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

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)