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

Apply GH-DEC-2026-017: declare layer Staff, make layer.yaml derived, answer the section 4 question.

Browse source 
gate-house ruled the section 3 vocabulary closed at four case-insensitive
tokens and named Staff (role pep-shaped unchanged). Both files were changed
the same day, as this repository had committed to. INTENT.md now governs.
layer.yaml is marked derived from INTENT.md and carries no standard or
companion version. The reasoning behind `surface` stays in layer.yaml as
history.

INFD-IN-0006 is closed. INFD-IN-0007 asks once more how section 3.4's Staff
definition fits a deterministic, non-agentic, evidence-holding repository.
It is a question only: nothing waits on it.

Section 4 answer: yes, as a Staff / pep-shaped / evidence-source row. The
emission guarantee is owed per event class: presentation (volume),
disposition (rare), stance-application (rare). See
docs/section-4-catalog-row.md.

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
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-21 06:33:31 +02:00
parent d0d0bad66d
commit f5cd5d9376
6 changed files with 546 additions and 53 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

89
INTENT.md
View file

@ -6,9 +6,24 @@ intent_version: 0.1.0
date: "2026-09-09"
domain: infotech
topic_slug: netkingdom
layer: surface
role: pep-shaped # confirmed by GH-DEC-2026-012; see layer.yaml
standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md
# NetKingdom security layer declaration (security-layer-model §11).
# THIS FRONTMATTER IS THE DECLARATION. GH-DEC-2026-017 §1 rules that INTENT.md
# governs and that `layer.yaml` is a DERIVED artifact which must agree with it.
#
# `layer: surface` stood here from 2026-09-09 to 2026-09-21. GH-DEC-2026-017 §3
# ruled the §3 vocabulary closed at four tokens — Taxonomy, Tooling, Engine,
# Staff — and named Staff for this repository. Changed the same day, without
# argument, as this repository pre-committed in
# docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-vocabulary.md §3. The reasoning that
# produced `surface` is kept as history in layer.yaml; it is not erased.
#
# No standard version is carried, per GH-DEC-2026-017 §5 / A12: this declares a
# standing property, and a version here would read as a validity condition that
# every revision of the standard invalidated. Version-scoped state belongs in
# the derived conformance record.
layer: Staff
role: pep-shaped # §6.4 shape, confirmed by GH-DEC-2026-012 R1; a role is not a layer
standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/ # the body, unversioned on purpose
companion: net-kingdom/SECURITY-COMPANION.md
---
@ -186,21 +201,61 @@ not failure** — a memo sent back for improvement is the surface working.
## Layer Placement — Ruled
**PEP-shaped**, confirmed by `GH-DEC-2026-012` (answering `INFD-IN-0001`).
Not an Engine: this repository holds no state another layer reads at runtime for
a verdict, and renders no decision. Companion §5 is owed and statute §6.4
applies in full. The declaration is `layer.yaml`, in this repository's own voice
— a layer someone else states about you is not a declaration.
**Layer: `Staff`. Role: PEP-shaped.** Both are ruled.
The **shape** is ruled; the **layer value** is open. `GH-DEC-2026-012` R1 left
the layer to this repository to declare, and `surface` was written by
elimination — the presentation-and-binding tier, the runtime a human touches.
§3 of the model does not enumerate it, which the custodian's estate-wide sweep
surfaced on 2026-09-21. This repository holds that `surface` names a real tier
§3 omits, and will change the value without argument if `gate-house` rules the
vocabulary closed and names which of the four applies. Open as `INFD-IN-0006`;
the argument is `docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-vocabulary.md`. The
frontmatter value is unchanged pending that ruling, on purpose.
The **shape** was ruled by `GH-DEC-2026-012` R1 (answering `INFD-IN-0001`): not
an Engine — this repository holds no state another layer reads at runtime for a
verdict, and renders no decision. Companion §5 is owed and statute §6.4 applies
in full.
The **layer value** was ruled by `GH-DEC-2026-017` §3 (answering `INFD-IN-0006`)
on 2026-09-21. §3's vocabulary is **closed** and has four tokens — `Taxonomy`,
`Tooling`, `Engine`, `Staff`; comparison is ASCII case-insensitive and nobody is
asked to re-spell anything. `surface` is not among them, and the correct value
here is `Staff`, with `role: pep-shaped` untouched. `ops-mason` and `ops-warden`
are the precedent: Staff in the layer column, PEP-shaped in the role column.
