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

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

intakes/intakes.md

@@ -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.
+```