coulomb/gate-house
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

State two properties once, and repair SCOPE.md's withdrawn framing

Browse source 
Two things this week's rulings left owed, both the failure mode those
rulings were about.

A-16 and A-17, and Core Rules 16 and 17. Two general properties had
been stated three times each, always against the instance that produced
them and nowhere in general — which is how a property gets found by
accident or not at all. That is the defect gate-house corrected in
three other repositories this month while carrying it here.

A-16, distinguishable routes: where one observable state is reachable
by two routes differing in security meaning, the record must say which.
Four instances, and they only look like one rule once they are next to
each other — an envelope identical whether access-engine issued it or a
responder forged it (GH-DEC-2026-010), unknown versus absent in a
stance map (-011), a tenant claim directory-asserted versus
registration-supplied (-013), erased versus never held on an evidence
path (-014). The rule is not that the routes must diverge; usually they
must behave identically and safely. It is that a later reader can tell
them apart, or a sound check gets read as carrying a property it does
not have.

A-17, fail-closed transitions: a transitional deviation is admissible
only where it fails closed on the case distinguishing it from the
conformant state. Written because two requests for transitional relief
arrived in one week and were answered oppositely, and the answers would
otherwise read as arbitrary rather than as one rule.

Both are marked repository-level and explicitly not estate doctrine.
Graduation waits on a repository that bears a cost under them having
argued them, which is the bar security-layer-model met and these have
not.

SCOPE.md was still the withdrawn authority-plane framing. It opened by
saying gate-house "decides whether a requested action is authorized"
and listed deterministic authorization decisions as in scope — the
design retired by GH-DEC-2026-001, surviving in a derived document a
reader would take as current, with a dead pointer to Blueprint section
3 non-goals that the re-cut removed. Rewritten from current INTENT,
including what is not owned here and what would put the repository out
of scope.

The irony is noted rather than hidden: a derived artifact contradicting
its source, in the repository that generalised that failure into
statute section 12 after finding six instances in one week elsewhere.

rmgr conform clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012viPor8WJNCbV64ipwewrm

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1754332@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 9c8ac536-ff5e-46a3-8ab1-a548bde25fc0
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-10 07:57:35 +02:00
parent 2117d28809
commit a5a1bcf537
4 changed files with 167 additions and 34 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

42
INTENT.md
View file

@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
**Project family:** NetKingdom
**Layer:** Staff
**Status:** Re-cut as the security and defence doctrine council
**Version:** 0.2
**Date:** 2026-08-28
**Version:** 0.3
**Date:** 2026-09-10
**Supersedes:** v0.1 (2026-08-24), which framed Gate House as a deterministic authority plane. See `history/2026-08-28-security-layer-model-and-gate-house-recut.md` for why that framing was withdrawn.
## The Mission
@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ credential never enters model context.
## Core Rules
The doctrine, in fifteen lines. Gate House authors and maintains these; the
The doctrine, in seventeen lines. Gate House authors and maintains these; the
engines and Staff repositories implement them.
1. **No privilege from cognition.**
@ -302,6 +302,42 @@ engines and Staff repositories implement them.
13. **Audit evidence is protected from the actor being audited.**
14. **Failure of critical policy or authorization dependencies fails closed.**
15. **Production guarantees must survive incorrect agent behavior.**
16. **Where one appearance is reachable by two routes, the record says which route.**
17. **A transitional deviation is admissible only where it fails closed on the case that distinguishes it from the conformant state.**
**On rules 16 and 17, which are newer than the rest.** Both were derived in
September 2026 from rulings that kept arriving at the same shape, and they are
stated here because a property recorded only against the instance that produced it
is found by accident or not at all — the failure this repository has now corrected
in other repositories three times.
**Rule 16** is the more load-bearing. Its instances so far: a stance map where
`unknown` and `absent` fail closed identically but mean different things
(`GH-DEC-2026-011`); a `tenant` claim that reads the same whether the directory
asserted it about the person or a client registration supplied it
(`GH-DEC-2026-013`); an evidence path where *erased* and *never held* both present
as a blank (`GH-DEC-2026-014`); and a decision envelope that looks identical
whether `access-engine` issued it or a responder forged it (`GH-DEC-2026-010`).
In each, a sound check is read as establishing a property it does not carry,
because the appearance the check produces is reachable two ways. The rule is not
that the two routes must behave differently — usually they must behave identically,
and safely. It is that the **record** must distinguish them, or the safer reading of
the appearance becomes unavailable to every later reader.
**Rule 17** governs what may enter a declared-gap register. It exists because two
requests for transitional relief arrived in one week and had to be answered
oppositely without the answers looking arbitrary: `ops-warden`'s dated transitional
`unknown: fail_open` was declined (`GH-DEC-2026-011`) and `key-cape`'s
registration-bound tenant was granted (`GH-DEC-2026-013`). The distinguishing
question is not how careful the design is or how long the transition lasts, but
which way it fails on the case that separates it from the conformant state. 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.
Neither rule has graduated to `net-kingdom/canon/standards/`. They are Gate House
doctrine at repository level until they have been argued by a repository that bears
a cost under them — which is how `security-layer-model` earned its acceptance and is
the bar these have not yet met.
**A bound on rule 13, and on every claim that rests on audit.** An append-only
archive with a verified hash chain proves records were not *altered or truncated