This repository had pre-committed to changing both files the same day, without
argument, if the vocabulary was ruled closed and a value was named
(`docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-vocabulary.md` §3). It did. **The
reasoning that produced `surface` is not erased** — it is kept as history in
`layer.yaml`, because a value written by elimination against a vocabulary that
turned out to be closed is evidence about the vocabulary, not carelessness.
Two things follow, and are recorded rather than argued:
- **`informed-decision` was never a §11 non-conformance.** §11's obligations
attach to estate-authored repositories **in §4**, and this repository holds no
§4 catalog row. `GH-DEC-2026-017` §4 states that a run which grades it is
over-scoped, and requires every conformance run to state its scope. The
correct report is *declared voluntarily, outside catalog scope; value not in
the vocabulary, correction identified*. The correction was this repository's
to make and it made it.
- **The declaration's form changed too.** `INTENT.md` frontmatter **governs**;
`layer.yaml` is a **derived artifact** that must be marked derived, must name
`INTENT.md` as what it derives from, and must agree with it
(`GH-DEC-2026-017` §1 / A11). A declaration carries **no standard version**
(§5 / A12), so the `standard_version: "0.7"` this repository flagged is gone.
`ops-warden` owns the reference sidecar form and is updating it; this
repository applied the two ruled properties and follows that form for the rest.
One thing the ruling did **not** settle, carried as `INFD-IN-0007` rather than
treated as settled: §3.4 says Staff *"MUST NOT hold state that another layer
depends on at runtime"*, and this repository's presentation records are exactly
state `audit-core` depends on. The ruling reaches `Staff` by elimination — not
Engine per `GH-DEC-2026-012` R1, and nothing else in the four is true — which is
the same route this repository walked, and it gives the value. It does not say
how a deterministic, non-agentic repository that holds evidentiary state sits
inside the layer defined by non-determinism and agentic capability. **The value
is applied regardless**; the question is asked for the next repository in this
position, not as a condition on the change.
### §4 catalog membership — answered: yes
`GH-DEC-2026-017` §4 deliberately did **not** enrol this repository, because a
layer stated about a repository by another is not a declaration and that rule
applies to catalogue membership at least as strongly. The question was asked,
and this repository's answer is **yes**: see `docs/section-4-catalog-row.md`.
The ruling also confirmed that emitting a **presentation claim** does not
require a second catalog row: PEP and PIP are shapes a repository has, and §4

20
docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-vocabulary.md
View file

@ -1,5 +1,25 @@
# Decision request — is §3's layer vocabulary closed, and what is `surface`?
> **RULED, 2026-09-21 — `GH-DEC-2026-017`.** The vocabulary is **closed** at four tokens
> (`Taxonomy`, `Tooling`, `Engine`, `Staff`), comparison is case-insensitive, and the value
> for this repository is **`Staff`**, with `role: pep-shaped` untouched. That is the second
> row of §3's table below: *change both files to that value in one commit, same day, with
> no argument.* Done the same day, in `INTENT.md` (which now governs, per the same ruling)
> and in `layer.yaml` (now marked derived). The elimination reasoning below is kept as
> history in `layer.yaml` rather than erased.
>
> The ruling also held that this repository was **never a §11 non-conformance** — §11 binds
> repositories in §4 and this one has no row — and asked, rather than decided, whether it
> should take one. Answered in `docs/section-4-catalog-row.md`: **yes**.
>
> One part of §3's non-conditional request is answered as to the **value** and not as to
> the **fit**: §3.4's prohibition on Staff holding runtime state another layer depends on
> is not reached by the ruling. Asked once more as `INFD-IN-0007`. It blocks nothing and
> the value was applied regardless, as promised.
>
> **This document is not edited below this line.** It is the record of what this repository
> argued before it knew the answer, and it is more useful unretouched.
