info-tech-canon/infospace/views/repository-tree.md

305 lines
16 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

<!-- GENERATED by info_tech_canon; do not edit by hand. -->
# Repository Tree
Check import manifests by hash and name together (INFO-WP-0028 T01-T03) import-review takes any partner manifest and returns, per concept, whether the name resolves in the ownership index and to which artifact, and per entry whether the pinned SHA-256 matches the blob at the declared source commit. Both run in one pass so neither can be recorded without the other, which is the failure this workplan exists to prevent. It exits non-zero on a finding, reads JSON or YAML, needs no partner checkout, and carries its own limit: resolution proves a name exists and names one owner, nothing more. Accepted manifests are registered under infospace/interfaces/manifests/ as provenance-preserving copies owned by the partner, with the partner revision and retrieval date recorded. Editing a copy to make a check pass is forbidden in the file itself. Validation re-resolves them and reports drift as federation_import_drift, a warning naming the partner rather than an error, because a stale partner pin is not this repository's file to fix. The review kit gains an extension-boundary-review template requiring hash count, resolution count and conflict count as three separate lines, and an operating rule saying one is never evidence of another. Both boundary files carry the standing-check result. Verified live: security-canon resolves 11 of 11, interface-canon 23 of 25 with the two known Interface and Endpoint pins. make check passes with 58 tests, clean validation and those two warnings. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:43:34 +02:00
File count: **298**
- `README.md`
- `agent/README.md`
2026-05-23 06:53:30 +02:00
- `agent/briefs/benchmark-caring-kubernetes-rbac-access-descriptors.md`
- `agent/briefs/benchmark-caring-kubernetes-rbac-caring-mapping.md`
- `agent/briefs/benchmark-caring-kubernetes-rbac-findings.md`
- `agent/briefs/benchmark-caring-kubernetes-rbac-native-concepts.md`
- `agent/briefs/benchmark-caring-kubernetes-rbac.md`
- `agent/briefs/catalog-attribute-value-types.md`
- `agent/briefs/catalog-evidence-basis.md`
2026-05-23 06:07:18 +02:00
- `agent/briefs/comparison-repo-scoping-canon-benefit-analysis.md`
- `agent/briefs/comparison-repo-scoping-consumer-workplan-brief.md`
- `agent/briefs/comparison-repo-scoping-extension-candidates.md`
- `agent/briefs/comparison-repo-scoping-frame.md`
- `agent/briefs/comparison-repo-scoping-report.md`
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
- `agent/briefs/concept-catalog-purpose-demand.md`
- `agent/briefs/conformance-railiance-fabric-consumer-workplan-brief.md`
- `agent/briefs/conformance-railiance-fabric-entity-edge-capture-criteria.md`
- `agent/briefs/conformance-railiance-fabric-mapping-expectations.md`
- `agent/briefs/conformance-railiance-fabric-visualization-examples.md`
- `agent/briefs/conformance-railiance-fabric.md`
- `agent/briefs/evaluation-user-engine-consumer-workplan-brief.md`
- `agent/briefs/evaluation-user-engine-interface-card-expectations.md`
- `agent/briefs/evaluation-user-engine-questions.md`
- `agent/briefs/evaluation-user-engine-small-saas-alignment.md`
- `agent/briefs/evaluation-user-engine.md`
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
- `agent/briefs/example-consumer-purpose-portfolio.md`
- `agent/briefs/example-emission-cadence-qonto-assistant.md`
- `agent/briefs/kernel-itc-core.md`
- `agent/briefs/kernel-itc-kernel-map.md`
- `agent/briefs/mapping-capability-anchors.md`
- `agent/briefs/mapping-emission-cadence-handover.md`
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
- `agent/briefs/mapping-purpose-demand-governance-candidates.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-access-control.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-capability.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-data.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-devsecops.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-evidence.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-governance.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-identity.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-information-space.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-landscape.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-network.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-observability.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-organization.md`
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
- `agent/briefs/model-purpose-demand-extension.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-security.md`
- `agent/briefs/model-task.md`
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
- `agent/briefs/pattern-intent-scope-purposes.md`
- `agent/briefs/practice-pattern-agentic-drives-functional.md`
- `agent/briefs/practice-pattern-interface-deprecation-strangler.md`
- `agent/briefs/profile-small-saas.md`
2026-05-23 07:23:48 +02:00
- `agent/briefs/review-kit-alignment-model-selection-guide.md`
- `agent/briefs/review-kit-alignment-schema.md`
- `agent/briefs/review-kit-alignment-scorecard.md`
- `agent/briefs/review-kit-alignment-workflow.md`
- `agent/briefs/review-kit-alignment-workplan-template.md`
