The cut is at net-kingdom@66eeaba as status: proposed. All eight
amendments applied, with a §15 change-log entry, a §1 "what changed", a
§16 reconciliation closing two questions and opening one, and a rewritten
§14. Section numbering unchanged.
§14 no longer claims acceptance on the owner's decision. Ten of eleven
changes were requested by another repository and seven by a repository
arguing against its own interest, but this version imposes costs on named
repositories — ops-warden's unknown cell, approval-engine's issue-time
digest — and a cost imposed without a review round is what §12 exists to
catch late. So it circulates first.
The amendment set stays as the per-amendment argument; the cut is the
text under review. v0.7 remains accepted and unpatched.
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
The summary-for-body pattern reached six instances in four repositories
in one week. approval-engine escalated it with a concrete split: the half
that is mechanically checkable and the half that is doctrine.
§11 gains an example-validates-against-schema check, with the clause that
matters most — where a field is optional but load-bearing, examples must
cover both its presence and its absence. That clause is instance six:
approval-engine's own claim examples omitted pdp_digest and contradicted
its schema, found while implementing GH-DEC-2026-008, by the repository
making the argument. An example set that silently omits an optional field
teaches every reader the field does not exist.
§12 gains the convention half, which no test can cover: derivatives
marked with source and derivation version, and dated review records
marked as status-as-of-date rather than current state.
The tally is recorded in full because it is the argument. Four of six
were self-reported and one was committed by the proposer, so the case is
that the publishing shape makes the error the default — not that four
repositories were careless. A control depending on repositories
volunteering corrections is not a control.
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
access-engine exercised the divergence capability it claimed in the v0.6
round, on the first occasion §13.1 held two rows. ops-warden resolves
unknown to fail_open, secrets-engine to fail_closed; both conformant,
both total, both test-pinned, disagreeing about the one case that by
construction nobody planned for. They also scope over different axes, so
the register cannot answer what an inventory exists to answer.
Ruling 1: unknown is not a zone and MUST fail closed. §9.3 permits
trading availability for openness per zone — and that trade requires
knowing the zone. Where the scope is unknown the trade cannot have been
made for it, so a permissive unknown does not extend a considered
decision, it invents the most permissive one. An unreachable engine is a
known request in a degraded system; an unclassified subject is not.
unknown is the cheapest state for an attacker to induce, so failing open
on it makes being unclassifiable a privilege escalation requiring no
credential, which §8's asymmetry forbids wherever it appears.
Ruling 2: each map declares its scoping axis and its relation to zone.
Forcing everyone onto zones would make secrets-engine assert a zone it
cannot know, and a fiction in a runtime-read test-pinned file is worse
than an honest incommensurability. The register records the axes and
states that cross-axis aggregation is unavailable.
ops-warden acquires one non-conformant cell at v0.8. It did everything
asked — published first, built the reference form, offered it estate-wide
— so this goes to the assent round rather than being imposed quietly.
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
access-engine raised, and declined to solve locally, a hole in the split
GH-DEC-2026-005 ruled on. approval-claim verification item 4 is a
disjunction and neither limb delivers "approved for THIS request" on the
PDP path: limb one requires translating between two engines' vocabularies
and no mapping is published, limb two (pdp_digest) is optional. Where the
digest is absent a consumer can hold valid_now true, receive an ALLOW,
consume and act with nothing establishing that approval and decision
concern the same action and target.
Ruled: the PDP digest is the correspondence and is required on that path;
a claim without one fails closed; the native limb survives only for
consumers already in approval-engine's vocabulary, including T-06. No
mapping is published — a translation can be wrong while still producing a
confident answer, it fails open, it would be owned by neither engine, and
recomputing another layer's binding is the re-derivation GH-DEC-2026-005
already forbids. The cost is stated: an approval issued without a bound
CheckRequest is unusable on this path, which is correct behaviour.
Also: adopted hub row b606e8ce as canonical for GH-DEC-2026-005 rather
than registering a duplicate; recorded approval-engine's narrowing of the
approver-threshold consequence (distinctness is a UNIQUE storage
invariant, so the PEP stopped checking that the engine applied its own
invariant, not whether dual control could be forged); and drafted A7/T08,
a §11 marking obligation and §12 consumer rule for derived summaries,
after four instances in one week across four repositories.