**Intake:** `INFD-IN-0006`
**To:** `gate-house` (owner of §11 and of the security layer model)
**Standard:** `net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md` (proposed)

164
docs/section-4-catalog-row.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
# Should `informed-decision` hold a §4 catalog row? — answered: **yes**
**Answers:** `GH-DEC-2026-017` §4, the open item gate-house carries as `GH-WP-0004-T06`
**To:** `gate-house` (author), `net-kingdom` (publisher of the catalog)
**Standard:** `net-kingdom/canon/standards/` — the security layer model, §3, §4, §9.6, §11
**Intake:** `INFD-IN-0006` (closed by the ruling); this document is its second half
**Raised by:** `gate-house`, which asked rather than enrolled
> **Derived-artifact note (§12).** This document restates §3, §4, §9.6 and §11 of the
> security layer model and quotes `GH-DEC-2026-017` and `GH-DEC-2026-018`. Derived from
> `net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md` as published 2026-09-09 (the
> **proposed** cut, held by `GH-DEC-2026-019`), from the amendment set
> `gate-house/docs/amendments/v0.8-section-11-declaration-amendments.md` v0.1, and from
> `gate-house/decisions/decisions.md` as of 2026-09-21. Where they and this differ, they
> govern.
---
## 1. The question, as gate-house put it
> *"Not ruled: whether `informed-decision` should become a §4 row. It holds a ruled
> boundary, is PEP-shaped, and sits on the approval path, which is a real argument. Adding
> a catalog row is a canon change, and a repository is **asked**, not enrolled — §11's own
> rule that a layer stated about a repository by another is not a declaration applies to
> catalogue membership at least as strongly."*
The manner of asking is worth recording before the answer, because it is the thing being
tested. gate-house had every argument it needed to add the row and did not add it. That is
§11's declaration rule applied against its own author's convenience, which is the same move
`access-engine` made when it raised gate-house's undeclared layer against gate-house.
**Answer: yes.** `informed-decision` asks for a §4 catalog row.
## 2. Why — and it is not the flattering reason
The tempting argument is that this repository holds a ruled boundary, is PEP-shaped, sits
on the approval path, and that every §4 Staff row with its shape — `ops-warden`,
`ops-mason` — is catalogued. That argument is true and it is not the one that decides it,
because it is an argument about belonging rather than about a cost anyone bears.
**The deciding argument is that being outside §4 makes this repository's evidence
obligation uncheckable, and that is worse for the estate than for this repository.**
`GH-DEC-2026-017` §4 is correct that §11 does not bind a repository outside §4, and
correct that a run which grades one is over-scoped. Applied here, that means:
- `layer.yaml` declares `evidence.kind: load-bearing` — presentation evidence is *the only
record of what a human was shown before binding*;
- §9.6 and §11 make a load-bearing source declare an emission guarantee per event class,
which is what makes §9.6 **checkable rather than reviewable**;
- and no conformance run may check that here, because there is no row to check.
So the current state is a repository asserting the strongest evidence property in the
model, voluntarily, with nothing in canon able to observe whether it holds. That is the
same shape as the defect the amendment round exists to close: a rule a careful implementer
can satisfy without doing the thing it exists to require. This repository would rather be
gradeable.
The secondary argument is `L3-independent-evidence-path`, the limit `GH-DEC-2026-012`
attached to the presentation claim: *the copy that is evidence MUST NOT be reachable only
through the party it is evidence about*. In this component the actor and the source are
the same, which is exactly the case where an external check is load-bearing rather than
ceremonial. A repository whose architecture rests on being audited independently should be
in the catalog that makes independent auditing mechanical.
## 3. What the row would say
| Repository | Layer | Role | Evidence source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `informed-decision` | `Staff` | `PEP-shaped` | `yes` |
`Staff` and `PEP-shaped` are ruled — `GH-DEC-2026-017` §3 and `GH-DEC-2026-012` R1 — and
match `ops-warden` and `ops-mason` exactly. The third column is A10's, and this repository
marks itself `yes` rather than leaving it `—`: it **emits** into the estate's evidence
stream, and A10 is explicit that custody is disjoint from emission, so `audit-core`
holding the record discharges nothing of this emitter's guarantee.
**No second row for the presentation claim.** `GH-DEC-2026-012` R2 already settled that:
PEP and PIP are shapes a repository has; §4 records the layers it occupies. One row.
## 4. The obligation this acquires, stated per event class
A `yes` in the evidence-source column triggers §11's emission-guarantee check. Under A10
that guarantee is **per event class** — *"a single repository-level guarantee over a stream
containing both a high-volume and a rare class is an average, not a declaration, and will
be satisfied by rate monitoring that cannot see the rare event go missing."*
This repository publishes three classes. The classification is **its own**, which §11
requires: *"which class an event falls in, and whether it is rare, is the source's
published classification; a conformance run is supplied that inventory and MUST NOT infer
it from an event name, payload, or observed rate, or the check becomes circular."*
| Event class | Kind | Classification | Detection surface required |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `presentation` | load-bearing | **volume** — one per render | Rate monitoring is permitted for this class, with a positive window and a positive minimum, **plus** reconciliation |
| `disposition` | load-bearing | **rare** | Heartbeat **and** reconciliation. Rate monitoring is forbidden for this class |
| `stance-application` | load-bearing | **rare** | Heartbeat **and** reconciliation |
All three are **load-bearing**. None is attributive, so none takes the attributive escape
of declaring a trade and stating that completeness is not claimed.
