access-engine's boundaries review (FLEX-WP-0030, B1 corrected 2026-09-21) and the custodian's estate-wide sweep put six §11 interpretation questions here. All six are questions about what §11 means, and gate-house authors §11. GH-DEC-2026-017 — the layer declaration. INTENT.md governs and a sidecar is a derived artifact that must agree; a disagreement between the two forms is a finding in its own right and is reported rather than resolved away. The §3 vocabulary is case-insensitive for comparison and closed, and it has FOUR tokens: access-engine's validator omits Taxonomy, so railiance-master is conforming and the validator carries the defect. informed-decision's `surface` is not a layer; its own file already reasons to Staff. Both off-vocabulary repositories are outside §4 and §11 does not grade them. A declaration carries no standard version — and that field is the reference form's, not one repository's habit. gate-house declares Staff in INTENT.md frontmatter in this commit; the prose line was never a declaration under the paragraph this repository wrote. GH-DEC-2026-018 — access-engine is a source of evidence for the decision record, against its own interest and as it asked. Custody is never source: collapse them and §9.6 is incoherent. It owes a declaration, has none, and is non-conforming on §11 today; the right register is a declared gap with a date. The class inventory stays access-engine's to publish — §11's prohibition on inferring class binds a ruling as hard as a runner. Under it, §11 names a §4 property §4 does not carry, which is the finding under the finding, and the clause is gate-house's own A2 from twelve days ago. GH-DEC-2026-019 — the v0.8 acceptance flip stays held and these join the existing hold rather than a follow-on amendment. The round closed by finding that every substantive finding against v0.8 was a correct rule satisfiable without doing what it requires; §11 is now that failure pointed at §11. Bounded by three stated closing conditions. v0.7 stays accepted and in force, so the hold costs documentation currency and nothing else — stated as the reason it is affordable, not as an argument that holds are free. A candidate property is recorded and deliberately not numbered A-18: a conformance check each repository runs only against its own files cannot establish an estate property. One instance, and no repository bearing a cost under it has argued it yet. Amendments A9–A13 drafted; GH-IN-0003 and GH-WP-0004 carry the round. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 63291@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 8bd77868-ca68-4f49-bb1e-d539ecc0d703 |
||
|---|---|---|
| decisions | ||
| docs | ||
| history | ||
| intakes | ||
| spec | ||
| workplans | ||
| .custodian-brief.md | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| .repo-classification.yaml | ||
| AGENTS.md | ||
| ArchitectureBlueprint.md | ||
| CLAUDE.md | ||
| INTENT.md | ||
| README.md | ||
| SCOPE.md | ||
| WORK-RECORDS.md | ||
Gate House
The council where NetKingdom's security and defence doctrine is established, documented, taught, and supervised.
Gate House is a NetKingdom Staff-layer repository and the home of the Active Secrets Management (ASM) Canon. It is the headquarters of the operational staff that does the chores of IT security in NetKingdom.
A word about the name, because it argues the other way. A gate house sounds like the thing requests pass through. It is not. In a real castle the gate house is where the guard is quartered, the watch is set, and the porter's rules are posted — the rules of entry are decided there, and the gate itself is held by someone else.
Gate House does not stand in the gate. It decides what the gate is for, who may be asked to open it, and how we know it held.
Its artifacts are specifications, decisions, workplans, and tasks. It holds no runtime position, renders no authorization decision, and stores no state that anything depends on at runtime.
Where it sits
NetKingdom's IT security is layered by determinism and by the kind of artifact
each layer produces — see
net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md.
Taxonomy cross-cutting language info-tech-canon, net-kingdom canon
Tooling deterministic state key-cape (authelia, lldap, privacy-idea), OpenBao
Engines deterministic APIs user / tenant / zone / secrets / access-engine
Staff interactive, non-deterministic gate-house, ops-mason, ops-warden,
kings-guard, whitehat-security
Read by determinism, those layers reproduce the Canon's three planes — which is the point:
Cognition proposes. Authority disposes. Infrastructure executes.
The rule that binds every repository:
Staff never touches Tooling directly. It acts only through Engine APIs.
Why Gate House is not the decision point
Gate House was seeded as a deterministic authority plane — an /authorize API,
grant storage, a revocation service. That was withdrawn on its own argument:
A decision point inside Gate House would place the deterministic authority boundary inside the non-deterministic management layer, violating INV-02, "No Privilege from Cognition" — the first invariant this repository exists to defend.
NetKingdom already has a policy decision point: access-engine (currently
flex-auth). It stays the only one. Gate House writes the doctrine that
decision point implements, and checks that it did.
The boundary, in one line:
The mandate and the operating mode are Gate House's. The decision is access-engine's. The credential is secrets-engine's. The perimeter is ops-mason's and ops-warden's.
What Gate House owns
- The doctrine — the ASM Canon, its invariants, and the argument behind
them. Invariants graduate into
net-kingdom/canon/standards/. - The authority context — principal, actor, runtime identity, tenant, environment, mandate, task, operating mode. Defined here, consumed by access-engine as input claims.
- The agentic operating modes — assistant and autonomous as distinct security regimes.