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
Exact normative text for all six amendments, section by section against
accepted v0.7, at docs/amendments/v0.8-amendment-set.md. Each carries its
defect statement, its replacement wording, and the decision or contract
that already governs its implementers — the statute move does not decide
any of them again.
A1 §9.7.3 corrects the consume ordering: v0.7's stated order leaves the
CAS able to prevent only the second record and never the second side
effect, which makes single consumption theatre. A2 adds the §11
emission-guarantee check so GH-IN-0001 cannot recur unnoticed. A3 keeps
the §13 tables and transcribes the four stance-map rows, ops-mason's gap
included, since the register migration is conditioned on an export. A4
lands the recomputability boundary with the criteria-grounding clause. A5
generalizes validation-by-owning-layer into §6.4 and adds the
validating-is-not-re-issuing demarcation to §8. A6 replaces §17's stale
"neither has assented" paragraph.
Deliberate omissions are recorded rather than left silent: §12's fourth
step is a status not an amendment, §16's reconciliation is assembly work,
and no §4 catalog row moves.
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
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
Two corrections from the repositories that implemented the decision, both
volunteered against their own interest.
approval-engine and flex-auth independently reported that the deferred
option's G3 revisit trigger was already spent when the decision was
written. Verified here against flex-auth/schemas/decision_envelope.schema.json:
FLEX-WP-0019 closed G3 on 2026-09-02 by adding the field, not by
composition. That resolves against ratification — carrying its own end was
the one structural thing the composed bundle did that the split does not,
so the strongest case for option D is answered, and the answer is no.
secrets-engine reported that the split reduces what the PEP verifies: the
distinct-approver threshold is now folded into valid_now and no longer
checked independently. Correct on layering and a real reduction; both are
true. Recorded with its compensating property — reconstructability at the
issuer under §9.6, which is detection rather than prevention.
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
GH-WP-0003-T03. maturity-engine holds the §13 gap register and the §13.1
stance-map inventory as queryable data and proposed the statute tables
become pointers. Two things are true at once: a statute should not carry
state, and a standard must be readable on its own.
The registers become pointers, and not before maturity-engine publishes a
committed, versioned export readable without a live query. Publication is
the migration's precondition, not its follow-up — pointing an auditor at
a live engine is not a register they can read, and would repeat in the
other direction the exact defect §13.1 was created to fix.
Until the export lands the tables stay and rows are transcribed, so
user-engine, tenant-engine, ops-warden and ops-mason are inventoried in
v0.8 either way rather than waiting on the condition.
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
Marking the 2026-08-29 review round read on the reasoning that v0.7's
acceptance closed it was an inference, not a check. This does the check:
fifteen findings and two answered questions from kings-guard, ops-warden,
access-engine and audit-core, each traced to v0.7 text or a decision
record rather than to the §15 change log.
All fifteen are dispositioned. None was silently dropped. The change log
deliberately is not the evidence — kings-guard's finding 1 was exactly
the case where the change log claimed a rule the body did not contain.
One item surfaced, and it is not a v0.6 finding: §17 still says
emission-cadence ownership is proposed and unassented, which
GH-DEC-2026-004 and the info-tech-canon and net-kingdom acceptances have
since made false. Tracked as GH-WP-0003-T07.
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
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
approval-engine raised APPROVAL-IN-0002: secrets-engine's PEP validator
expects a flex-auth ActionAuthorization but fetches the approval-claim
endpoint that GH-DEC-2026-003 names as step 1. Two objects on one path.
GH-IN-0002 records the intake; GH-DEC-2026-005 resolves it. The claim is
the step-1 artifact and always was — ActionAuthorization is unratified,
has no valid_now field, and cannot be served from a step-1 call. The
addition beyond confirmation is doctrine: a PEP validates each artifact
against the layer that owns its data, and no PIP republishes the PDP's
decision. The provenance.authority == "state-hub" requirement is struck;
State Hub is a read model and holds no runtime approval authority.
docs/contracts/approval-consumption.md carries the amendment at the
sequence itself so implementers find it there.
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
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9
Updated by fix-consistency on 2026-08-29:
- update .custodian-brief.md for gate-house
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04d89-aaa5-7443-945e-b3055cd4b7e4