`disposition` is the class the whole obligation is about. A disposition is the binding act
— the moment a named human commits their identity to an act, in the vocabulary
`accept` / `decline` / `return` / `escalate`. Dispositions are rare by construction, and a
quiet month of them is indistinguishable from suppression by rate alone, which is
`approval-engine`'s argument for its own classes and is correct here for the same reason.
Classifying `disposition` as volume because it shares a stream with `presentation` is
precisely the averaging A10 forbids, and this repository names the three classes separately
so that the averaging is not available to it.
The design already exists at `docs/evidence-path-design.md` §5: reconciliation as the
primary form, per class — this repository's own count against `audit-core`'s event count
per class, divergence a finding — plus a heartbeat for the low-volume classes.
## 5. What this repository cannot yet do, said plainly
**The guarantee is owed and is not yet declarable.** It needs the local transactional
outbox (§9.4), a `cadence.yaml` in the form `approval-engine` set as the reference
instance, and sender registration with `audit-core`; the cadence depends on
`AUDIT-WP-0009` T04/T06, which are open. `docs/evidence-path-design.md` says the cadence
is declared and *"will not be described as operating until those land"*, and that stays
true here.
**This is not a reason to delay the row, and this repository asks that it not be treated as
one.** A10 already provides the honest shape: *"an unassessed row carries `—` and §11's
check reports it as unassessed rather than as conforming."* The row can land now, with the
evidence-source marking `yes` and the emission guarantee reported as **owed and not yet
declared** — a tracked non-conformance under §11's own four-state table, which is a state
the model has and which is more informative than absence. `informed-decision` would rather
be in the catalog as a source with an open guarantee than outside it with a load-bearing
evidence claim nobody may check.
If the catalog's authors prefer the row to wait until the guarantee is declarable, that is
their call to make and this repository does not contest it. It asks only that the reason be
recorded as a sequencing choice and not as a finding that this repository is not a source.
## 6. What this does not ask for
- **Not a second PDP, and not a decision surface.** `layer.yaml` declares
`decision_surfaces_exposed: none` and §6 is untouched. A row records a layer occupied,
never a permission acquired.
- **Not a change to §3.** The four-token vocabulary is closed and this repository declares
inside it, as ruled. `surface` is not being re-argued here; it is history in `layer.yaml`.
- **Not a resolution of the §3.4 question.** `INFD-IN-0007` asks how a deterministic,
non-agentic, evidence-holding repository sits in the layer §3.4 defines by
non-determinism and agentic capability. The row would make that question sharper, since a
catalogued Staff row is measured against §3.4 directly. It is asked, it blocks nothing,
and this repository takes `Staff` either way.
- **Not enrolment by correspondence.** This document is a declaration in this repository's
own voice, which is the only form §11 accepts. It is an answer to a question, and the
canon change is `gate-house`'s and `net-kingdom`'s to make or decline.
## 7. Summary
1. **Yes** — `informed-decision` asks for a §4 catalog row.
2. The row is `Staff` / `PEP-shaped` / evidence source `yes`; one row, no second row for
the presentation claim.
3. The deciding reason is that a load-bearing evidence claim outside §4 is uncheckable, not
that this repository belongs in the company of the rows that are there.
4. The emission guarantee is accepted **per event class**: `presentation` (load-bearing,
volume), `disposition` (load-bearing, rare), `stance-application` (load-bearing, rare) —
the two rare classes requiring heartbeat **and** reconciliation, not either alone.
5. The guarantee is **owed and not yet declarable**; the row should land with it marked
owed rather than wait for it, and either sequencing is the catalog authors' to choose.

