tegwick
5f652d200f
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
2.4 KiB
2.4 KiB
InfoTechCanon Organization Model concept boundary review — 2026-09-20
Authority: INFO-WP-0027-T02 and T07, which declared the concepts this model defines, and T05, which resolved residual R-3 from the SecurityCanon boundary review. No concept is renamed, moved or removed.
| Concept | Owner | Resolution | Decided by |
|---|---|---|---|
Authority |
model/organization | The recognized right to make decisions, allocate resources, approve changes, enforce rules or direct action within a scope. The CARING section 10.7 Authority exposure mode names an external body compelling disclosure, not a right; both sections now say so. SecurityCanon's AuthMode qualifies the exercise of this right and does not redefine it. |
this review (R-3) |
Actor |
model/organization | Declared here under T02. ITC-ACCESS binds Subject as the access-control view of an actor; the identity model imports Actor; SecurityCanon imports it against a pinned hash. |
kernel map |
Ownership |
model/organization | The kernel map assigns Ownership and Stewardship here. SecurityCanon's manifest pinned it to Core until the T04 name-resolution audit corrected it. | kernel map |
Capacity |
model/organization | The amount of work or responsibility an actor or group can realistically absorb in a period. The Capability Model's Capacity behaviour describes how a capability's supply responds to demand. Different questions, different names; no transfer. |
this review |
OrganizationalCapability |
model/organization | The capacity of an organization to reliably perform a class of work. The Capability Model owns Capability as the canonical capability concept; this is the organizational reading of it and imports rather than competes. |
this review |
CollectiveActor |
model/organization | A group-like actor that can hold responsibility or authority. Distinct from Group, which is structural, and from identity's collective concepts. |
this review |
Person, Agent, Role, Membership, Responsibility, Accountability, Position, Team |
model/organization | Assigned here by the kernel map concept-owner table and declared under T02. | kernel map |
Concepts this artifact declares are listed in its frontmatter. An overlap recorded here means another artifact defines the same name; where the owner is another artifact, this one imports the definition rather than restating it.