- `agent/briefs/review-kit-alignment.md`
- `agent/briefs/scheme-practice-pattern.md`
- `agent/briefs/standard-caring.md`
- `agent/briefs/standard-emission-cadence.md`
- `agent/briefs/standard-repository-layout.md`
- `agent/briefs/standard-tagging.md`
- `agent/consumer-briefs/railiance-fabric.md`
- `agent/consumer-briefs/repo-scoping.md`
- `agent/consumer-briefs/user-engine.md`
- `agent/global-agent-brief.md`
- `agent/retrieval-index.json`
- `agent/retrieval-index.md`
- `agent/retrieval-index.yaml`
2026-05-23 07:23:48 +02:00
- `agent/review-kit/model-selection-guide.yaml`
- `agent/review-kit/review-kit.yaml`
- `agent/review-kit/review-workflow.yaml`
- `agent/review-kit/scorecard.yaml`
- `agent/templates/canon-interface-card.template.yaml`
2026-05-23 07:23:48 +02:00
- `agent/templates/consumer-alignment-workplan.template.md`
- `agent/templates/consumer-brief.template.md`
Check import manifests by hash and name together (INFO-WP-0028 T01-T03) import-review takes any partner manifest and returns, per concept, whether the name resolves in the ownership index and to which artifact, and per entry whether the pinned SHA-256 matches the blob at the declared source commit. Both run in one pass so neither can be recorded without the other, which is the failure this workplan exists to prevent. It exits non-zero on a finding, reads JSON or YAML, needs no partner checkout, and carries its own limit: resolution proves a name exists and names one owner, nothing more. Accepted manifests are registered under infospace/interfaces/manifests/ as provenance-preserving copies owned by the partner, with the partner revision and retrieval date recorded. Editing a copy to make a check pass is forbidden in the file itself. Validation re-resolves them and reports drift as federation_import_drift, a warning naming the partner rather than an error, because a stale partner pin is not this repository's file to fix. The review kit gains an extension-boundary-review template requiring hash count, resolution count and conflict count as three separate lines, and an operating rule saying one is never evidence of another. Both boundary files carry the standing-check result. Verified live: security-canon resolves 11 of 11, interface-canon 23 of 25 with the two known Interface and Endpoint pins. make check passes with 58 tests, clean validation and those two warnings. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:43:34 +02:00
- `agent/templates/extension-boundary-review.template.md`
- `artifacts/index.yaml`
- `assimilation/README.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/ASSIMILATION.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/README.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/assimilation.yaml`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/comparison-matrix.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/distribution.json`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/extracted-concepts.yaml`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/mappings.yaml`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/open-questions.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/proposed-changes.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/CorpusIndex.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/README.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/ResearchSeed.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/authentication-federation/nist-800-63-4.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/authentication-federation/oidc-core-subject-identifiers.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/authentication-federation/saml-nameid-federation.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/authentication-federation/shared-signals-caep-risc.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/authorization-relationships/cedar-principal-action-resource-context.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/authorization-relationships/cerbos-abac-derived-roles.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/authorization-relationships/openfga-modeling.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/authorization-relationships/zanzibar-rebac.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/beneficial-ownership-kyc-boi.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/commercial-identity-nuance-settlement.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/commercial-identity-synthesis.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/commercial-trust-binding-theory.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/crm-pipeline-commitment-threshold.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/duns-commercial-credit-identity.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/eidas-eudi-legal-person-wallet.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/kyc-aml-commercial-identity-binding.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/legal-person-agency-contract.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/lei-gleif-legal-entity-identifier.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/payment-credential-pci-boundary.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/registry-identifier-subtypes.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/reputation-assurance-gradient.