72
intakes/intakes.md
View file

@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ state_hub_intake_id: "01a0c14e-f965-788f-8efb-4424f1f1ad08"
id: INFD-IN-0006
kind: intake
title: Is section 3's layer vocabulary closed, and what is `surface`?
status: open
status: closed
origin: coordination
origin_ref: the-custodian/docs/assessments/2026-09-21-layer-declaration-boundaries.md
priority: medium
@ -327,6 +327,26 @@ tags:
- conformance
created: '2026-09-21'
updated: '2026-09-21'
resolved_by: GH-DEC-2026-017
resolution: >-
RULED 2026-09-21. The section 3 vocabulary is CLOSED and has four tokens —
Taxonomy, Tooling, Engine, Staff — with comparison ASCII case-insensitive, so
no repository is asked to re-spell anything. `surface` is not a layer and this
repository's correct declaration is `layer: Staff, role: pep-shaped`, which
the ruling notes this repository's own file already reasons from twice.
Applied the same day in one commit, in INTENT.md and in layer.yaml, with no
argument, exactly as pre-committed; the elimination reasoning that produced
`surface` is kept as history in layer.yaml because the ruling's own reversal
condition names it. The ruling also held that this repository was NEVER a
section 11 non-conformance — section 11 binds estate-authored repositories IN
section 4 and this repository has no catalog row, so a run that grades it is
over-scoped — and it changed the declaration's FORM: INTENT.md governs,
layer.yaml is a derived artifact that must be marked derived and agree, and a
declaration carries no standard version, which removes the
`standard_version: "0.7"` this repository had flagged. Two things spawn from
it rather than close with it: INFD-IN-0007 (the section 3.4 fit, asked once
more) and the section 4 catalog-row question, answered YES in
docs/section-4-catalog-row.md.
description: >-
This repository declares `layer: surface` in both INTENT.md frontmatter and
layer.yaml. Section 3 of security-layer-model_v0.8.md enumerates four layers —
@ -372,3 +392,53 @@ description: >-
docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-vocabulary.md.
state_hub_intake_id: "01a0c14f-17b6-72fb-8951-8c933bd05d6b"
```
## INFD-IN-0007 — How does section 3's determinism cut reach Staff for this repository?
```yaml
id: INFD-IN-0007
kind: intake
title: How does section 3's determinism cut reach Staff for this repository?
status: open
origin: residual
origin_ref: INFD-IN-0006
priority: low
owner: gate-house
repo: informed-decision
lane: blue
tags:
- decision-request
- cross-repo
- conformance
created: '2026-09-21'
updated: '2026-09-21'
blocks_nothing: true
description: >-
GH-DEC-2026-017 closed INFD-IN-0006 and named the value: this repository is
`layer: Staff, role: pep-shaped`, and that value is APPLIED — both files
changed the day the ruling arrived, unconditionally, as pre-committed. This
intake is not a reservation on it and nothing waits on it. INFD-IN-0006 asked
one non-conditional question in two parts: WHICH value, and HOW section 3's
determinism cut reaches it given GH-DEC-2026-012 R1. The first part is
answered squarely. The second is answered by elimination — not an Engine per
R1, and nothing else in the four is true, therefore Staff, with ops-mason and
ops-warden as the precedent for Staff in the layer column and PEP-shaped in
the role column. That gives the value and it does not reach the objection this
repository actually raised, which was not about elimination but about fit:
section 3.4 defines Staff as interactive and NON-deterministic, working
through agentic capability, and says Staff repositories MUST NOT hold state
that another layer depends on at runtime. This repository is deterministic by
test (the same approval rendered to the same principal in the same role yields
the same view_hash), forbids an agent from completing its protected act at all
(AGENTS.md: humans bind, agents draft), and holds presentation evidence
audit-core depends on. Section 3 makes determinism the primary cut and this
repository falls on the deterministic side of it while being assigned the
non-deterministic layer. ASK: that the answer be written down for the next
repository in this position, which was the stated reason for asking the first
time — either that section 3.4's prohibitions bind a catalogued Staff row
differently than the elimination that reaches the layer, or that the cut is
not what this repository read it to be, or that this is a real tension carried
openly. Taking the section 4 row (docs/section-4-catalog-row.md) sharpens it,
since a catalogued Staff row is measured against section 3.4 directly. This
repository takes Staff either way and is not asking to be moved.
