diff --git a/infospace/agent/briefs/model-landscape.md b/infospace/agent/briefs/model-landscape.md index e3b28d2..1710822 100644 --- a/infospace/agent/briefs/model-landscape.md +++ b/infospace/agent/briefs/model-landscape.md @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ Imports and anchors: - `LandscapeSource` - `LandscapeState` - `RuntimeResource` +- `SoftwareComponent` +- `SoftwareSystem` - `TechnicalService` - `Workload` diff --git a/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.json b/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.json index 27f21f2..11e4111 100644 --- a/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.json +++ b/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.json @@ -1928,6 +1928,8 @@ "LandscapeSource", "LandscapeState", "RuntimeResource", + "SoftwareComponent", + "SoftwareSystem", "TechnicalService", "Workload" ], diff --git a/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.md b/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.md index c86418b..a840571 100644 --- a/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.md +++ b/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.md @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ Items: **81** - Source path: `seeds/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel_RC1_seed.md` - Summary: Domain model used by canon profiles and standards: InfoTechCanon Landscape Model. - Imports and anchors: `kernel/itc-core`, `model/evidence` -- Owned concepts: `ApplicationService`, `BusinessService`, `Environment`, `InfoTechCanon Landscape Model`, `LandscapeClaim`, `LandscapeEntity`, `LandscapeEvidence`, `LandscapeRelationship`, `LandscapeSource`, `LandscapeState`, `RuntimeResource`, `TechnicalService`, `Workload` +- Owned concepts: `ApplicationService`, `BusinessService`, `Environment`, `InfoTechCanon Landscape Model`, `LandscapeClaim`, `LandscapeEntity`, `LandscapeEvidence`, `LandscapeRelationship`, `LandscapeSource`, `LandscapeState`, `RuntimeResource`, `SoftwareComponent`, `SoftwareSystem`, `TechnicalService`, `Workload` ### InfoTechCanon Network Model diff --git a/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.yaml b/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.yaml index b01b8c9..1f851ca 100644 --- a/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.yaml +++ b/infospace/agent/retrieval-index.yaml @@ -1333,6 +1333,8 @@ items: - LandscapeSource - LandscapeState - RuntimeResource + - SoftwareComponent + - SoftwareSystem - TechnicalService - Workload imports: diff --git a/infospace/indexes/concept-ownership.yaml b/infospace/indexes/concept-ownership.yaml index cce752c..9b9cbae 100644 --- a/infospace/indexes/concept-ownership.yaml +++ b/infospace/indexes/concept-ownership.yaml @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -concept_count: 750 +concept_count: 752 concepts: - concept: Canon federation research provenance owner: assimilation/canon-federation @@ -1520,6 +1520,14 @@ concepts: owner: model/landscape path: models/landscape/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel.md source: artifact_title +- concept: SoftwareSystem + owner: model/landscape + path: models/landscape/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel.md + source: frontmatter.owned_concepts +- concept: SoftwareComponent + owner: model/landscape + path: models/landscape/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel.md + source: frontmatter.owned_concepts - concept: BusinessService owner: model/landscape path: models/landscape/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel.md diff --git a/infospace/interfaces/interface-canon-boundary.md b/infospace/interfaces/interface-canon-boundary.md index 420f13b..50d81f5 100644 --- a/infospace/interfaces/interface-canon-boundary.md +++ b/infospace/interfaces/interface-canon-boundary.md @@ -54,3 +54,24 @@ The file's eventual containing commit identifies the applied review revision; the review base above must not be represented as a merge commit. Work and verification are tracked in [INFO-WP-0026](../../workplans/INFO-WP-0026-interface-canon-boundary-review.md). + +## Re-verification — 2026-09-20 (INFO-WP-0027-T04) + +Re-run against the enlarged InfoTechCanon ownership index (750 entries, up from +164) after INFO-WP-0027-T02. Twenty-one of InterfaceCanon's twenty-five declared +imports resolve by name to the artifact they are pinned