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-identity/salesforce-crm-commercial-record.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-subscription/b2b-saas-subscriber-tenancy.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/commercial-subscription/stripe-customer-billing.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/entity-resolution-privacy/deterministic-vs-probabilistic-matching.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/entity-resolution-privacy/gdpr-pseudonymization.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/entity-resolution-privacy/synonymity-assertions.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/identity-provisioning/keycloak-organizations.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/identity-provisioning/ldap-rfc4519-inetorgperson-rfc2798.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/identity-provisioning/ory-kratos-keto.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/identity-provisioning/scim-rfc7643-rfc7644.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/identity-provisioning/zitadel-organizations-projects.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/social-community-graphs/activitypub-actors-followers.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/social-community-graphs/foaf-agent-person-group-onlineaccount.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/social-community-graphs/schema-org-person-organization-membership.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/social-community-graphs/webid-solid-profile.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/verifiable-claims/did-core.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/verifiable-claims/openid4vc.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/research/verifiable-claims/vc-data-model-2.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/scenarios/ScenarioTests.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/terminology/TerminologyConflictMap.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source/terminology/TerminologyInventory.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/source-summary.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/views/family-area.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/views/itc-access.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/views/itc-evid.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/views/itc-gov.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/views/itc-ident.md`
- `assimilation/canon-federation/views/itc-org.md`
- `assimilation/emission-cadence/ASSIMILATION.md`
- `assimilation/emission-cadence/assimilation.yaml`
- `assimilation/emission-cadence/comparison-matrix.md`
- `assimilation/emission-cadence/extracted-concepts.yaml`
- `assimilation/emission-cadence/mappings.yaml`
- `assimilation/emission-cadence/open-questions.md`
- `assimilation/emission-cadence/proposed-changes.md`
- `assimilation/emission-cadence/source/EmissionCadenceDeclaration.md`
- `assimilation/emission-cadence/source-summary.md`
- `assimilation/intake-and-assimilation-practice.md`
- `assimilation/it-capability-canon/ASSIMILATION.md`
- `assimilation/it-capability-canon/assimilation.yaml`
- `assimilation/it-capability-canon/comparison-matrix.md`
- `assimilation/it-capability-canon/extracted-concepts.yaml`
- `assimilation/it-capability-canon/mappings.yaml`
- `assimilation/it-capability-canon/open-questions.md`
- `assimilation/it-capability-canon/proposed-changes.md`
- `assimilation/it-capability-canon/source/ITCapabilityCanonV0.1.md`
- `assimilation/it-capability-canon/source/capabilities.yaml`
- `assimilation/it-capability-canon/source-summary.md`
- `concepts/family/FamilySeed.md`
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
- `concepts/purpose-demand.yaml`
- `evaluations/railiance-fabric/conformance-pack.yaml`
- `evaluations/railiance-fabric/consumer-workplan-brief.md`
- `evaluations/railiance-fabric/entity-edge-capture-criteria.yaml`
- `evaluations/railiance-fabric/mapping-expectations.yaml`
- `evaluations/railiance-fabric/visualization-examples.yaml`
2026-05-23 06:07:18 +02:00
- `evaluations/repo-scoping/canon-benefit-analysis.yaml`
- `evaluations/repo-scoping/comparison-frame.yaml`
- `evaluations/repo-scoping/comparison-report.md`
- `evaluations/repo-scoping/consumer-workplan-brief.md`
- `evaluations/repo-scoping/extension-candidates.yaml`
- `evaluations/repository-layout/consumer-adoption-brief.md`
- `evaluations/repository-layout/demand-intake.yaml`
- `evaluations/repository-layout/placement-decision.yaml`
- `evaluations/repository-layout/reconciliation.yaml`
- `evaluations/repository-layout/source-demand.md`
- `evaluations/user-engine/consumer-workplan-brief.md`
- `evaluations/user-engine/evaluation-pack.yaml`
- `evaluations/user-engine/interface-card-expectations.yaml`
- `evaluations/user-engine/questions.yaml`
- `evaluations/user-engine/small-saas-alignment.yaml`
- `examples/README.md`
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
- `examples/consumer-purpose-portfolio.yaml`
2026-05-23 04:26:28 +02:00
- `examples/small-saas/README.md`
- `examples/small-saas/demo-commands.yaml`
- `indexes/README.md`
- `indexes/artifact-tree.yaml`
- `indexes/concept-ownership.yaml`
- `indexes/import-matrix.yaml`
- `infospace.yaml`
