gate-house/workplans/GH-WP-0003-statute-v08-amendment-set.md

id	type	title	domain	repo	status	owner	topic_slug	created	updated	state_hub_workstream_id
GH-WP-0003	workplan	Security layer model v0.8 amendment set	infotech	gate-house	active	codex	infotech	2026-09-05	2026-09-05	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.

id: GH-WP-0003-T01
status: done
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.

id: GH-WP-0003-T02
status: done
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.

id: GH-WP-0003-T03
status: done
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.

Settled as GH-DEC-2026-006: the registers become pointers, and not before maturity-engine publishes a committed, versioned export readable without a live query. Publication is the precondition, not the follow-up. Until it lands the tables stay and rows are transcribed, so the four outstanding stance-map offers are inventoried in v0.8 either way — user-engine, tenant-engine, ops-warden (published) and ops-mason (unpublished).

id: GH-WP-0003-T04
status: done
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.

Disposed as GH-DEC-2026-007: adopted, with one added clause. Recomputability is assessed over the stated criteria, so a criterion that dereferences a judgment ("level 2 iff the reviewer marked it adequate") is deterministic in form and inferential in substance. A criterion MUST therefore bottom out in evidence about the subject, not in another party's conclusion about it. All three kings-guard consequences are carried, including the constraint they volunteered against themselves — capability readiness MUST NOT be an input to posture — and their honest limit, that "the same evidence" is undefined until §17, is recorded in the statute beside the test rather than left in the commentary.

id: GH-WP-0003-T05
status: done
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.

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.

id: GH-WP-0003-T07
status: todo
priority: low
state_hub_task_id: "d68be07d-2528-52a2-8de5-909890eb7758"

§17 — refresh the ownership paragraph. §17 closes with "Ownership is proposed, not assigned… Neither has assented." GH-DEC-2026-004 assigned the split and both info-tech-canon (ITC-WP-0018, ITC-EMISSION-CADENCE 0.1 in canon 0.7.0) and net-kingdom (NK-WP-0035, emission-cadence-security-profile_v0.1.md) have accepted in their own voice. Replace the paragraph with the settled ownership and cite the decision; keep §17's drafter credit to kings-guard.

Surfaced by docs/conformance/2026-09-06-v06-findings-audit.md, which also confirms that all fifteen v0.6 review findings are dispositioned in v0.7 — this is the one paragraph a later decision made stale, not a missed finding.