Adopt the recomputability boundary as GH-DEC-2026-007

GH-WP-0003-T04. kings-guard's answer to KG-IN-0003 is adopted: the
posture/maturity line is recomputability, not volatility. Their argument
holds — volatility describes the two categories without partitioning
them, and every case it does not obviously cover becomes an argument at
exactly the boundary §6 exists to keep out of argument. The test is
§9.5's own determinism clause pointed where it had not been pointed.

Added one clause they did not propose, because their framing opens a
loophole: recomputability is assessed over the stated criteria, so a
criterion that dereferences a judgment is deterministic in form and
inferential in substance, and would put an opinion inside an engine
wearing a rule's clothes. A criterion MUST bottom out in evidence about
the subject, not in another party's conclusion about it. A recorded
judgment is evidence that the judgment was made, never that the thing
judged is so — the same distinction §9.6 draws about archives and
GH-DEC-2026-005 draws about valid_now.

All three kings-guard consequences carried, including the constraint they
volunteered against themselves (readiness is not an input to posture) and
their honest limit, which makes §17 load-bearing for the rule.

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

decisions/decisions.md

@@ -785,3 +785,126 @@ decided_by: Bernd Worsch
 created: '2026-09-06T06:07:34.017316Z'
 updated: '2026-09-06T06:07:34.017316Z'
 ```
+
+## Context
+
+`GH-WP-0003-T04`. v0.7 §9.5 states the maturity half of the boundary — *"Given the
+same criteria and the same evidence it MUST return the same level; that determinism
+is what makes it an Engine rather than an opinion"*, and *"A criterion that cannot be
+evaluated by rule is not yet a criterion."* It does not state the posture half.
+
+Gate House had proposed drawing the line on volatility: posture is fast-moving,
+maturity is slow. `kings-guard` answered `KG-IN-0003` with a proposed revision
+(`KG-DEC-2026-002`, argued in `kings-guard/docs/PostureMaturityBoundary.md`) rejecting
+that line and offering recomputability instead. The commentary was also sent to
+`maturity-engine`.
+
+The concern behind the original question stands and is why the line has to be exact:
+a second grading authority would be the same shape of mistake as a second decision
+point, and §6 says it would arrive the same way — gradually, each time for a good
+local reason.
+
+## Decision
+
+**The boundary is recomputability, not volatility.**
+
+> Given the same criteria and the same evidence, recompute. If you MUST get the same
+> answer, it is maturity and it belongs in an engine. If you CANNOT promise the same
+> answer, it is posture and it belongs in Staff.
+
+The volatility line is withdrawn. `kings-guard`'s argument against it is accepted in
+full: volatility is an observation about how a value has behaved, not a definition of
+what it is. It fails at both edges — a maturity criterion moves fast when evidence
+lands in a burst, and a posture sits unchanged for months on a healthy subject — and,
+more seriously, it *describes* the two categories without *partitioning* them. Every
+case it does not obviously cover becomes an argument, and arguments at a boundary are
+the mechanism §6 exists to prevent.
+
+Recomputability is not a new rule. It is §9.5's own determinism clause pointed at the
+one boundary where it had not been pointed, which is why it can be adopted without
+enlarging the standard. §9.5 already states the maturity half; the posture half is its
+mirror, and the pair partitions: **a criterion that cannot be evaluated by rule is not
+yet a criterion; a judgment that can be evaluated by rule is not posture — it is a
+criterion sitting in the wrong repository.**
+
+### The addition — criteria must be grounded
+
+Adopted with one clause `kings-guard` did not propose, and the reason is the loophole
+their own framing opens.
+
+Recomputability is assessed **over the stated criteria**. That makes it mechanical,
+which is its virtue, and it also makes it satisfiable in form by the thing it exists
+to exclude. Any judgment can be made to look recomputable by writing a criterion that
+dereferences it: *"level 2 iff the reviewer marked the control adequate"* is perfectly
+deterministic — recompute it and you get the same answer every time — and it has
+smuggled an opinion into an engine wearing a rule's clothes. The engine would then be
+grading, deterministically, on someone's judgment, which is precisely the second
+grading authority the boundary is drawn to prevent.
+
+Therefore:
+
+> **A criterion MUST bottom out in evidence about the subject, not in another party's
+> conclusion about the subject.** A recorded judgment may be evidence *that the