- `interfaces/README.md`
- `interfaces/federation.yaml`
- `interfaces/interface-canon-boundary.md`
Check import manifests by hash and name together (INFO-WP-0028 T01-T03) import-review takes any partner manifest and returns, per concept, whether the name resolves in the ownership index and to which artifact, and per entry whether the pinned SHA-256 matches the blob at the declared source commit. Both run in one pass so neither can be recorded without the other, which is the failure this workplan exists to prevent. It exits non-zero on a finding, reads JSON or YAML, needs no partner checkout, and carries its own limit: resolution proves a name exists and names one owner, nothing more. Accepted manifests are registered under infospace/interfaces/manifests/ as provenance-preserving copies owned by the partner, with the partner revision and retrieval date recorded. Editing a copy to make a check pass is forbidden in the file itself. Validation re-resolves them and reports drift as federation_import_drift, a warning naming the partner rather than an error, because a stale partner pin is not this repository's file to fix. The review kit gains an extension-boundary-review template requiring hash count, resolution count and conflict count as three separate lines, and an operating rule saying one is never evidence of another. Both boundary files carry the standing-check result. Verified live: security-canon resolves 11 of 11, interface-canon 23 of 25 with the two known Interface and Endpoint pins. make check passes with 58 tests, clean validation and those two warnings. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:43:34 +02:00
- `interfaces/manifests/interface-canon.json`
- `interfaces/manifests/manifests.yaml`
- `interfaces/manifests/security-canon.json`
Accept the SecurityCanon extension boundary SecurityCanon publishes an architecture-layer vocabulary for authority relationships, the Mode of Authority, and references shared InfoTechCanon concepts. This records the InfoTechCanon-side acceptance of that boundary and adds reciprocal navigation from the federation interface README. The accepted dispositions keep the layers apart. Mode of Authority describes the relationship in which authority is exercised; CARING analyses how an access-control implementation is composed. Auth Mode is orthogonal to access operation and to CARING's Canonical Role and Plane, so the Operator role and the OPERATE mode stay distinct concepts and neither is renamed. SecurityCanon does not reuse Actor or Subject, which ITC-ACCESS owns and binds as "Subject is the access-control view of an actor"; it renamed its on-behalf-of dimension to AuthorityContext instead, so no change is required here. Verified at security-canon b1fa25eb: all five pinned manifest hashes match Git blobs at this commit and the sources are unchanged in the review checkout, and none of the seven concepts SecurityCanon declares appears in any InfoTechCanon owned_concepts declaration, so the boundary introduces no ownership conflict. No concept is transferred and nothing is removed, so the corpus is unchanged. Generated indexes and the repository tree are refreshed for the added file; make check passes with 46 tests, clean validation and a passing small-saas profile. This is an agent review, not human sign-off, and it records no consumer adoption or conformance claim. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
2026-09-20 21:49:47 +02:00
- `interfaces/security-canon-boundary.md`
- `kernel/InfoTechCanonCore.md`
- `kernel/InfoTechCanonKernelMap.md`
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
- `kernel/boundary-review.md`
- `mappings/README.md`
- `mappings/capability-anchors.yaml`
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
- `mappings/purpose-demand-governance-candidates.yaml`
- `models/access-control/InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel.md`
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
- `models/access-control/boundary-review.md`
- `models/capability/InfoTechCanonCapabilityModel.md`
Resolve the two senses of Authority and declare the unowned remainder (T05, T07) R-3 is resolved by disambiguation without a rename. CARING section 10.7 now says its Authority exposure mode names a demanding party rather than a right, links to ITC-ORG section 10.17, and notes that such an Authority holds no organizational authority over the system it compels. ITC-ORG carries the reciprocal sentence and records that SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of the right rather than redefining it. The seventeen concepts no artifact declared are now declared: eleven to the Organization Model, four to CARING and two to the Capability Model. Capacity in the Organization Model and Capacity behaviour in the Capability Model are two concepts, not one, and neither moves. Two of CARING's four turned out not to be new concepts at all but the prose spellings of CaringCapabilityProfile and CaringDerivedCapability; both spellings are declared to the same owner so the name a reader meets resolves. Effective Access and Declared Access were genuinely undeclared. Three boundary reviews are added for organization, caring and capability, bringing the count to fourteen. The concept_defined_without_owner warning is at zero, and the test that asserted it fires now proves it on a modified corpus instead of on the live one. make check passes with 54 tests, clean validation, no warnings, no stale assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:32:57 +02:00
