# Conformance reporting contract

**Owner:** gate-house
**Executor:** whitehat-security
**Posture observer:** kings-guard
**Finding triage:** risk-nexus
**Status:** normative for GH-WP-0001-T06
**Version:** conformance-reporting.v1
**Date:** 2026-09-01

## 1. Purpose

This contract establishes how execution of a Gate House assurance
specification returns to doctrine review. It preserves four distinct judgments:

```text
Gate House          specifies the invariant and executable target
whitehat-security   attacks and reports whether the observed control held
risk-nexus          owns finding severity, disclosure, and owner routing
Gate House          decides whether the result requires doctrine change
```

Gate House does not grade its own specification by reinterpreting a whitehat
result, assign severity, close an implementation defect, or block delivery.

## 2. Report envelope

Whitehat-security continues to use `whitehat-run/v1` as its native report. For
Gate House conformance return, the report or a value-safe projection must also
make these fields expressible:

```yaml
schema_version: conformance-reporting.v1
report_id: <stable id>
specification:
  id: asm-assurance-targets.v1
  test_id: T-03
target:
  component: <repo or protected system>
  revision: <immutable revision>
  environment: <fixture/build/production>
claim:
  invariant_ids: [A-14, INV-05]
engagement_id: <whitehat engagement>
authorization_id: <recorded authorization>
run_id: <whitehat run>
outcome: pass | finding | inconclusive | aborted
known_bad_calibration_ref: <evidence ref>
evidence_refs: []
emission_guarantee_refs: []
limitations: []
assurance_statement: <bounded statement>
returned_at: <RFC 3339 UTC>
```

The projection contains no credential value, secret, unrelated response body,
severity, disclosure decision, or exploit detail unsafe for the recipient.

## 3. Outcome rules

- Every outcome returns, including `pass`, because target revision and run date
  define the freshness of limited assurance.
- `inconclusive` and `aborted` do not count as conformance.
- A known-bad calibration that has never failed makes the target
  `inconclusive`, even if the real target probe reports no effect.
- A changed target revision invalidates any claim that the earlier result is
  current unless the executor records why the change is immaterial.
- Absence of a report is `not_run`, not `pass`.
- A passing report states only that the recorded attacks did not cross the
  boundary under the recorded conditions.

## 4. Return transport

The durable coordination envelope is a State Hub inbox message to
`gate-house`:

```text
Subject: [GH-CONFORMANCE] <test-id> <outcome> <target>@<revision>
Body: report id, safe report/evidence references, specification version,
      run and authorization ids, limitations, and requested Gate House action
```

Large or sensitive evidence remains under whitehat-security/risk-nexus custody;
the message carries stable references and a value-safe summary. The emitting
repository records the report in its own work structure before sending the
message.

## 5. Finding routes

| Result | Required route |
| --- | --- |
| Implementation control failed | whitehat-security → risk-nexus → implementation owner; Gate House receives the safe conformance report. |
| Doctrine is ambiguous, contradictory, unsafe, or impossible to test | whitehat-security or kings-guard → Gate House intake/message, citing test and evidence. |
| Target or execution harness gap | whitehat-security owns or promotes the gap in its repository; Gate House records the test as pending. |
| Posture, stream-silence, or live-observation gap | kings-guard owns or promotes the observation gap and returns the safe finding to Gate House. |
| Severity/disclosure question | risk-nexus only. |

One observation may take both the implementation and doctrine routes. The two
records cross-reference one another; Gate House does not absorb the owner's
remediation task.

## 6. Gate House review record

For each returned report, Gate House records:

- report, target, revision, test, and invariant identifiers;
- whitehat outcome without changing it;
- doctrine disposition: `no_change`, `clarify`, `revise`, `new_target`, or
  `withdraw_claim`;
- any Gate House intake, decision, contract revision, or workplan produced;
- implementation/risk-nexus reference where a control failed;
- next review trigger: target revision, cadence date, or finding closure.

A conformance review is complete when the result has an explicit doctrine
disposition and every residual has a live owner. Closing a Gate House review
does not close the underlying security finding.

## 7. Cadence and aggregation

Cadence belongs to whitehat-security because the run interval is part of the
attacker model and exposure window. Gate House may request a minimum review
condition, but it must not label stale evidence current.

Gate House may publish an aggregate conformance view only if it preserves:

- target and revision specificity;
- last executed and next due times;
- outcome and limitations;
- tests that are pending, inapplicable, inconclusive, or not run;
- the audit completeness bound.

An aggregate must not turn missing reports into green cells.