From 0892807b51af06fb1ec8ccb11f9b2df7b3f4cd17 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:32:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Open GH-WP-0003 for the statute v0.8 amendment set MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 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 --- .../GH-WP-0003-statute-v08-amendment-set.md | 109 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 109 insertions(+) diff --git a/workplans/GH-WP-0003-statute-v08-amendment-set.md b/workplans/GH-WP-0003-statute-v08-amendment-set.md index 86b4df7..e2257cb 100644 --- a/workplans/GH-WP-0003-statute-v08-amendment-set.md +++ b/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.