- `models/capability/boundary-review.md`
- `models/capability/capabilities.yaml`
- `models/data/InfoTechCanonDataModel.md`
- `models/data/attribute-value-types-alignment.md`
- `models/data/attribute-value-types.yaml`
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
- `models/data/boundary-review.md`
- `models/devsecops/InfoTechCanonDevSecOpsModel.md`
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
- `models/devsecops/boundary-review.md`
- `models/evidence/InfoTechCanonEvidenceModel.md`
- `models/governance/InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel.md`
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
- `models/governance/InfoTechCanonPurposeDemandExtension.md`
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
- `models/governance/boundary-review.md`
- `models/governance/evidence-basis.yaml`
- `models/identity/InfoTechCanonIdentityModel.md`
- `models/identity/boundary-review.md`
- `models/information-space/InfoTechCanonInformationSpaceModel.md`
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
- `models/information-space/boundary-review.md`
- `models/landscape/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel.md`
- `models/network/InfoTechCanonNetworkModel.md`
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
- `models/network/boundary-review.md`
- `models/observability/InfoTechCanonObservabilityModel.md`
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
- `models/observability/boundary-review.md`
- `models/organization/InfoTechCanonOrganizationModel.md`
Resolve the two senses of Authority and declare the unowned remainder (T05, T07) R-3 is resolved by disambiguation without a rename. CARING section 10.7 now says its Authority exposure mode names a demanding party rather than a right, links to ITC-ORG section 10.17, and notes that such an Authority holds no organizational authority over the system it compels. ITC-ORG carries the reciprocal sentence and records that SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of the right rather than redefining it. The seventeen concepts no artifact declared are now declared: eleven to the Organization Model, four to CARING and two to the Capability Model. Capacity in the Organization Model and Capacity behaviour in the Capability Model are two concepts, not one, and neither moves. Two of CARING's four turned out not to be new concepts at all but the prose spellings of CaringCapabilityProfile and CaringDerivedCapability; both spellings are declared to the same owner so the name a reader meets resolves. Effective Access and Declared Access were genuinely undeclared. Three boundary reviews are added for organization, caring and capability, bringing the count to fourteen. The concept_defined_without_owner warning is at zero, and the test that asserted it fires now proves it on a modified corpus instead of on the live one. make check passes with 54 tests, clean validation, no warnings, no stale assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:32:57 +02:00
- `models/organization/boundary-review.md`
- `models/security/InfoTechCanonSecurityModel.md`
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
- `models/security/boundary-review.md`
- `models/task/InfoTechCanonTaskModel.md`
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
- `models/task/boundary-review.md`
- `patterns/AgenticDrivesFunctional.md`
- `patterns/InterfaceDeprecationStrangler.md`
- `patterns/PracticePatternScheme.md`
- `patterns/README.md`
2026-05-23 04:59:16 +02:00
- `patterns/intent-scope-purposes.md`
- `profiles/README.md`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/capability-requirements.yaml`
2026-05-23 04:26:28 +02:00
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/control.namespace-per-tenant.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/dataset.subscription-ledger.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/deployment.production.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/evidence.access-review-2026-05.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/incident.cross-tenant-access-attempt.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/policy.tenant-isolation.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/service.billing-portal.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/system.billing-system.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/task.onboard-tenant.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/team.platform.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/tenant.acme.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/tenant.globex.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/artifacts/user.ada-admin.yaml`
- `profiles/small-saas/profile.yaml`
- `reports/scaffold-placement.md`
2026-05-23 04:26:28 +02:00
- `reports/small-saas-profile-proof.md`
- `schemas/README.md`
- `schemas/agent-brief.schema.yaml`
2026-05-23 07:23:48 +02:00
