Open GH-WP-0003 for the statute v0.8 amendment set

Five rulings made since security-layer-model v0.7 was accepted belong in
the statute and are currently held in gate-house contracts, decision
records, or a reply in another repository's inbox: the §9.7.3 consume
ordering clarification, the §11 emission-guarantee check, the §13/§13.1
register disposition, kings-guard's recomputability boundary for §9.5,
and GH-DEC-2026-005's split-validation doctrine.

Each was correctly kept out of v0.7. Together they are a version. v0.7
stays accepted and unedited; gate-house authors, net-kingdom publishes.

T03 also discharges the four outstanding §13.1 stance-map rows that
user-engine, tenant-engine, ops-warden and ops-mason are waiting on,
either as transcribed entries or as a confirmed pointer to
maturity-engine.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WtJBr77gMFLrN93iEevqQJ

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 425128@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: f5944d8b-dac4-4e1a-87eb-8b3d8f314a63

workplans/GH-WP-0003-statute-v08-amendment-set.md

@@ -17,3 +17,112 @@ state_hub_workstream_id: "a331dc88-c9bc-5d2a-9ff1-2aa7e837c3bb"
 ## Goal
 
 Land the queued amendments to security-layer-model as v0.8: the §9.7.3 consume-ordering protocol clarification, the §11 emission-guarantee declaration check, the §13/§13.1 register disposition against maturity-engine, the §9.5 posture/maturity recomputability boundary, and the GH-DEC-2026-005 split-validation doctrine. Each is currently doctrine held in a gate-house contract or decision rather than in the accepted statute.
+
+## Why now
+
+`security-layer-model_v0.7.md` is accepted and must not be patched in place. Since
+its acceptance, five separate rulings have been made that belong in the statute and
+are currently held in gate-house contracts, decision records, or a reply in another
+repository's inbox. Each was correctly kept out of v0.7; together they are now a
+version.
+
+The risk of leaving them scattered is not that any one is wrong — each was argued
+where it was made. It is that a reader of the accepted statute gets an answer that
+the estate no longer holds, and that the register sections (§13, §13.1) are
+accumulating rows in a document that four repositories have said should be a
+pointer.
+
+Gate House authors the amendment set. `net-kingdom` publishes. Nothing here edits
+v0.7.
+
+```task
+id: GH-WP-0003-T01
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+**§9.7.3 — consume ordering.** v0.7 reads as if the protected action must precede
+the consume call. `GH-DEC-2026-003` and `docs/contracts/approval-consumption.md`
+establish the opposite: the PEP MUST obtain a successful consume before the side
+effect, because act-then-consume lets CAS prevent only the second *record* and not
+the second *side effect*. Carry the clarification into §9.7.3 without retracting the
+forensic claim that consumption MUST NOT be inferred from a decision record.
+
+```task
+id: GH-WP-0003-T02
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+**§11 — emission-guarantee declaration check.** Add the conformance check drafted as
+the last section of `docs/contracts/approval-emission-detection.md`: a load-bearing
+evidence source declares a local outbox plus heartbeat-or-reconciliation; an
+attributive non-atomic source declares the trade and does not claim completeness.
+This exists so the next engine catalogued as an evidence source cannot reintroduce
+the `GH-IN-0001` gap silently.
+
+```task
+id: GH-WP-0003-T03
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+**§13 and §13.1 — register disposition.** `maturity-engine` (MAT-WP-0001) holds the
+§13 gap-register snapshot and the §13.1 stance-map inventory as queryable data, with
+`ASM-0`…`ASM-6` registered as data owned by gate-house and `pep-stance-publication`
+owned by ops-warden. Four repositories have offered §13.1 rows —
+`user-engine/pep-stance.yaml`, `tenant-engine/pep-stance.yaml`, ops-warden published,
+ops-mason unpublished.
+
+Decide whether §13 becomes a pointer to `maturity-engine` or stays a table. The
+argument for the pointer is that a hand-maintained table in a statute is a register
+that drifts, and that transcribing rows is exactly the manual step the engine exists
+to remove. The argument against is that a statute must be readable without a live
+query. Both are real; settle it as a decision record rather than by editing.
+
+Whichever way it goes, the outstanding rows are discharged by this task — as
+transcribed entries or as a confirmed pointer plus a check that the engine holds
+them. Do not leave the requesting repositories without an answer either way.
+
+```task
+id: GH-WP-0003-T04
+status: todo
+priority: medium
+```
+
+**§9.5 — the posture/maturity boundary.** `kings-guard` (KG-DEC-2026-002,
+`kings-guard/docs/PostureMaturityBoundary.md`) argues that the discriminator is
+recomputability, not volatility: given the same criteria and the same evidence, if
+you MUST get the same answer it is maturity and belongs in an engine; if you CANNOT
+promise the same answer it is posture and belongs in Staff. The argument is that
+volatility describes the two things without partitioning them, and every case it does
+not obviously cover becomes an argument at exactly the boundary §6 says must not be
+open to argument.
+
+Assess and dispose. If adopted, it carries a constraint kings-guard has already
+accepted — capability readiness MUST NOT be an input to posture — and an honest
+limit: "the same evidence" is not yet well defined estate-wide, which makes §17
+load-bearing for the test.
+
+```task
+id: GH-WP-0003-T05
+status: todo
+priority: medium
+```
+
+**Split validation as statute.** `GH-DEC-2026-005` states that a PEP validates each
+artifact against the layer that owns its data and that a PIP MUST NOT republish the
+PDP's decision. That is a general property of the layer model, not a fact about the
+approval path, and it currently lives only in a decision record and a contract.
+Place it in the statute where §8's three-way split is stated.
+
+```task
+id: GH-WP-0003-T06
+status: todo
+priority: medium
+```
+
+**Assemble, circulate, publish.** Cut `security-layer-model_v0.8.md`, circulate for
+assent as v0.6 and v0.7 were, and hand to `net-kingdom` for publication. Record
+dispositions of the returned findings. v0.7 stays accepted and unedited until v0.8
+is accepted in its place.