interface-canon corrected its Interface and Endpoint pins at 20d7bfc2. Both were
pinned twice, to ITC-LAND and ITC-NET, because ITC-LAND section 13.2 lists them
in a seed-concept block while the Network Model defines them. Landscape section
13.2 now says in this repository that Interface, Endpoint and API are pointers
there and that the Network Model owns the first two, so the next reader does not
repeat it.
That is the fourth time in one day a list of concept names was read as a
definition, after CARING's Scope ladder, CARING's Environment values, and the
Landscape seeds that hid SoftwareSystem and SoftwareComponent. The closure
section names the pattern.
Both boundaries now resolve completely, security-canon 11 of 11 and
interface-canon 23 of 23, the registered copy is refreshed to the corrected
revision, and validation carries no drift warnings. The CLI test is rebuilt from
a deliberately broken copy so that a partner fixing its own pins can no longer
break this repository's suite.
make check passes with 59 tests, clean validation and no 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
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
Neither boundary has an ownership conflict now that declarations cover the
corpus, so the central claim of both acceptances holds. Name resolution is a
different matter, and it had never been checked: 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.
SecurityCanon: five of twelve imports named concepts their pinned artifact does
not define, corrected on that side to eleven imports. InterfaceCanon: twenty-one
of twenty-five resolve exactly, and two of the four failures were this
repository's omission — SoftwareSystem and SoftwareComponent are Landscape seed
concepts that extraction cannot read and are now declared, making those pins
correct. Interface and Endpoint resolve to the Network Model, which the accepted
clarifications already treat as contextual rather than exact aliases; those pins
are InterfaceCanon's to correct.
Both boundary files carry the re-verification and its method limit.
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
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
