Narrow INFD-IN-0006 to surface alone after railiance-master's correction

The custodian's record was corrected on 2026-09-21 while this request was being
written. railiance-master had already established — with fuller citations than
this repository had — that flex-auth's validator set {Staff, Engine, Tooling} is
not §3's enumeration: §3 has four rows and `Taxonomy` is the first, defined in
§3.1, catalogued in §4, mapped in §7 and given its own §17. It added the sharper
finding this repository had not reached: §3's table writes `Engines` while §4
types eight rows `Engine`, so two faithful conformance runs disagree about every
engine in the estate.

This repository reached the first half independently and before seeing the
correction, and now records it rather than re-arguing it. The consequence is
what matters: `surface` is the only surveyed value outside §3 itself, and the
only one that needs a ruling on whether the vocabulary is closed. The two cases
do not behave alike and should not be ruled on together — which is what the
corrected record says, and this repository agrees.

One point carries over into the closed outcome: if §3's vocabulary is ruled
closed, the closed set should be written out as declaration values rather than
inferred from table row labels. `Engines`/`Engine` is what happens otherwise,
and it is B1's shape one level further in.

Position unchanged; the declared value remains unchanged pending the ruling.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 63291@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8bd77868-ca68-4f49-bb1e-d539ecc0d703

docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-vocabulary.md

@@ -132,30 +132,30 @@ repository's own existence, and `key-cape`'s blocked `client_id` all came from
 the same gap: the tier a human touches had no owner. A vocabulary that cannot
 name it will produce the gap again.
 
-## 4. Two observations offered to the ruling
+## 4. `surface` is now the only case, and it should be ruled on alone
 
-**(a) The validator's vocabulary is not §3's.** `flex-auth`'s validator admits
-`{Staff, Engine, Tooling}` — three values. §3 enumerates **four**: Taxonomy,
-Tooling, Engines, Staff. So the custodian's "two repositories declare values
-outside the §3 vocabulary" resolves into two different findings:
+This repository reached, independently and before seeing the correction, the
+observation that `flex-auth`'s validator set `{Staff, Engine, Tooling}` is not
+§3's enumeration — §3 has **four** rows, and `Taxonomy` is the first of them.
+`railiance-master` got there first and with the fuller citation, and the
+custodian's record was corrected on 2026-09-21 to say so, including the sharper
+finding this repository had not reached: §3's table writes `Engines` while §4's
+catalog types eight rows `Engine`, so two faithful conformance runs disagree
+about every engine in the estate.
 
-- `railiance-master`'s `Taxonomy` **is** in §3. It fails the validator, not the
-  standard. That is a defect in the validator's enumeration, correctable without
-  any ruling on whether §3 is closed.
-- `surface` is outside §3 itself, and is the only surveyed value that is.
+That correction is recorded here rather than re-argued, because it changes what
+this request is. `railiance-master`'s `Taxonomy` fails a validator, not the
+standard. **`surface` is the only surveyed value outside §3 itself**, and it is
+the only one that needs a ruling on whether the vocabulary is closed. The two
+cases do not behave alike and should not be ruled on together — which is what
+the corrected record now says, and this repository agrees with it.
 
-Separating them narrows the question gate-house has to answer, and means the
-`Taxonomy` case should not be read as evidence that repositories invent layer
-names. (`railiance-master` has its own agent and speaks for itself; this is a
-reading of the published standard, not a statement on its behalf.)
-
-**(b) `Engines` versus `Engine`.** §3's table row is plural. Declarations and
-the validator use the singular. If §3's vocabulary is ruled closed, the closed
-set should be written out as declaration values rather than inferred from table
-row labels — otherwise the same class of ambiguity B1 found between two files
-reappears between the table and the key. This is offered alongside the
-case-sensitivity question (boundaries-review question 2), which has the same
-shape.
+One point does carry over into the closed outcome: if §3's vocabulary is ruled
+closed, the closed set should be **written out as declaration values** rather
+than left to be inferred from table row labels. The `Engines`/`Engine`
+divergence shows what happens otherwise, and it is the same shape as the
+case-sensitivity question (boundaries-review question 2) and as B1 — two
+readings of one standard, both faithful.
 
 ## 5. What this repository has not done