+> judgment was made* — a fact with an issuer and a timestamp. It MUST NOT be evidence
+> *that the thing judged is so*.
+
+This is the same distinction §9.6 draws between what an archive proves and what it is
+read as proving, and the same one this repository applies to `valid_now` in
+`GH-DEC-2026-005`: a summary predicate is a fact about the issuer's evaluation, not a
+substitute for the evaluation. Without the clause the test is mechanical and
+circumventable; with it, the test is mechanical and the circumvention is itself
+checkable.
+
+### Consequences carried
+
+The three `kings-guard` names are adopted as stated.
+
+1. **The migration direction is permanent.** Anything called posture that turns out to
+   be recomputable moves to `maturity-engine` as a criterion; anything in
+   `maturity-engine` that needs judgment is not yet a criterion and moves back to
+   Staff. The boundary maintains itself under change because the test applies to each
+   item rather than to the category.
+2. **Two authorities cannot grade the same subject property**, because a property is
+   either recomputable or it is not, and that fact does not depend on which repository
+   claims it. The failure becomes structurally prevented rather than conventionally
+   avoided.
+3. **Capability readiness MUST NOT be an input to posture.** Readiness is
+   deterministic; posture is not; feeding one into the other would make posture partly
+   recomputable and blur the boundary from the `kings-guard` side. Volunteered by
+   `kings-guard` as a constraint on itself and accepted as normative.
+
+Consequence 3 also answers the second half of `KG-IN-0003`: tracking kings-guard's
+own gaps in `maturity-engine` creates no incident-time dependency, because posture
+evaluation never consults readiness. The dependency would exist only if the mistake
+consequence 3 forbids had already been made.
+
+### The limit is recorded, not resolved
+
+`kings-guard` flagged, against its own proposal, that *"the same evidence"* is not
+well defined anywhere in the estate, so until §17's request-claim and gap-record
+schemas exist, recomputability is a thought experiment rather than a check. That is
+recorded in the statute alongside the test rather than left in the commentary. A
+boundary that is correct but not yet mechanically checkable does beat one that is
+checkable and wrong — but a reader is entitled to know which of the two they are
+holding. It makes §17 load-bearing for this rule.
+
+The caution is also recorded: *"posture"* has the drift profile *"control plane"* had
+— it sounds specific and quietly absorbs whatever sits next to it. §8 exists because
+the estate has been bitten by exactly that, and this repository described itself as a
+control plane before the re-cut. The recomputability test is a defence against that
+drift because it can be applied to a candidate *before* the word is stretched to cover
+it. `kings-guard` asked to be held to it rather than trusted about it, and that is the
+standing it gets.
+
+No change to §8's three-way split and no §4 catalog change. Posture stays
+non-deterministic and stays Staff; the test explains why, which is what was missing.
+
+## Reversal
+
+Revert if the grounding clause proves to exclude criteria the estate needs — that is,
+if a legitimate maturity criterion cannot be expressed without dereferencing a
+judgment. The falsifier is a concrete criterion, not an argument that one might exist.
+The likely candidates are human-attested controls (a policy was reviewed, a drill was
+run); the expected resolution is that the *attestation event* is the evidence and the
+criterion grades on its existence, freshness, and issuer rather than on its verdict.
+If that resolution does not hold for some real criterion, this clause is wrong.

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

@@ -106,10 +106,15 @@ volatility describes the two things without partitioning them, and every case it
 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.
+Disposed as `GH-DEC-2026-007`: **adopted**, with one added clause. Recomputability
+is assessed over the stated criteria, so a criterion that dereferences a judgment
+("level 2 iff the reviewer marked it adequate") is deterministic in form and
+inferential in substance. A criterion MUST therefore bottom out in evidence about the
+subject, not in another party's conclusion about it. All three kings-guard
+consequences are carried, including the constraint they volunteered against
+themselves — capability readiness MUST NOT be an input to posture — and their honest
+limit, that "the same evidence" is undefined until §17, is recorded in the statute
+beside the test rather than left in the commentary.
 
 ```task
 id: GH-WP-0003-T05