- Mandates, authority ceilings, and kill switches for autonomous actors, as a model and a governance obligation.
- The Change Dynamics Envelope — how much change the organization tolerates.
- The MCP doctrine — tool availability is not permission.
- The posture contract with kings-guard, including its asymmetry.
- Conformance review — whether authority in practice matches the declared mandate and ceiling.
- The assurance specifications T-01…T-10, executed by whitehat-security.
- The security curriculum.
What Gate House does not own
The authorization decision or any /authorize surface; policy engines,
packages, or rollout; grants, credentials, leases, or revocation; identity,
tenancy, zone, or user lifecycle; secret storage or PKI; anomaly detection or
threat intelligence; access lanes, SSH certificates, or host hardening;
deployment or remediation execution; and other repositories' workplans.
| Component | Layer | Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| info-tech-canon | Taxonomy | ecosystem-wide semantic contracts |
| net-kingdom | Taxonomy | NetKingdom standards of record |
| key-cape | Tooling | packaged identity tooling; IAM profile; authentication |
| OpenBao | Tooling | secret storage, leases, PKI |
| user-engine | Engine | users, accounts, memberships |
| tenant-engine | Engine | tenant-as-an-entity facts |
| zone-engine | Engine | zone identity and membership |
| secrets-engine | Engine | credential abstraction, custody, lifecycle |
| access-engine | Engine | the decision — the only decision point |
| gate-house | Staff | doctrine, authority context, conformance, curriculum |
| ops-mason | Staff | builds and tears down access routes and perimeters |
| ops-warden | Staff | operational access lanes, stewardship, runbooks |
| kings-guard | Staff | adaptive defence, observation, containment |
| whitehat-security | Staff | offensive validation |
Two words that must not drift: ops-warden and ops-mason own access lanes — how a worker reaches a host. access-engine owns access rules — whether they may.
The doctrine in seventeen lines
- No privilege from cognition.
- Every privileged action crosses a deterministic authority boundary.
- Tool availability is not permission.
- Principal and actor remain distinguishable.
- Assistant and autonomous operation are different security modes.
- Autonomous agents use independent identities and explicit mandates.
- Authority is least-privileged, scoped, and time-bounded.
- Delegation attenuates.
- Security posture may reduce authority but must not expand it.
- Emergency revocation works without agent cooperation.
- Agents do not casually modify the policies defining their own ceiling.
- Credentials are ephemeral implementation artifacts of authorization.
- Audit evidence is protected from the actor being audited.
- Failure of critical policy or authorization dependencies fails closed.
- Production guarantees must survive incorrect agent behavior.
- Where one appearance is reachable by two routes, the record says which route.
- A transitional deviation is admissible only where it fails closed on the case that distinguishes it from the conformant state.
The last two are September 2026 and are repository-level, not estate doctrine. 16
is why an unknown and an absent stance cell must be told apart in the record
even though both fail closed, and why a decision envelope that looks authentic is
not therefore attributable. 17 is why one request for transitional relief was
granted and another declined in the same week. Both were corrected within a day of
being written, by the repository that bears their weakest instance: 16 holds only
as far as the marker-writer is independent of what the marker asserts, and 17
cannot be applied at all until the distinguishing case is observable. See
INTENT.md § Core Rules.
Agentic operating modes
The distinction Gate House exists to keep sharp.
Assistant — a human is engaged and can redirect or stop at human latency. The human remains the principal; the agent remains a visible actor. A human disconnecting must never silently promote the session into autonomous privileged operation.
Autonomous — a scheduled or triggered agent acts without supervision, and therefore requires unique identity, a named owner, an explicit mandate, an authority ceiling, runtime and concurrency limits, budgets, an independent kill switch, and audit reconstruction.
The conformance loop
Doctrine that no engine implements is fiction. Gate House is only real if this turns:
gate-house asserts an invariant
→ the engines implement it
→ whitehat-security tries to break it
→ kings-guard observes it in operation
→ findings return to gate-house as doctrine change
Repository map
| Path | What it is |
|---|---|
INTENT.md |
why this repository exists; the re-cut in full |
SCOPE.md |
in scope / out of scope |
spec/ActiveSecretsManagementCanon_v0.3.md |
the working canon — invariants, controls, profiles, assurance tests |
docs/contracts/authority-context.md |
normative authority-context vocabulary consumed by access-engine |
docs/assurance/asm-t01-t10-executable-targets.md |
executable assurance targets handed to whitehat-security |
docs/conformance/ |
Gate House dispositions for returned assurance and posture reports |
docs/adr/ |
architecture decisions for Gate House doctrine and contracts |
ArchitectureBlueprint.md |
current doctrine architecture and responsibility contracts |
decisions/decisions.md |
decision records — start with GH-DEC-2026-001 |
history/ |
reference notes; the 2026-08-28 review is the origin of the current shape |
workplans/ |
work in flight |
Status. Specification-only; no code, by design. INTENT.md, the decision
record, the canon standard, and ArchitectureBlueprint.md reflect the current
shape. The withdrawn authority-plane design is preserved under history/ and
in Git, not in the working architecture.
Agents decide what to attempt. Engines decide what may cross the boundary. Gate House decides what the boundary is for.