Apply GH-DEC-2026-013 and GH-DEC-2026-014; close INFD-IN-0002

Two rulings landed and both corrected something.

GH-DEC-2026-013 accepted our binding-versus-awareness argument, wrote it into
the record as its §6, and did not change the outcome — it sharpened the defect.
Two different facts share one field named tenant: the act-scope, a property of
the act that our binding slice commits, and the principal's membership, a
property of the person that approval-engine exact-matches. Gate House's
correction stands: a binding slice that must commit the scope being entered
should commit that scope, not borrow a membership claim to stand in for it. Our
schema already does — binding.target IS the act-scope and is inside view_hash —
so no field was added, only a statement (PR-08) and a provenance record (PR-09),
since key-cape emits tenant as a bare string.

key-cape had already implemented registration-bound tenancy on 2026-09-09,
correct under both candidate rulings, so the fail-closed-at-first-use risk that
made us withhold the client strings was already retired. IN-0002 closed. The one
remaining input to T07 is the deployed origin.

GH-DEC-2026-014 granted commitment-only evidence and bounded it. It satisfies
non-alteration and NOT reconstructability, and must not be described otherwise
anywhere. It also corrected our wording of the gap: we wrote that it leaves us
able to erase the content, which understates it. Commitment-only moves integrity
out of our control and leaves availability entirely inside it — the party that
can withhold the content is the party the evidence is about. Limit 3's condition
reduced, not removed.

The grant carries a condition we did not propose and would not have thought of:
the path must assert that committed content exists and where custody sits, so
non-production is a finding attributable to the custodian rather than an
unremarkable blank. A commitment with no assertion that something is being
committed to is indistinguishable from a commitment to nothing. Booked as PR-53,
and marked not-a-reversal-candidate.

Recorded the meta-rule Gate House named, now in its third setting here: unknown
versus absent in the stance map, directory-asserted versus registration-supplied
in the tenant claim, erased versus never held in the evidence path. Wherever a
system reaches one appearance by two routes, the record must say which route.

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

docs/specs/ProductRequirementsDocument.md

@@ -170,6 +170,28 @@ context.
 
 ### 3.2 Presentation
 
+**PR-08 [rev-2] — The act-scope is committed; the membership claim is not
+borrowed to stand in for it.**
+`binding.target` — the tenant, environment and system being entered — is the
+authoritative act-scope and is inside `view_hash`. The token's `tenant` claim is
+a membership fact about the *principal* and is never used as the act-scope.
+*Pass:* no code path derives `binding.target` from the token's `tenant` claim;
+changing `binding.target` changes `view_hash` (existing isolation vector 3).
+`trace: GH-DEC-2026-013 §5; EvidenceModel §8c`
+
+**PR-09 [rev-2] — The `tenant` claim is stored with its provenance.**
+`key-cape` emits `tenant` as a bare string, so a consumer cannot distinguish a
+tenant the *directory asserted about the person* from one a *registration
+supplied about the client they came through*. Until the claim carries its own
+provenance, this surface records which route the value arrived by.
+
+This surface must not declare a tenant the directory record does not carry
+without saying so in the record — doing so asserts a fact about a person on this
+registration's authority, which `GH-DEC-2026-013` permits only as a bounded gap.
+*Pass:* every stored tenant value carries a provenance marker; a value with an
+undifferentiated or absent provenance is a validation failure, not a default.
+`trace: GH-DEC-2026-013 §5; key-cape 329e48f`
+
 **PR-10 — A memo renders question, requested act, binding level, brief and
 consequences before any action control is reachable.**
 *Pass:* the disposition controls are not operable until the brief region has
@@ -327,6 +349,26 @@ tampering, not a compromised surface presenting X and attesting Y.
 *Pass:* the residual appears in `EvidenceModel.md` and in the bundle metadata.
 `trace: gate-house decision request §3; approval-engine's equivalent residual`
 
+**PR-53 [rev-2] — Emitted evidence asserts that content exists and where custody
+sits.**
+Commitment-only emission carries, alongside the hashes, an assertion that the
+committed content exists and the custodian holding it, so that failure to
+produce at retrieval is a **conformance failure attributable to the custodian**
+rather than an unremarkable blank. Without it, a reviewer cannot distinguish
+*erased*, *withheld*, *lost* and *never held*.
+*Pass:* every emitted commitment carries `content_exists` and `custody`; a
+retrieval failure produces a finding naming the custodian.
+`trace: GH-DEC-2026-014 §4 — a granting condition, not a reversal candidate`
+
+**PR-54 [rev-2] — Commitment-only evidence is never described as
+reconstructability.**
+It satisfies **non-alteration**. It does not carry what it commits to, and
+establishes what was committed to only conditionally — if a document is later
+produced, whether it is the one.
+*Pass:* no document, export field or conformance claim in this repository
+describes the independent evidence path as reconstructing content.
+`trace: GH-DEC-2026-014`
+
 ### 3.7 Locale and accessibility
 
 **PR-60 — German and English, with German as a first-class source language.**