```

213
layer.yaml
View file

@ -1,50 +1,160 @@
# informed-decision — NetKingdom security layer declaration
# informed-decision — NetKingdom security layer declaration (DERIVED)
#
# Framework: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md
# Companion: net-kingdom/SECURITY-COMPANION.md v0.2
# THIS FILE DOES NOT GOVERN. GH-DEC-2026-017 §1 (A11) rules that the `layer:`
# key in INTENT.md frontmatter IS the declaration, and that an equivalent
# declaration file is a DERIVED ARTIFACT which must be marked as derived, must
# name INTENT.md as what it derives from, and must agree with it. §11 already
# said a repository declares its layer in its own INTENT.md; the file form was
# added to give the declaration a machine-readable shape, not a second
# authority.
#
# A disagreement between the two forms is a finding in its own right and must be
# reported rather than resolved away by precedence. There is none here: both
# files carried `surface` in the same casing before the ruling and both carry
# `Staff` after it, changed in one commit.
#
# Framework: net-kingdom/canon/standards/ — the body, UNVERSIONED on purpose.
# Companion: net-kingdom/SECURITY-COMPANION.md
# Voice: INTENT.md (this repository's own, per §11 "who must declare")
# Ruling: GH-DEC-2026-012 (gate-house@0a1d1d9) answered INFD-IN-0001
# Rulings: GH-DEC-2026-012 (INFD-IN-0001) — the shape
# GH-DEC-2026-017 (INFD-IN-0006) — the layer value, the form, the version
#
# Reference form: ops-warden's, adopted by audit-core and kings-guard, with
# kings-guard's adaptation for a repository with no Tooling contacts.
#
# GH-DEC-2026-012 R1 confirmed the SHAPE. The layer is declared here, in this
# repository's own voice, because a layer someone else states about you is not
# a declaration.
# kings-guard's adaptation for a repository with no Tooling contacts. ops-warden
# owns that form and is updating it for GH-DEC-2026-017 §1 and §5 in a parallel
# session; this file applies the two RULED properties (derived marking, absence
# of a standard version) and follows ops-warden's shape for everything else
# rather than inventing one.
schema_version: "0.1"
framework: netkingdom-security-layer-model
standard_version: "0.7"
companion_version: "0.2"
repository: informed-decision
# §3 vocabulary — UNDER RULING, value deliberately unchanged (INFD-IN-0006).
# §11 derived-artifact rule + GH-DEC-2026-017 §1.
derived: true
derives_from: INTENT.md
derives_from_note: >-
INTENT.md frontmatter governs. This file is regenerated from it by hand and
changes in the same commit, so it is derived at the same commit by
construction; if the two ever disagree, INTENT.md is this repository's answer
and the disagreement is itself a finding.
