gate-house/docs/amendments/informed-decision-staff-evidence-disposition-proposal.md

Deterministic presentation evidence in Staff — bounded doctrine disposition

Proposal: GH-WP-0004-T06-r1
Status: draft for founder decision and source-owner review
Prepared: 2026-10-11 by the Gate House worker under GH-WP-0004-T06
Governing source: accepted security-layer-model v0.8, SHA256 3d8298560069ef471fba28d2b1245fb2309328f231dad1a667cdf0ce5a5a7c8b. Exact source receipts accompany this file as informed-decision-staff-evidence-sources.json.

Decision requested

Accept an explicit carried tension, rather than claim §3.4 already fits: retain informed-decision's ruled Staff/PEP-shaped classification, add its requested §4 row with evidence source yes, and require the retained §3.4 tension and unpaid emission obligations to appear in conformance reports. Approve the exact candidate text below for NetKingdom source-owner review and subsequent publication in a new revision. This is one doctrine disposition. It does not accept another standard revision, authorize deployment or change credentials.

Why Gate House recommends this

Gate House INTENT “What Gate House Owns” assigns doctrine and conformance review to this repository; “What Gate House Does Not Own” reserves runtime decisions, approval storage and other owners' workplans. The doctrine request belongs here. INFD-IN-0007 explicitly assigns its owner to gate-house and asks for an explanation, including a carried tension as an acceptable answer. It does not ask to change its applied Staff declaration. GH-DEC-2026-021, “What this does not rule”, permits a §3.4 amendment or carried tension in the standard's voice and keeps this question outside the already discharged §11 acceptance hold.

The incompatibility is real. §3.4 says Staff is non-deterministic and holds no state another layer depends on at runtime. informed-decision describes deterministic presentation hashes and evidence sent to audit-core. GH-DEC-2026-012 R1 rules the surface out of Engine; R2 separates its presentation claim from authorization and R3 separates view_hash from approval-engine's binding digest. GH-DEC-2026-017 §3 rules its closed-vocabulary value Staff. None proves that §3.4 fits. A renderer being reproducible is not itself a verdict; an evidence commitment being retained is not approval current-state. Those distinctions preserve the boundaries but do not make the current absolute Staff language true.

Cataloguing the requested row makes its emission obligations checkable. Being catalogued must not be misread as conformity. The source owner's affirmative row request already exists in docs/section-4-catalog-row.md; it is not approval of this new proposal, and no fresh owner review is invented here.

Exact candidate amendment text

Apply only in a proposed successor revision after founder disposition and publisher review. Do not overwrite accepted v0.8. Sections not identified here are unchanged.

A. §3.4: insert after “Acting at runtime does not make a repository an Engine. Being agentic makes it Staff, and §5 governs how it acts.”

Carried tension — deterministic presentation evidence. informed-decision retains its ruled Staff / PEP-shaped classification (GH-DEC-2026-012 R1, GH-DEC-2026-017 §3). Its deterministic presentation and retention of evidence for audit-core do not fit this section's non-determinism description and prohibition on runtime-dependent state. This standard records that tension explicitly; it does not reinterpret those requirements as already satisfied. Its §4 row admits it to the conformance scope, not to a claim of conformance.

A conformance report concerning this repository MUST state the §3.4 tension as unresolved and MUST NOT report the repository as wholly conforming solely because its layer declaration agrees or its pin detector passes. This is a repository-specific disposition, not a fifth layer or an exemption allowing other Staff repositories to hold Engine decision state.

The existing boundaries remain binding: informed-decision MUST NOT render or cache an authorization verdict, hold approval current-state, decide approval validity or consume approvals. Its presentation claim MUST NOT be an input to the authorization decision it presents for; view_hash MUST NOT replace the approval-engine binding digest. The evidence copy MUST have the independent path required by GH-DEC-2026-012 R2 limit 3. Emission guarantees remain owed under §9.6 and §11, per declared event class. This carried tension grants no permission to omit or downgrade load-bearing evidence, bypass an Engine, or continue an operation where a mandatory local evidence record cannot be made. The §3.4 tension remains visible until a later argued model revision resolves it; recording the tension is the answer to INFD-IN-0007, not a claim that the tension has disappeared.

B. §4: add after the approval-engine row

Repository	Layer	Role	Owns	Evidence source
informed-decision	Staff	PEP-shaped	human presentation and binding surface; presentation evidence emission; §3.4 carried tension; approval state remains approval-engine's	yes

C. §4: replace the evidence-source values paragraph

The column carries exactly yes, no, or unassessed: access-engine and informed-decision are yes, audit-core is no, and all other rows remain unassessed until assessed. — is not a value. The §11 check reports unassessed as unassessed, never as conforming or as not a source (GH-DEC-2026-024 §2). Catalog membership and an evidence-source marking identify the obligations to check; neither certifies that they are met.

