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

intakes/intakes.md

@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ state_hub_intake_id: "01a08610-f458-7fd5-b284-26a65d1d73c2"
 id: INFD-IN-0002
 kind: intake
 title: Human access tokens cannot carry tenant:platform
-status: open
+status: closed
 origin: coordination
 origin_ref: INFD-WP-0001-T07
 priority: high
@@ -74,7 +74,32 @@ tags:
 - cross-repo
 - blocker
 created: '2026-09-09'
-updated: '2026-09-09'
+updated: '2026-09-10'
+resolution: >-
+  Resolved 2026-09-10. key-cape had already implemented registration-bound
+  tenancy on 2026-09-09 (329e48f), deliberately correct under both candidate
+  rulings: a declared zone applies where the directory places the user nowhere,
+  agreement passes, and a declared zone conflicting with a directory assignment
+  refuses issuance with 403 tenant_binding rather than relabelling. So the risk
+  that a client registered now fails closed at first use was already retired.
+  GH-DEC-2026-013 then ruled directory-sourced the terminal state and granted
+  the registration-bound shape as a declared bounded gap — admissible precisely
+  because its distinguishing case fails closed. This repository's
+  binding-versus-awareness argument was accepted and written into the ruling as
+  its §6; it did not change the outcome but sharpened the defect, which is that
+  two different facts share one field named tenant: the act-scope (a property of
+  the act, which our binding slice commits) and the principal's membership (a
+  property of the person, which approval-engine exact-matches). Gate House's
+  correction of our position is adopted: a binding slice that must commit the
+  scope being entered should commit that scope, not borrow a membership claim to
+  stand in for it — and binding.target already does, so no field was added, only
+  a statement and a provenance record. The condition we asked for is in
+  key-cape's docs/tenant-claim-contract.md, strengthened from "must be revisited"
+  to void if the dynamic-registration exclusion is lifted, and enforced by a test
+  asserting the capability and the exclusion together. Two obligations land here
+  and are booked as PR-08 and PR-09: do not use the tenant claim as the
+  act-scope, and record the claim's provenance since key-cape emits it as a bare
+  string. T07 unblocked.
 description: >-
   Raised by key-cape (KEY-WP-0013-T05) while reviewing the approver client
   shape, and it blocks INFD-WP-0001-T07. The tenant claim on a human token
@@ -122,7 +147,32 @@ tags:
 - decision-request
 - cross-repo
 created: '2026-09-09'
-updated: '2026-09-09'
+updated: '2026-09-10'
+resolution_partial: >-
+  Doctrine half ruled 2026-09-10 as GH-DEC-2026-014; the payload remains
+  audit-core's custody question and the intake stays open for it. Commitment-only
+  is GRANTED for Stage 1, on the GH-DEC-2026-013 test that its distinguishing
+  case fails closed — a reviewer who cannot obtain the content gets no
+  reconstruction rather than a wrong one — and the data-protection reason was
+  accepted as a reason of the right kind, since doctrine forcing L4 contract text
+  into an audit fabric trades one control for a breach of another. Two limits:
+  it satisfies non-alteration and NOT reconstructability, and must not be
+  described otherwise in any document or conformance claim on either side; and
+  our wording of the gap was corrected — commitment-only moves integrity out of
+  our control and leaves availability entirely inside it, so the party that can
+  withhold the content is the party the evidence is about, which is limit 3's
+  condition reduced rather than removed. The grant carries a condition we did not
+  propose (§4): the path must carry an assertion that committed content exists
+  and where custody sits, so that 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. Not a reversal candidate. Our refusal of a separate evidence store was
+  endorsed, with the addition that an evidence store owned by the party whose
+  conduct it evidences is not an evidence store whatever its integrity
+  properties, the ownership objection being prior to the custody one. Booked as
+  PR-53 and PR-54 and EvidenceModel §8d. Still open for audit-core: sender
+  registration, and whether reconciliation plus heartbeat suits a mixed-volume
+  source.
 description: >-
   GH-DEC-2026-012 limit L3 requires the evidence copy to reach audit-core
   independently of informed-decision, because here the actor being audited and