Raise INFD-IN-0001: layer placement and approver-UI ownership

File the gate-house decision request that gates INFD-WP-0001-T02, before any
architecture is written, so the ruling constrains the design rather than being
retrofitted to it.

Three rulings requested: layer and role (proposed PEP-shaped, §6.4/companion
§5); whether a presentation attestation also makes this a PIP or must reach
consumers only through audit-core; and the relationship between view_hash and
approval-engine's binding digest.

The third is the highest risk and the reason this is filed first. Both digests
claim to canonicalize "the binding" but cover different material — the approval
digest exists without a human in the loop, view_hash covers the brief, packet,
highlights, locale and UI release. Three candidate rulings are set out with what
each costs; the proposal is distinct attestations with an explicit authority
rule, but any of the three is implementable. The outcome to avoid is both
shipping with no stated relationship.

The self-dealing objection is argued against ourselves rather than left for
review, and the residual is stated plainly: a compromised surface can present X
and attest Y, structurally the same residual approval-engine names for
adversarial omission at a compromised source. No claim is made to close it.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+# Intake records
+
+## INFD-IN-0001 — Layer placement and approver-UI ownership
+
+```yaml
+id: INFD-IN-0001
+kind: intake
+title: Layer placement and approver-UI ownership
+status: open
+origin: coordination
+origin_ref: INFD-WP-0001-T02
+priority: high
+owner: gate-house
+repo: informed-decision
+lane: blue
+tags:
+- decision-request
+- cross-repo
+created: '2026-09-09'
+updated: '2026-09-09'
+description: >-
+  approval-engine names an approvals inbox under Non-Goals, leaving the
+  browser-facing approver UI unowned; key-cape KEY-WP-0013-T02 is blocked on a
+  client_id and callback URI no component has claimed, and approval-engine
+  recorded in docs/keycape-service-registrations.md that they must come from
+  that component's owner. informed-decision claims the surface and asks
+  gate-house to rule on three things before any code is written: (R1) layer and
+  role, proposed PEP-shaped under statute §6.4 and companion §5; (R2) whether a
+  presentation attestation makes this a PIP as well, or whether presentation
+  evidence must reach consumers only via audit-core, noting §17 has no assigned
+  request-claim schema owner; (R3) the relationship between informed-decision's
+  view_hash and approval-engine's binding digest, which both claim to
+  canonicalize "the binding" but cover different material. R3 is the highest
+  risk: shipping both without a stated authority rule leaves the estate with two
+  canonicalizations of one act. Proposal is (b) — distinct attestations with the
+  binding digest authoritative for replay and view_hash authoritative only for
+  what was shown. Full request: docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-placement.md.
+  Blocks INFD-WP-0001 T05 and T07; T03, T04 and T06 proceed regardless.
+```