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
