Two follow-ons from informed-decision, both asking whether the item was
doctrine or implementation. One was already ruled; the other splits.
GH-DEC-2026-013 gains a section 6. INFD-IN-0002 argued for
registration-bound on a ground key-cape did not raise: their pre-sign
binding slice commits which scope is being entered, so a tenant that is
a property of the surface matches what the binding commits, while a
person-property sits closer to awareness. The argument is accepted and
it does not change the ruling — it sharpens the defect. What they
describe is a real fact deserving commitment: which scope this act
enters. That is a property of the act, not of the principal, and it is
not the fact approval-engine exact-matches to admit an approver. One
claim named tenant is carrying two facts, which is why the shape feels
right to them and wrong to the identity layer. A binding slice that
must commit the scope entered should commit that scope rather than
borrow the principal's membership claim. Their argument is the best
evidence yet that section 5's provenance requirement is necessary.
GH-DEC-2026-014 rules the doctrine half of INFD-IN-0003 and hands the
rest to audit-core. Commitment-only is admissible for stage 1, on
GH-DEC-2026-013's own test: a reviewer who cannot obtain the content
gets no reconstruction rather than a wrong one. Their data-protection
reason is accepted as a reason of the right kind — doctrine that forces
L4 contract text into an audit fabric to satisfy an evidence obligation
is wrong rather than merely expensive.
Two limits. A commitment-only record satisfies non-alteration and never
reconstructability, and must not be described as satisfying it; this is
our existing bound applied to a record that additionally does not carry
what it commits to. And the gap it leaves is availability rather than
integrity, sitting with the audited party — so non-production must be
detectable as a finding rather than present as an absence. That last is
section 4 and nobody asked for it: a reviewer receiving nothing cannot
otherwise tell erased from withheld from never held.
That makes three settings now for one rule — unknown versus absent in a
stance map, directory-asserted versus registration-supplied in an
identity claim, erased versus never held in an evidence path. Wherever
a system reaches one appearance by two routes, the record must say
which route or the safer reading becomes unavailable to everyone.
Their refusal of a separate evidence store is endorsed, with one
addition: an evidence store owned by the party whose conduct it
evidences is not an evidence store, whatever its integrity properties.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012viPor8WJNCbV64ipwewrm
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1754332@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 9c8ac536-ff5e-46a3-8ab1-a548bde25fc0
tegwick
b9e93ccd4a