---
id: GH-WP-0003
type: workplan
title: "Security layer model v0.8 amendment set"
domain: infotech
repo: gate-house
status: active
owner: codex
topic_slug: infotech
created: "2026-09-05"
updated: "2026-09-05"
state_hub_workstream_id: "a331dc88-c9bc-5d2a-9ff1-2aa7e837c3bb"
---

# Security layer model v0.8 amendment set

## Goal

Land the queued amendments to security-layer-model as v0.8: the §9.7.3 consume-ordering protocol clarification, the §11 emission-guarantee declaration check, the §13/§13.1 register disposition against maturity-engine, the §9.5 posture/maturity recomputability boundary, and the GH-DEC-2026-005 split-validation doctrine. Each is currently doctrine held in a gate-house contract or decision rather than in the accepted statute.

## Why now

`security-layer-model_v0.7.md` is accepted and must not be patched in place. Since
its acceptance, five separate rulings have been made that belong in the statute and
are currently held in gate-house contracts, decision records, or a reply in another
repository's inbox. Each was correctly kept out of v0.7; together they are now a
version.

The risk of leaving them scattered is not that any one is wrong — each was argued
where it was made. It is that a reader of the accepted statute gets an answer that
the estate no longer holds, and that the register sections (§13, §13.1) are
accumulating rows in a document that four repositories have said should be a
pointer.

Gate House authors the amendment set. `net-kingdom` publishes. Nothing here edits
v0.7.

```task
id: GH-WP-0003-T01
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "330d9739-f172-536d-82f6-74eec03902e0"
```

**§9.7.3 — consume ordering.** v0.7 reads as if the protected action must precede
the consume call. `GH-DEC-2026-003` and `docs/contracts/approval-consumption.md`
establish the opposite: the PEP MUST obtain a successful consume before the side
effect, because act-then-consume lets CAS prevent only the second *record* and not
the second *side effect*. Carry the clarification into §9.7.3 without retracting the
forensic claim that consumption MUST NOT be inferred from a decision record.

```task
id: GH-WP-0003-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "fe278b70-8c05-539c-9f41-4019c3c35520"
```

**§11 — emission-guarantee declaration check.** Add the conformance check drafted as
the last section of `docs/contracts/approval-emission-detection.md`: a load-bearing
evidence source declares a local outbox plus heartbeat-or-reconciliation; an
attributive non-atomic source declares the trade and does not claim completeness.
This exists so the next engine catalogued as an evidence source cannot reintroduce
the `GH-IN-0001` gap silently.

```task
id: GH-WP-0003-T03
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "6d5efa1a-54d9-5995-bfac-d2a9f5291469"
```

**§13 and §13.1 — register disposition.** `maturity-engine` (MAT-WP-0001) holds the
§13 gap-register snapshot and the §13.1 stance-map inventory as queryable data, with
`ASM-0`…`ASM-6` registered as data owned by gate-house and `pep-stance-publication`
owned by ops-warden. Four repositories have offered §13.1 rows —
`user-engine/pep-stance.yaml`, `tenant-engine/pep-stance.yaml`, ops-warden published,
ops-mason unpublished.

Decide whether §13 becomes a pointer to `maturity-engine` or stays a table. The
argument for the pointer is that a hand-maintained table in a statute is a register
that drifts, and that transcribing rows is exactly the manual step the engine exists
to remove. The argument against is that a statute must be readable without a live
query. Both are real; settle it as a decision record rather than by editing.

Whichever way it goes, the outstanding rows are discharged by this task — as
transcribed entries or as a confirmed pointer plus a check that the engine holds
them. Do not leave the requesting repositories without an answer either way.

```task
id: GH-WP-0003-T04
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "89ffd56e-5abf-5003-889e-1d00c3453b23"
```

**§9.5 — the posture/maturity boundary.** `kings-guard` (KG-DEC-2026-002,
`kings-guard/docs/PostureMaturityBoundary.md`) argues that the discriminator is
recomputability, not volatility: given the same criteria and the same evidence, if
you MUST get the same answer it is maturity and belongs in an engine; if you CANNOT
promise the same answer it is posture and belongs in Staff. The argument is that
volatility describes the two things without partitioning them, and every case it does
not obviously cover becomes an argument at exactly the boundary §6 says must not be
open to argument.

Assess and dispose. If adopted, it carries a constraint kings-guard has already
accepted — capability readiness MUST NOT be an input to posture — and an honest
limit: "the same evidence" is not yet well defined estate-wide, which makes §17
load-bearing for the test.

```task
id: GH-WP-0003-T05
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "087d3f67-66ef-59a3-8d4b-26ebfa5b2d00"
```

**Split validation as statute.** `GH-DEC-2026-005` states that a PEP validates each
artifact against the layer that owns its data and that a PIP MUST NOT republish the
PDP's decision. That is a general property of the layer model, not a fact about the
approval path, and it currently lives only in a decision record and a contract.
Place it in the statute where §8's three-way split is stated.

```task
id: GH-WP-0003-T06
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "ecc01a7b-22df-5a9c-a29b-eb7559713ca7"
```

**Assemble, circulate, publish.** Cut `security-layer-model_v0.8.md`, circulate for
assent as v0.6 and v0.7 were, and hand to `net-kingdom` for publication. Record
dispositions of the returned findings. v0.7 stays accepted and unedited until v0.8
is accepted in its place.