# NO standard_version, and no companion_version — GH-DEC-2026-017 §5 (A12).
# A layer declaration asserts a STANDING property: which layer this repository
# is. That does not change when the standard is revised, and a version here
# makes every revision read as though it invalidated the declaration. The field
# was flagged by this repository on 2026-09-21 and by access-engine in its own
# file; the ruling removes it estate-wide from ops-warden's reference form.
# Version-scoped state belongs in the derived conformance record, which must
# carry the version it was derived at. `companion_version` is removed on the
# same reasoning; it is a version pin in a declaration and nothing in the
# ruling's argument distinguishes it. Raised with ops-warden as part of the
# reference-form update rather than decided here for the estate.
# §3 vocabulary — RULED CLOSED, value corrected 2026-09-21 (INFD-IN-0006).
#
# `surface` denotes the presentation-and-binding tier: the runtime a human
# touches, where a decision rendered elsewhere is shown to a named person, that
# person binds their identity to the act, and the evidence that the presentation
# happened is produced. It was chosen by elimination: GH-DEC-2026-012 R1 ruled
# this repository out of Engine and left the layer to it to declare, and each
# remaining §3 value is false of it — not Staff (deterministic by construction,
# and holding state audit-core depends on at runtime, which §3.4 forbids Staff),
# not Tooling (persists nothing another layer reads), not Taxonomy (nothing but
# a runtime position).
# GH-DEC-2026-017 §3: the §3 vocabulary is CLOSED and has four tokens —
# Taxonomy, Tooling, Engine, Staff. Comparison is ASCII case-insensitive (§2 /
# A9), so no repository is asked to re-spell anything. `surface` is not among
# them: "surface is not a layer... Its correct declaration is layer: Staff, role:
# pep-shaped, which its own file already reasons from two ways." ops-mason and
# ops-warden are the precedent: Staff in the layer column, PEP-shaped in the
# role column.
#
# §3 of security-layer-model_v0.8.md does not enumerate `surface`, and
# flex-auth's validator reads the vocabulary as closed. Surfaced 2026-09-21 by
# the custodian's estate-wide sweep extending FLEX-WP-0030; never raised against
# this repository before. This repository holds that `surface` names a real tier
# §3 does not enumerate, and will change both files the same day without
# argument if gate-house rules the vocabulary closed and names the value.
# Changing it ahead of the ruling would pre-empt gate-house and destroy the
# evidence of what this repository actually concluded.
#
# Request: docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-vocabulary.md
layer: surface
# Changed the same day the ruling was received, in one commit, with no argument
# — exactly as this repository pre-committed in
# docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-vocabulary.md §3. `role: pep-shaped` is
# untouched and was already right; a role is not a layer (GH-DEC-2026-012 R2,
# restated by GH-DEC-2026-017 §3 for the declaration field).
layer: Staff
role: pep-shaped
declared_by: INTENT.md
declared_at: "2026-09-09"
ruling: GH-DEC-2026-012
declared_at: "2026-09-09" # the declaration; the VALUE was corrected 2026-09-21
value_corrected_at: "2026-09-21"
ruling: GH-DEC-2026-017
shape_ruling: GH-DEC-2026-012
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# HISTORY — why `surface` was written. KEPT ON PURPOSE, not erased.
#
# GH-DEC-2026-017 §3's reversal condition names this reasoning directly, so it
# has to remain readable: "§3's closure reverses on an argued amendment to §3,
# from a repository that bears a cost under the four-layer cut."
#
# From 2026-09-09 (commit f6376dd) to 2026-09-21 this file and INTENT.md both
# declared `layer: surface`, in the same casing, meaning the
# presentation-and-binding tier: the runtime a human touches, where a decision
# rendered elsewhere is shown to a named person, that person binds their
# identity to the act, and the evidence that the presentation happened is
# produced.
#
# It was chosen by ELIMINATION, not casually. GH-DEC-2026-012 R1 ruled this
# repository out of Engine and left the layer to it to declare, and each
# remaining §3 value was read as false of it:
# - not Staff — deterministic by construction (the same approval rendered to
# the same principal in the same role yields the same
# view_hash, asserted by test), and holding state audit-core
# depends on at runtime, which §3.4 forbids Staff;
# - not Tooling — persists nothing another layer reads;
# - not Taxonomy— nothing but a runtime position.
# Faced with picking a value it believed false or writing the true word and
# carrying the finding, this repository wrote the word and asked for a ruling.
# It did not ask for §3 to be amended in its favour, and it does not now.
#
# The ruling reaches Staff by the same elimination from the other end — not an
# Engine, and nothing else in the four is true, so Staff — and gives the value,
# which is what was asked for and what binds. The part of the elimination above
# that the ruling does not address is recorded as INFD-IN-0007 below. It is a
# question, not a reservation: the value is applied unconditionally.
#
# Request: docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-vocabulary.md
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# OPEN, non-blocking — INFD-IN-0007.
#
# §3.4 defines Staff as interactive and non-deterministic, working through
# agentic capability, and says Staff repositories MUST NOT hold state that
# another layer depends on at runtime. This repository is deterministic by test,
# forbids an agent from completing its protected act at all, and holds
# presentation evidence audit-core depends on. It is Staff by ruling and the
# declaration above says so. What is not yet written down is how §3's
# determinism cut reaches a deterministic, non-agentic, evidence-holding
# repository — the derivation this repository asked for as a non-condition, and
# which the ruling answers as far as the VALUE and not as far as the FIT.
# Asked once more of gate-house; no deadline, no dependency, nothing waits on it.
section_3_4_fit:
status: open
intake: INFD-IN-0007
blocks_nothing: true
# §4 catalog membership — ASKED by GH-DEC-2026-017 §4, ANSWERED here.
#
# gate-house deliberately did not enrol this repository: adding a row is a canon
# change, and §11's own rule — a layer stated ABOUT a repository BY another is
# not a declaration — applies to catalogue membership at least as strongly. The
# question was put, not decided. This repository's answer is YES, with the
# obligation that comes with it accepted rather than negotiated.
#
# Full argument: docs/section-4-catalog-row.md. Carried by gate-house as
# GH-WP-0004-T06.
catalog:
section_4_row_today: false
declared_voluntarily: true
scope_report: declared-voluntarily-outside-catalog-scope
requested: true
requested_at: "2026-09-21"
requested_row:
repository: informed-decision
layer: Staff
role: pep-shaped
evidence_source: "yes"
accepts_emission_guarantee: true
note: >-
Until the row exists, §11 does not bind this repository and a run that
grades it is over-scoped (GH-DEC-2026-017 §4). That is the reason to ask for
the row, not a reason to avoid it: this repository's presentation evidence
is the only record of what a human was shown before binding, and an evidence
obligation nobody is allowed to check is the weaker position.