to. No ownership +conflict is introduced by the enlarged index. + +Four do not resolve, and two of the four were InfoTechCanon's omission rather +than InterfaceCanon's: + +| Import | Pinned to | Finding | +| --- | --- | --- | +| `SoftwareSystem` | ITC-LAND | Defined in a Landscape seed-concept list, which declaration extraction cannot read. Now declared in the Landscape Model; the pin is correct. | +| `SoftwareComponent` | ITC-LAND | Same. Now declared; the pin is correct. | +| `Interface` | ITC-LAND | Declared by the Network Model, not Landscape. The clarification above already treats Landscape's Interface seed and Network's attachment-point Interface as contextual mappings rather than exact aliases, so the name resolves to Network and the Landscape pin should be qualified or re-pointed. | +| `Endpoint` | ITC-LAND | Same as Interface. Network owns the name; the Landscape sense is contextual. | + +No InfoTechCanon concept is renamed, moved or removed, and the accepted +dispositions are unchanged. The `Interface` and `Endpoint` pins are +InterfaceCanon's to correct; the two Landscape declarations are made here. diff --git a/infospace/interfaces/security-canon-boundary.md b/infospace/interfaces/security-canon-boundary.md index d0e3e51..c4f2bc2 100644 --- a/infospace/interfaces/security-canon-boundary.md +++ b/infospace/interfaces/security-canon-boundary.md @@ -70,3 +70,39 @@ Limits of this acceptance: - The G7 validator in `prj-canon-federation` pins card paths for info-tech-canon, commerce-canon and the-custodian. Registering the security-canon card is that project's change; this review does not make it. + +## Re-verification — 2026-09-20 (INFO-WP-0027-T04) + +Re-run against the enlarged InfoTechCanon ownership index (750 entries, up from +164) after INFO-WP-0027-T02 gave every defining artifact an `owned_concepts` +declaration. The original acceptance compared SecurityCanon's concepts against +the declarations that existed then; this re-runs it against declarations that +now cover the corpus. + +**No ownership conflict.** None of the nine SecurityCanon-owned concepts — +AuthMode, AuthorityContext, AuthorityRealm, AuthorityProvenance, Activation, +EvidenceBoundary, AccessSituation, Time, and the dimension slot for Environment — +collides with an InfoTechCanon declaration. The boundary's central claim holds. + +**Five of the twelve declared imports do not resolve by name.** The original +review verified the manifest by file hash, and every hash matched; it never +checked that the named concept exists in the named artifact. The enlarged index +makes that checkable: + +| Import | Pinned to | Resolves to | Finding | +| --- | --- | --- | --- | +| `Artifact` | InfoTechCanonCore | `model/devsecops` | Core owns `CanonArtifact`, "any identifiable unit of canon content". There is no Core `Artifact`. The name now resolves to the DevSecOps build artifact, a different concept. | +| `Ownership` | InfoTechCanonCore | `model/organization` | The kernel map assigns Ownership and Stewardship to Organization. The pin names the wrong artifact. | +| `Relationship` | InfoTechCanonCore | `model/identity` | Core owns `RelationshipDefinition`; the identity model owns `Relationship` as its actor-linking taxonomy. The pin names the wrong artifact and arguably the wrong concept. | +| `AccessOperations` | InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel | unowned | ITC-ACCESS defines `Operation`, "a system-specific or API-specific action". `AccessOperations` is SecurityCanon's own compaction of it. | +| `PrincipalType` | InfoTechCanonIdentityModel | unowned | The name appears nowhere in the identity or access-control models. | + +These are SecurityCanon-side manifest corrections, not InfoTechCanon changes. No +InfoTechCanon concept is renamed, moved or removed to accommodate them, and the +semantic boundary recorded above is unaffected: each case is a citation naming +the wrong artifact or a name InfoTechCanon never used, not a contested concept. + +**Method limit, now closed.