coulomb/informed-decision
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Raise INFD-IN-0004: approval-engine's R3 answer conflicts with the ruling

Browse source 
approval-engine answered R3 and recommends exactly the option GH-DEC-2026-012
refused: that our binding document carry their binding.digest as a field rather
than re-canonicalize action/actor/principal/purpose/target ourselves. We cannot
comply with both, so this is raised as a finding rather than resolved.

It is not a wording difference. Our binding slice canonicalizes principal and
target, two of the five fields in their digest, so co-reference by identifier
alone leaves two independent canonicalizations of one act linked by a shared id.
GH-DEC-2026-012 manages that with an authority rule; approval-engine's proposal
removes it. Both are coherent and they are not the same design.

New information the refusal may not have had: their digest covers exactly five
act fields, and they state that widening it to cover presentation would be a
defect since a new UI release would invalidate every prior approval. The
GH-DEC-2026-008 cycle condition is mutual containment, so if their digest
structurally cannot contain view_hash the containment is one-directional. Not
asserted as settling it — that cycle was found by two engines independently
within hours, and "the cycle cannot arise here" is the belief such failures
punish.

Deliberately not adopted, despite coming from the layer that owns the digest and
despite our having offered to let them settle R3. Gate House was right that a
bilateral agreement produces agreement rather than an authority rule, and that
applies to this one too. layer.yaml is unchanged and carries a
linkage_under_review marker rather than a silent edit.

Also carries the smaller doctrine question approval-engine handed on: whether
approver evidence should be human-only at the engine, since
entries[].principal_type is auditable after the fact and stops nothing, and
there is no upstream backstop for humans-bind-agents-draft.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01V3W1dQG7GFFM9d94jFx7iR

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1565372@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 16bb2f25-b34c-49ef-8e94-5fec3567a568
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-10 13:59:52 +02:00
parent 242168d5fb
commit 3a7391fe63
4 changed files with 214 additions and 2 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

6
layer.yaml
View file

@ -100,6 +100,12 @@ binding_digest_relationship:
repository MUST NOT recompute or restate approval-engine's binding digest
from its own vocabulary — it references the digest that layer computed and
recorded.
# UNDER REVIEW — INFD-IN-0004, raised 2026-09-10. approval-engine
# (docs/approval-claim.md, 62233c7) recommends the opposite of the line below:
# that our binding document carry their binding.digest as a field, which is
# the option (c) GH-DEC-2026-012 refused. The ruling stands and this file is
# unchanged pending a re-ruling. See docs/finding-r3-linkage-conflict.md.
linkage_under_review: INFD-IN-0004
nesting_forbidden: >-
view_hash MUST NOT contain the binding digest, and MUST NOT travel inside
hashed request material while containing it. Option (c) was refused because