# §6.4 — informed-decision is PEP-shaped: it causes a protected side effect on
# the far side of a decision (recording an approver entry against an approval
@ -160,7 +270,11 @@ binding_digest_relationship:
this linkage must be revisited before the widening ships — a fail-closed
consumer obeying a cyclic claim denies permanently.
# §5 applies to Staff. This is a browser-facing surface with no Tooling contact.
# §5 applies to Staff, and this repository is now Staff by ruling — so the line
# below is the §11 mechanical check landing on it directly rather than by
# analogy. It is a browser-facing surface with no Tooling contact, so the check
# is total with an empty map and this repository is CONFORMING on §5, not
# blocked-clean and not a declared gap.
tooling_contacts: []
# §11 — record non-Tooling clients so the check is total.
@ -202,6 +316,35 @@ evidence:
residual: compromised-surface-presents-x-attests-y
residual_closed: false
custody: same-bound-as-every-other-source # §16 decided: no stronger archive
# A10 (GH-DEC-2026-018 §5) — emission is marked, never inferred. This
# repository EMITS into the estate's evidence stream; audit-core holds
# custody, which is disjoint from emission and discharges nothing of this
# emitter's guarantee.
emission_guarantee_owed: true
event_classes:
- id: presentation
kind: load-bearing
classification: volume
note: >-
One per render. Classified volume by this repository, which is the
classification a conformance run is SUPPLIED and MUST NOT infer.
- id: disposition
kind: load-bearing
classification: rare
note: >-
The binding act. Rare and security-relevant: heartbeat AND
reconciliation, never rate monitoring alone — a quiet month of
dispositions is indistinguishable from suppression by rate.
- id: stance-application
kind: load-bearing
classification: rare
note: Fail-closed stance applied at a binding attempt. Same form as disposition.
emission_guarantee_status: not-yet-declarable
emission_guarantee_blocked_on: >-
The local transactional outbox (§9.4) and the cadence declaration are
designed (docs/evidence-path-design.md §5) and depend on audit-core's
AUDIT-WP-0009 T04/T06 and on sender registration. Declared as owed rather
than described as operating.
note: >-
GH-DEC-2026-012 states the residual is not closed in those words, and this
repository is not credited with closing it. Same disposition as

41
tests/test_layer_conformance.py
View file

@ -197,3 +197,44 @@ def test_classification_coverage_is_dated_and_complete_against_the_axis(stance_d
cov = stance_doc["classification_coverage"]
assert cov["as_of"]
assert cov["axis_values_enumerated"] == cov["axis_values_in_schema"] == len(AXIS_VALUES)
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------
# GH-DEC-2026-017 — INTENT.md governs; layer.yaml is derived and must agree;
# the vocabulary is closed at four tokens and case-insensitive; no version.
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAYER_VOCABULARY = {"taxonomy", "tooling", "engine", "staff"}
@pytest.fixture(scope="module")
def intent_frontmatter() -> dict:
text = (ROOT / "INTENT.md").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
_, front, _ = text.split("---\n", 2)
return yaml.safe_load(front)
def test_intent_declares_a_layer_inside_the_closed_vocabulary(intent_frontmatter):
assert intent_frontmatter["layer"].casefold() in LAYER_VOCABULARY
def test_layer_is_staff_as_ruled(intent_frontmatter):
assert intent_frontmatter["layer"].casefold() == "staff"
assert intent_frontmatter["role"] == "pep-shaped"
def test_sidecar_is_marked_derived_from_intent(layer_doc):
assert layer_doc["derived"] is True
assert layer_doc["derives_from"] == "INTENT.md"
def test_sidecar_agrees_with_intent(layer_doc, intent_frontmatter):
assert layer_doc["layer"].casefold() == intent_frontmatter["layer"].casefold()
assert layer_doc["role"] == intent_frontmatter["role"]
def test_declaration_carries_no_standard_version(layer_doc, intent_frontmatter):
for doc in (layer_doc, intent_frontmatter):
assert "standard_version" not in doc
assert "companion_version" not in doc
assert "_v0." not in str(intent_frontmatter.get("standard", ""))