -104,6 +117,18 @@ silently, because the obligation §9.6 creates is not on the conformance list.
|
|||
> it the section states an obligation whose satisfaction cannot be observed, which is
|
||||
> the §9.1 defect this standard has now corrected four times.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **The completeness non-claim binds both arms.** Where the declared guarantee is
|
||||
> not itself completeness, the declaration carries an explicit statement that
|
||||
> completeness is not claimed. A load-bearing guarantee states the controls, not
|
||||
> their sufficiency. The outbox is atomicity at the source against crash and partial
|
||||
> failure. Heartbeat and reconciliation detect loss after the fact. Neither is a
|
||||
> proof that a record was never sent, and neither covers a compromised source
|
||||
> suppressing an event and its own count together. Completeness, where this standard
|
||||
> actually requires it, is emission atomic with the state change; the declaration
|
||||
> may say that, and it MUST NOT describe the detection surface or the archive as
|
||||
> that completeness. Ruled in `GH-DEC-2026-024` §1, from the bound on rule 13 and
|
||||
> from §9.6.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Drafted in `gate-house/docs/contracts/approval-emission-detection.md`, which
|
||||
> `approval-engine`'s `cadence.yaml` implements as the reference instance. Raised by
|
||||
> `audit-core` as the general form of `GH-IN-0001`, so that the finding that produced
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -6,7 +6,8 @@
|
|||
**Status:** drafted — circulating for assent; the v0.8 acceptance flip is held on it (`GH-DEC-2026-019`)
|
||||
**Version:** 0.3 — A11 r2 and A12 r3 (`GH-DEC-2026-021`); both re-circulated for assent.
|
||||
0.2 revised A12 as A12 r2 (`GH-DEC-2026-020`)
|
||||
**Date:** 2026-09-21
|
||||
**A10 column, 2026-10-05:** values are `yes` / `no` / `unassessed`, and `audit-core` is `no` (`GH-DEC-2026-024` §2). Not a new assent round. T09's outstanding assent stays assent to A11 r2 and A12 r3.
|
||||
**Date:** 2026-10-05
|
||||
**Workplan:** `GH-WP-0004`
|
||||
**Base:** `net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md` (proposed, not accepted)
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -99,10 +100,18 @@ paragraphs before it forbids a run to infer an event's class *"or the check beco
|
|||
circular"*. `access-engine` could not answer whether it is a source because the text does
|
||||
not contain the answer.
|
||||
|
||||
**Add a column to the §4 catalog table**, `Evidence source`, carrying `yes` or `—`, and
|
||||
mark `access-engine` `yes` per `GH-DEC-2026-018` §2. Other rows are marked as each
|
||||
repository is assessed; an unassessed row carries `—` and **§11's check reports it as
|
||||
unassessed rather than as conforming.**
|
||||
**Revised 2026-10-05 (`GH-DEC-2026-024` §2).** The column as first written carried
|
||||
`yes` or `—`, and an unassessed row also carried `—`. A run therefore could not tell
|
||||
`audit-core` (assessed: custodian, not source) from a row nobody has assessed, which
|
||||
is the inference this amendment exists to remove.
|
||||
|
||||
**Add a column to the §4 catalog table**, `Evidence source`, carrying exactly three
|
||||
values, `yes`, `no`, or `unassessed`. Mark `access-engine` `yes` per
|
||||
`GH-DEC-2026-018` §2. Mark `audit-core` `no` per `GH-DEC-2026-018` §1 and
|
||||
`AUDIT-IN-0005` — custody, not source. This amendment invents no other status for
|
||||
it. A row not yet assessed carries `unassessed`, and **§11's check reports that
|
||||
value as unassessed rather than as conforming or as not a source.** `—` is not a
|
||||
value of this column.
