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

infospace/standards/caring/InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard.md

@@ -32,6 +32,10 @@ related:
   - InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel
   - InfoTechCanonSecurityModel
 owned_concepts:
+  - Declared Access
+  - Effective Access
+  - Capability Profile
+  - Derived Capability
   - CARINGAccessDescriptor
   - CARINGCanonicalRole
   - CARINGOrganizationRelation
@@ -1059,6 +1063,16 @@ A legal, regulatory, or institutional entity with exceptional access claims.
 
 Authority access should normally be modeled as an exposure event, not as ordinary standing access.
 
+This exposure mode names a **demanding party**, not a right. It is a different
+concept from
+[ITC-ORG Authority](../../models/organization/InfoTechCanonOrganizationModel.md)
+section 10.17, "the recognized right to make decisions, allocate resources,
+approve changes, enforce rules, or direct action within a scope", which the
+Organization Model owns. An Authority in this section holds no organizational
+authority over the system it compels; it compels from outside. Where both senses
+appear together, name the ITC-ORG sense as organizational authority and this one
+as an authority demand.
+
 Examples:
 
 ```text