** Hash verification proves the reviewed file is the +file that was pinned. It says nothing about whether the concept named in the +manifest exists in it. Both checks are needed, and only the first was run in the +original acceptance. diff --git a/infospace/models/landscape/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel.md b/infospace/models/landscape/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel.md index ce22b10..8e45522 100644 --- a/infospace/models/landscape/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel.md +++ b/infospace/models/landscape/InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel.md @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ --- owned_concepts: + - SoftwareSystem + - SoftwareComponent - BusinessService - ApplicationService - TechnicalService diff --git a/infospace/views/by-concept.md b/infospace/views/by-concept.md index 41a852b..ea79c08 100644 --- a/infospace/views/by-concept.md +++ b/infospace/views/by-concept.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ # By Concept -Concept count: **750** +Concept count: **752** | Concept | Owner | Source | | --- | --- | --- | @@ -386,6 +386,8 @@ Concept count: **750** | UsePath | `model/information-space` | `frontmatter.owned_concepts` | | VectorIndex | `model/information-space` | `frontmatter.owned_concepts` | | InfoTechCanon Landscape Model | `model/landscape` | `artifact_title` | +| SoftwareSystem | `model/landscape` | `frontmatter.owned_concepts` | +| SoftwareComponent | `model/landscape` | `frontmatter.owned_concepts` | | BusinessService | `model/landscape` | `frontmatter.owned_concepts` | | ApplicationService | `model/landscape` | `frontmatter.owned_concepts` | | TechnicalService | `model/landscape` | `frontmatter.owned_concepts` | diff --git a/workplans/INFO-WP-0027-concept-declaration-coverage.md b/workplans/INFO-WP-0027-concept-declaration-coverage.md index fc9dbf3..4688d41 100644 --- a/workplans/INFO-WP-0027-concept-declaration-coverage.md +++ b/workplans/INFO-WP-0027-concept-declaration-coverage.md @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ benchmark, and they are undeclared. ```task id: INFO-WP-0027-T04 -status: todo +status: done priority: medium state_hub_task_id: "b9313ad5-7cb0-5be6-bc28-196f84640895" ``` @@ -308,3 +308,41 @@ twelve silent artifacts define; coverage is reported as a number that moves with the corpus; the enforcement level is recorded with its rationale; and both accepted extension boundaries carry a conflict result re-verified against the enlarged index. + +### Result — 2026-09-20 (T04) + +Both accepted extension boundaries were re-run against the enlarged index, and +the re-verification is recorded in each boundary file. + +**Neither boundary has an ownership conflict.** None of SecurityCanon's nine +owned concepts and none of InterfaceCanon's collides with an InfoTechCanon +declaration now that declarations cover the corpus. The central claim of both +acceptances holds. + +**But name resolution had never been checked, and it fails in nine places.** +Both original reviews verified their import manifests by file hash; every hash +matched, and that was recorded as evidence. A hash proves the reviewed file is +the pinned file. It says nothing about whether the concept named in the manifest +exists in it. The enlarged index makes that second check possible for the first +time. + +SecurityCanon: five of twelve imports named concepts their pinned artifact does +not define. `Artifact` resolves to the DevSecOps build artifact because Core +defines `CanonArtifact`; `Relationship` belongs to the identity model, not Core, +which defines `RelationshipDefinition`; `Ownership` belongs to Organization; +`AccessOperations` is a compaction of ITC-ACCESS `Operation`; `PrincipalType` +appears nowhere upstream. All five are corrected on the SecurityCanon side, which +now declares eleven imports. No concept is contested and no disposition changes. + +InterfaceCanon: twenty-one of twenty-five resolve exactly. Two of the four +failures were InfoTechCanon's own omission — `SoftwareSystem` and +`SoftwareComponent` are Landscape seed concepts that extraction cannot read, and +they are now declared here, making InterfaceCanon's pins correct. The other two, +`Interface` and `Endpoint`, resolve to the Network Model rather than Landscape, +which the accepted clarifications already treat as contextual rather than exact +aliases; re-pointing or qualifying those pins is InterfaceCanon's change. + +The method limit is the finding worth carrying: hash verification and name +resolution are two different checks, and federation reviews were running only the +first. Worth making the second a standing check rather than a one-off, which is +not in this workplan's scope.