- `schemas/alignment-review.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/assimilation.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/attribute-value-type.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/capability-record.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/capability.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/concept.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/emission-cadence.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/index.yaml`
- `schemas/interface-card.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/mapping.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/practice-pattern.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/profile.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/standard.schema.yaml`
- `schemas/workplan.schema.yaml`
- `standards/caring/InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard.md`
2026-05-23 06:53:30 +02:00
- `standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/README.md`
- `standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/access-descriptors.yaml`
- `standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/benchmark.yaml`
- `standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/caring-mapping.yaml`
- `standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/findings-and-canon-pressure.yaml`
- `standards/caring/benchmarks/kubernetes-rbac/native-concepts.yaml`
Resolve the two senses of Authority and declare the unowned remainder (T05, T07) R-3 is resolved by disambiguation without a rename. CARING section 10.7 now says its Authority exposure mode names a demanding party rather than a right, links to ITC-ORG section 10.17, and notes that such an Authority holds no organizational authority over the system it compels. ITC-ORG carries the reciprocal sentence and records that SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of the right rather than redefining it. The seventeen concepts no artifact declared are now declared: eleven to the Organization Model, four to CARING and two to the Capability Model. Capacity in the Organization Model and Capacity behaviour in the Capability Model are two concepts, not one, and neither moves. Two of CARING's four turned out not to be new concepts at all but the prose spellings of CaringCapabilityProfile and CaringDerivedCapability; both spellings are declared to the same owner so the name a reader meets resolves. Effective Access and Declared Access were genuinely undeclared. Three boundary reviews are added for organization, caring and capability, bringing the count to fourteen. The concept_defined_without_owner warning is at zero, and the test that asserted it fires now proves it on a modified corpus instead of on the live one. make check passes with 54 tests, clean validation, no warnings, no stale assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:32:57 +02:00
- `standards/caring/boundary-review.md`
- `standards/emission-cadence/InfoTechCanonEmissionCadenceStandard.md`
- `standards/emission-cadence/examples/qonto-assistant.yaml`
- `standards/repository-layout/InfoTechCanonRepositoryLayoutStandard.md`
- `standards/tagging/InfoTechCanonTaggingStandard.md`
Declare concepts and review boundaries for the silent artifacts (T02) Twelve of the thirteen artifacts that declared nothing now declare what they define, together with the map-assigned concepts the Organization Model was missing and the Landscape seed concepts the extractor cannot see because they are listed rather than defined in prose. The ownership index grows from 164 entries to 750, undeclared prose definitions fall from 637 to 57, and there are no ownership conflicts. The 57 that remain are overlaps this round assigned to another owner: imports, each recorded in a boundary review. The kernel map declares nothing, deliberately, because it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them. It is now the only silent artifact and the suite asserts that, so an artifact added without declarations fails. itc-org:Authority is declared, with Actor, Ownership, Membership, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, which SecurityCanon and the identity model already treat as organization-owned. The regression test that previously asserted the blind spot now asserts that the kernel map's assignment and the declaration agree. Profile is deliberately left undeclared. The kernel map assigns it to Core, the identity model owns it under accepted CUST-ADR-006, and Observability defines a runtime performance profile. Three senses need a decision, not a declaration, so it is recorded as open rather than forced. Eleven boundary reviews are added beside the artifacts they describe, in the shape the identity model has used since INFO-WP-0021. The largest finding is that Core and the Information Space model restate eight provenance concepts in nearly identical words; Core owns them and Information Space imports. Label, Drift, Summary and Attribute are resolved by disambiguation rather than transfer. make check passes with 50 tests, clean validation, no stale generated assets. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
2026-09-20 23:19:22 +02:00
- `standards/tagging/boundary-review.md`
- `validation/README.md`
- `validation/latest.json`
- `validation/model-import-reviews.yaml`
- `views/README.md`
- `views/by-concept.md`
- `views/by-mapping-target.md`
- `views/by-profile.md`
- `views/by-standard.md`
- `views/import-matrix.md`
- `views/kernel-overview.md`
- `views/repository-tree.md`