---
id: GH-WP-0001
type: workplan
title: "Foundation"
domain: infotech
repo: gate-house
status: active
state_hub_workstream_id: "2ec4cf1a-a73f-5793-9738-8d8019cccca8"
updated: "2026-08-28"
---

# Foundation

Establish Gate House as the Staff-layer doctrine council: the layer model in
canon, the re-cut recorded, the authority context published as a contract
access-engine consumes, and the conformance loop turning.

Rewritten 2026-08-28 against `decisions/decisions.md` GH-DEC-2026-001. The
previous plan targeted Blueprint milestone **M0** — an `/authorize` skeleton —
which lapsed with the re-cut. No service is built in this repository.

```task
id: GH-WP-0001-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "af0fa778-89a8-52cf-a73a-021082a98cad"
```

Establish the repository baseline: classification, scope, agent instructions,
workplan spine. Done — `rmgr conform` passes with no findings.

```task
id: GH-WP-0001-T02
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "6dd21d86-6546-58a7-b59e-fa1db72aae90"
```

Settle the boundary with access-engine and the security estate, and record it.
Done — the review is in `history/2026-08-28-security-layer-model-and-gate-house-recut.md`,
the ruling in GH-DEC-2026-001, and the model in
`net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.1.md` (proposed).

```task
id: GH-WP-0001-T03
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "12f651be-1c07-587b-a781-4472e189e218"
```

Obtain assent for the boundaries that move vocabulary away from repositories
currently using it. Requested 2026-08-28 as intakes in the owning repositories,
with State Hub inbox notification — the intake is the inbound channel, so each
repository triages and promotes into its own work structure rather than having
work created for it:

- `FLEX-IN-0001` — Engine framing, the access-engine rename, and the
  authoring/evaluation split. INTENT reframe applied; rename not authorized.
- `KG-IN-0001` — Staff placement, "control plane" as Engine vocabulary, and the
  posture asymmetry.
- `WARDEN-IN-0001` — Staff placement, doctrine versus runbook, the access
  lane/rule demarcation, and adding gate-house to the routing tables.

Awaiting response. Assent, revision, or rejection are all acceptable outcomes;
a rejection that names a practical failure is the more valuable answer. Promote
the standard from `proposed` to `accepted` once the three have answered.

```task
id: GH-WP-0001-T04
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "7903d142-9763-5b3f-839d-2a1599130a2b"
```

Publish the **authority context** as a contract: principal, actor, runtime
identity, tenant, environment, mandate, task, operating mode — the vocabulary
access-engine consumes as input claims alongside verified identity claims.
Record it as ADR-001 and ADR-002. This is the deliverable that makes the
doctrine consumable rather than descriptive.

```task
id: GH-WP-0001-T05
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "010e3162-cab1-5644-b262-b0d1d7d676f8"
```

Revise `ArchitectureBlueprint.md`: fold the surviving material — domain model,
authority context, operating modes, posture and credential contracts, MCP
doctrine, change dynamics, audit, architectural invariants — into doctrine form,
and retire the withdrawn sections from the working document into design history.
Currently marked in place with a status banner.

```task
id: GH-WP-0001-T06
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "8cc018e1-2787-5435-9c2c-c2b01cf75ae4"
```

Close the conformance loop. Hand the assurance specifications T-01…T-10 to
whitehat-security as executable targets, agree the posture and findings return
path with kings-guard, and establish how conformance review reports back. Until
this turns, Gate House is a paper generator by its own falsifier.