# SecurityCanon extension boundary

Status: accepted for the semantic boundary documented below, reviewed by Claude
in the InfoTechCanon repository on 2026-09-20. This is an agent review, not a
claim of separate human sign-off or a published peer merge.

Review target: security-canon draft 0.2.0 at
`b1fa25ebe3204b5da0febf70190533711c19fbce`.
InfoTechCanon review base and import source:
`e1f98da015f32545254747c8e9f59b780c423d5b`.

SecurityCanon supplies an architecture-layer vocabulary for authority
relationships — the Mode of Authority — and references shared InfoTechCanon
concepts. InfoTechCanon retains the shared roots, the access-control model, the
identity model, and the CARING access governance standard.

## Accepted dispositions

- **Layer separation.** Mode of Authority describes the relationship in which
  authority is exercised; CARING analyses how an access-control implementation is
  composed. Both may describe the same system without either subsuming the
  other. Recorded on the SecurityCanon side as SEC-ADR-001.
- **Auth Mode is orthogonal to access operation.** `read + USE` and
  `read + OBSERVE` share an operation and differ in authority relationship.
  AccessOperations remains owned by ITC-ACCESS and is imported, not redefined.
- **Auth Mode is orthogonal to CARING Canonical Role and Plane.** The three
  answer different questions. The CARING `Operator` role and the `OPERATE` auth
  mode are not the same concept and neither is renamed; a disambiguation page in
  SecurityCanon is the required companion.
- **Actor/Subject is not reused.** ITC-ACCESS owns `Subject` and binds it as
  "Subject is the access-control view of an actor", with actor semantics owned by
  the Organization Model. SecurityCanon renamed its on-behalf-of dimension to
  `AuthorityContext` rather than overloading either word. No change is required
  in InfoTechCanon.
- **Scope, AccessOperations, PrincipalType and Purpose are imports.** They retain
  their InfoTechCanon owners. Purpose resolves to the Purpose and Demand
  extension rather than being defined in SecurityCanon.
- **EvidenceBoundary is a new concept, not an alias of the CARING Audit Plane.**
  The Audit Plane names a surface; EvidenceBoundary asks whether the observed
  actor can alter, suppress or bypass the evidence used to observe it.
- **No InfoTechCanon concept is transferred.** This boundary creates no removal,
  relocation or deprecation in InfoTechCanon, so the InfoTechCanon corpus is
  unchanged by it.

## Evidence and limits

Reviewed `infospace/vocabulary/mode-of-authority/SecurityCanonModeOfAuthority.md`,
`auth-modes.yaml`, `dimensions.yaml`, `imports.json`,
`infospace/mappings/mode-of-authority-to-infotechcanon.md` and
`infospace/interfaces/federation.yaml` at the SecurityCanon revision above.

All five manifest SHA-256 values match Git blobs at the declared InfoTechCanon
source revision, and those files are unchanged in the review checkout:
InfoTechCanonCore, InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel, InfoTechCanonIdentityModel,
InfoTechCanonOrganizationModel, and InfoTechCanonPurposeDemandExtension.

None of the seven concepts SecurityCanon declares — AuthMode, AuthorityContext,
AuthorityRealm, AuthorityProvenance, Activation, EvidenceBoundary,
AccessSituation — appears in any InfoTechCanon `owned_concepts` declaration, so
this boundary introduces no ownership conflict.

Limits of this acceptance:

- Scoped to SecurityCanon draft 0.2.0. No stable promotion is asserted.
- Acceptance covers the semantic boundary and import declarations. It records no
  consumer adoption, no runtime claim, and no conformance statement.
- A proposal to generalise CARING section 32 beyond non-human subjects was
  referenced by SecurityCanon and not accepted at the time of this review. It
  was reviewed separately on 2026-09-20 and **accepted** as INFO-DEC-2026-001;
  see `history/2026-09-20_235357+0200-caring-32-generalisation.md`. CARING moves
  to canon version 0.4.0-RC2-itc2. The change is additive and affects no
  SecurityCanon declaration.
- 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.


## Standing check — 2026-09-20 (INFO-WP-0028)

This partner's import manifest is registered at
`infospace/interfaces/manifests/security-canon.json` as a provenance-preserving copy and is
re-resolved on every `make check`. Hash and name are checked together by
`info_tech_canon import-review`; a name that stops resolving, or resolves to a
different owner than the manifest pins, is reported as a
`federation_import_drift` warning naming this partner. It is a warning and not an
error because a stale partner pin is not this repository's file to fix.

Current result: **11 of 11 declared imports resolve**, all six pinned hashes match, no drift.