D. §4: insert after that paragraph

informed-decision publishes three load-bearing event classes: presentation (volume), disposition (rare), and stance-application (rare). The volume class permits rate monitoring with positive window and minimum, together with reconciliation; the rare classes require heartbeat and reconciliation, not rate monitoring alone. Its source declaration currently records the emission guarantee as owed and not yet declarable. Until an actual guarantee and its verification are returned by the source, a §11 run MUST report it as owed/not declared, not as conforming or complete. Completing those guarantees does not by itself resolve the separate §3.4 tension.

Honest implementation and evidence limits

These are the source owner's published event classes and declared status, read on 2026-10-11. This preparation did not execute an audit emission test or inspect live outbox/cadence operation. Existing docs identify local transactional outbox, cadence and audit sender registration as needed; their historical AUDIT-WP-0009 references are dependency pointers, not newly verified live blockers. No new tasks are copied into Gate House. The owner's existing implementation and audit custody records remain the places for actual readiness.

GH-DEC-2026-014's commitment-only evidence availability limit and compromised-surface-presents-x-attests-y residual remain. A successful layer/pin check, a real native human bind, and export of a commitment cannot prove that the surface faithfully displayed the bound content or establish emission completeness. No missing event is reclassified attributive; no fail-open release is admitted. PolicyNexus can publish the accepted revision and its report requirements as versioned guardrails, but publication does not turn it into a PDP or prove runtime conformance. Enforcement/package work needs its owner's review and verified inputs.

Alternatives and trade-offs

1. Recommended: carry the tension explicitly and add the row. Small, honest source change; establishes catalogue coverage immediately. Cost: the Staff definition retains a named unresolved fit and reports must preserve the finding.
2. Redefine Staff to include deterministic human-facing PEPs and bounded emission state. May resolve the model generally, but must also amend §3's Staff table and §3.3's primacy statement; it needs argument from affected Staff, audit and Engine owners. Merely replacing “state” with “authoritative state” would silently exempt state dependencies and is not proposed.
3. Retain current text and defer the row. No model delta, but the requested load-bearing emission remains outside §4's mechanical scope. The existing Staff declaration and INFD-IN-0007 remain open with the same unexplained fit.

Reclassifying this surface as an Engine or creating surface as a fifth layer would revise prior rulings and the closed vocabulary, rather than implement this request. Those are separate design decisions, not a local clean-up.

Recording, verification and recovery

A founder acceptance names this proposal revision and exact packet digest. Gate House may then record the resolved doctrine decision, preserving GH-DEC-2026-012/017/021 as history. NetKingdom reviews and publishes the new proposed text through its normal source-owner route; any required fresh owner returns stay distinct from the founder decision. PolicyNexus publication is subsequent delivery, not that decision.

GH-WP-0004-T06 is not done from this draft. Completion requires the actual doctrine disposition and §4-row handoff/record, with every remaining implementation obligation retained by its real owner. INFD-IN-0007 may be answered “carried tension” only once the accepted standard's voice actually states it. The §3.4 conformance finding is not then scored closed; it remains explicitly carried by the standard.

Verify candidate publication against the three exact insertions and one replacement, preserve all other security clauses, exercise reporting of §3.4 tension and owed emission separately from a passing declaration detector, and retain the new source and serving digests. Acceptance does not authorize a checker to print whole-estate PASS. Before publication, recovery is withdrawal of this draft. After publication, reversal requires a new superseding disposition and source revision; do not erase accepted history. Estimated preparation/publication impact: documentation and reporting; no new service, credential, infrastructure spend or live rollout authorized.

Exact source receipts

Source read	SHA256
gate-house/AGENTS.md	ac3c5182ff015eb582a5671417dfbd1e0f132467762c9bb4f26fa2f0c2169fc8
gate-house/INTENT.md	368747533ff8ecd4cef2a377c417db5c24f390ccc7e6a8426aed85052b32fc11
gate-house/SCOPE.md	bd761e4f1ff867eeb6fab06a55bbe894fb729d6e34f1e6f2f9e46c11a9e18023
gate-house/decisions/decisions.md	7c0d582448a9f4f39a438a24300a487259241d32616c2a6da16f8e5c52eb2425
gate-house/workplans/GH-WP-0004-section-11-layer-declarations.md	debd049989b27c89bf2a0b19be27f84aa9da6bb167b3e02133c752bdc4a16eac
net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md	3d8298560069ef471fba28d2b1245fb2309328f231dad1a667cdf0ce5a5a7c8b
informed-decision/INTENT.md	6fb7ef530728e51edfd10e233fd11580fbb9283c5cbc38f6d460c954818031f5
informed-decision/intakes/intakes.md	37f2898391af24763b6edc7600068f97f5d8bc96f4c460b851ca090aa8c3af20
informed-decision/docs/section-4-catalog-row.md	efe98a35ac94e26c4478f67a54abaf22543ad0ab715e69ffd2f66c985b206484
informed-decision/docs/evidence-path-design.md	ec2de83949839e551a4807e85dd5f9c39978bde41ce26454b3d5e260803a27d0
informed-decision/layer.yaml	76c20143944a97852ccde8392330d3bb8084a4921ab15e2cb86f10ad75caaf2d