|
||||
|
||||
**Add under the §4 table:**
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -122,7 +131,11 @@ unassessed rather than as conforming.**
|
|||
> see the rare event go missing; …
|
||||
|
||||
*(the remainder of the check — the load-bearing/attributive split, the volume/rare
|
||||
detection rules, and the published-classification prohibition — is unchanged.)*
|
||||
detection rules, and the published-classification prohibition — is unchanged by
|
||||
this amendment, except that `GH-DEC-2026-024` §1 requires the load-bearing arm to
|
||||
carry an explicit completeness non-claim where the guarantee is not itself
|
||||
completeness. That clause is amended in `docs/amendments/v0.8-amendment-set.md`
|
||||
A2. This amendment does not otherwise rewrite the split.)*
|
||||
|
||||
**Correct the count.** §11's closing sentence reads *"the §9.1 defect this standard has now
|
||||
corrected four times."* With this amendment it is five, and §11 is the site of it twice. A
|
||||
|
|
@ -286,8 +299,10 @@ note, and the substance is already ruled in the owning repository.
|
|||
change and a repository is *asked*, not enrolled — §11's own rule that a layer stated about
|
||||
a repository by another is not a declaration applies to catalogue membership at least as
|
||||
strongly. Raised with them; carried as `GH-WP-0004-T06`.
|
||||
- **Which other §4 rows are evidence sources.** A10 creates the column; the per-repository
|
||||
assessment is `GH-WP-0004-T02` and is not pre-empted by listing names here.
|
||||
- **Which other §4 rows are evidence sources.** A10 creates the column.
|
||||
`access-engine` is `yes` (`GH-DEC-2026-018` §2) and `audit-core` is `no`
|
||||
(`GH-DEC-2026-024` §2, `AUDIT-IN-0005`). Other rows stay `unassessed` until
|
||||
assessed. This set does not mark them by listing names.
|
||||
- **Any §9.5 change.** `kings-guard` has not returned its review and no finding has landed
|
||||
against §9.5. Its absence is recorded in §14 as *not claimed* and is not a condition on the
|
||||
flip (`GH-DEC-2026-019` §4).
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ origin: GH-IN-0003
|
|||
owner: codex
|
||||
topic_slug: infotech
|
||||
created: "2026-09-21"
|
||||
updated: "2026-10-03"
|
||||
updated: "2026-10-05"
|
||||
state_hub_workstream_id: "59481e51-2792-5f2c-99c8-2732a0561939"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -219,12 +219,15 @@ in the v0.8 §11 set and confirmed the flip notice will name the eight T11 check
|
|||
under `GH-DEC-2026-019` stands and v0.8 is not flipped. The flip now waits on T09's remaining
|
||||
returns and on T12 (audit-core's findings are against the cut), then on `net-kingdom`.
|
||||
|
||||
2026-10-05: T12's disposition is recorded (`GH-DEC-2026-024`). T09's remaining returns and
|
||||
the net-kingdom flip remain. v0.8 is not flipped; the hold under `GH-DEC-2026-019` stands.
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: GH-WP-0004-T10
|
||||
status: wait
|
||||
depends_on: [GH-WP-0004-T09, GH-WP-0004-T12]
|
||||
blocked_on: message-from:net-kingdom
|
||||
blocking_reason: "net-kingdom flips v0.8 once T09 returns and T12 dispositions are in; hold under GH-DEC-2026-019 stands."
|
||||
blocking_reason: "T12 disposition is recorded (GH-DEC-2026-024). net-kingdom flips v0.8 once T09 returns; the hold under GH-DEC-2026-019 stands. v0.8 is not flipped."
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "34d0582b-9b7e-5dcf-ac1e-0257312b8b7b"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -261,9 +264,16 @@ reading of the current text (no exception admitted; §11 reads no such declarati
|
|||
conflict with fail-closed is gate-house's to resolve) and deferred the ruling to a decision
|
||||
record. Rule all three via `rmgr decision create`, amend the set, and re-circulate as needed.
|
||||
|
||||
2026-10-05: ruled as `GH-DEC-2026-024`. (1) The completeness non-claim binds load-bearing
|
||||
sources as well as attributive ones, where the declared guarantee is not itself completeness;
|
||||
A2 is amended. (2) A10's evidence-source column is `yes` / `no` / `unassessed`, and
|
||||
`audit-core` is `no`. (3) A §9.6 exception for a declared, detectable, direction-limited
|
||||
failure-path release is refused; §11 gains no declaration for it. v0.8 is not flipped.
|
||||
Publication remains net-kingdom's under T10. T09 stays wait.
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: GH-WP-0004-T12
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "8585b3e2-f858-5e10-8f42-abfd2a36d428"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue