Last full rewrite was 2026-09-11, when the file correctly said "nothing
is deployed." Sixteen days of production reality since then went
unrecorded here: the decision overview and its list action
(INFD-WP-0003/0004), the layer correction to Staff (GH-DEC-2026-017),
audit-core going live (AUDIT-WP-0009 finished), the walking-skeleton
proof landing (INFD-WP-0001-T08), and today's login fixes, requesting-
party field, and two approved declaration-form amendments.
Rewrote Status, Layer, and Open against directly-observed live state
(kubectl exec inspect, fresh pytest runs: 382/66 local, 440/8 with the
real Approval Engine) rather than carrying old numbers forward.
Corrected one line in Out of Scope that read as false now that the
overview exists (clarified it lists this repo's own memos, not an
approval-engine list capability). Tightened the decision_attributable
claim now that flex-auth can sign but this repository still doesn't
verify.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: sonnet
Assistant-Process: 169987@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 322ef1ef-9048-4021-8570-b6d6f6347999
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 359683@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: eebdc939-7a9b-4e50-9d39-c8437e8a14ec
approval-engine APPROVAL-WP-0002-T01 is still progress and its namespace has no
pods, so the live end-to-end proof cannot run. Built everything that does not
depend on it, with the engine behind a Protocol plus a fake carrying its real
refusal semantics, so its arrival is a wiring change rather than a build.
- memo.py: the Decision Memo, versions, binding document. Principal, Scope,
Awareness and Hat are dataclasses rather than dicts because the canonicalizer
requires a shape and a missing key should fail at construction rather than
deep inside hashing — which is exactly how it failed twice while building
this. Field names follow the governed canonicalizer (item_id, severity,
locator): the published vectors are the contract, so the object was aligned to
them rather than the reverse.
- presentation.py: the sole writer of view_hash. One writer, one canonicalizer,
one place to audit. Acknowledgment is an explicit method call and nothing
infers it from scroll, dwell or focus.
- disposition.py: verbs and guards G_NOAGENT, G_STEP, G_PRES, G_ACK, G_REASONS,
G_SEALED. accept is ABSENT from weak steps rather than present-and-disabled,
because a greyed-out accept still teaches the wrong model. Only accept reaches
the engine; a memo return is not represented there at all.
- provenance.py: claim routes per A-16. assert_human_control_dischargeable
refuses a registration-supplied human, so PR-11's limitation fires at the
point of use instead of sitting in a document.
- evidence.py: local outbox, commitment-only records carrying the
GH-DEC-2026-014 §4 existence assertion, per-class reconciliation counts, and a
custody-locator guard that rejects credentialed URLs (PR-12).
- approval_client.py: 409 duplicate_approver is success, 409 conflict terminal,
503 fail-closed, approval:consume refused before a token is requested.
87 tests pass, including every negative case in the Use Case Catalog and that a
fail-closed outcome is recorded as a stance application with no verb field —
never as a decline, because the human did not make one.
T08 stays progress: the live proof is the remainder.
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
Two rulings landed and both corrected something.
GH-DEC-2026-013 accepted our binding-versus-awareness argument, wrote it into
the record as its §6, and did not change the outcome — it sharpened the defect.
Two different facts share one field named tenant: the act-scope, a property of
the act that our binding slice commits, and the principal's membership, a
property of the person that approval-engine exact-matches. Gate House's
correction stands: a binding slice that must commit the scope being entered
should commit that scope, not borrow a membership claim to stand in for it. Our
schema already does — binding.target IS the act-scope and is inside view_hash —
so no field was added, only a statement (PR-08) and a provenance record (PR-09),
since key-cape emits tenant as a bare string.
key-cape had already implemented registration-bound tenancy on 2026-09-09,
correct under both candidate rulings, so the fail-closed-at-first-use risk that
made us withhold the client strings was already retired. IN-0002 closed. The one
remaining input to T07 is the deployed origin.
GH-DEC-2026-014 granted commitment-only evidence and bounded it. It satisfies
non-alteration and NOT reconstructability, and must not be described otherwise
anywhere. It also corrected our wording of the gap: we wrote that it leaves us
able to erase the content, which understates it. Commitment-only moves integrity
out of our control and leaves availability entirely inside it — the party that
can withhold the content is the party the evidence is about. Limit 3's condition
reduced, not removed.
The grant carries a condition we did not propose and would not have thought of:
the path must assert that committed content exists and where custody sits, so
non-production is a finding attributable to the custodian rather than an
unremarkable blank. A commitment with no assertion that something is being
committed to is indistinguishable from a commitment to nothing. Booked as PR-53,
and marked not-a-reversal-candidate.
Recorded the meta-rule Gate House named, now in its third setting here: unknown
versus absent in the stance map, directory-asserted versus registration-supplied
in the tenant claim, erased versus never held in the evidence path. Wherever a
system reaches one appearance by two routes, the record must say which route.
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
T05 written after the ruling rather than before it, which was the point of
gating it. GH-DEC-2026-012 limit 3 did most of the shaping: the evidence copy
must reach audit-core independently of this component, because here the actor
being audited and the evidence source are the same. Booked as four binding
implementation consequences plus O-02, which must be resolved before T08 ships —
"we will add the independent path later" is how limit 3 becomes
limit-3-in-principle.
Other constraints fixed in the blueprint: presentation/ is the only writer of
view_hash; the approval-engine client exposes no validity cache; a fail-closed
outcome is never recorded as an approver's decline, since the human made none;
the assurance shape is cited from key-cape's contract rather than restated so it
cannot drift; and no polling loop may synthesise the inbox approval-engine
refuses to provide.
T06 closed with the SCOPE.md rewrite the ruling unblocked. It carries a "What
this repository does not claim" section, because a scope file listing only
capabilities overstates them: the decision path is not validated while
GH-DEC-2026-010 is open, the residual is not closed, view_hash is not inside the
approval entry, and nothing is deployed.
Two open items block the remainder. O-01, the human token tenant, blocks T07 and
is not ours alone to decide. O-02, the independent evidence path, blocks T08.
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
fix-consistency surfaced that GOAL.md's `repo_flavor: project` was wrong.
project-repository-flavor_v0.1.md reserves the prj- flavor for bounded
cross-repo coordination efforts and says durable products use INTENT.md and an
ordinary category. informed-decision is a durable product, so the C-35
"prj- flavor forbids shipping both INTENT.md and GOAL.md" contradiction was
self-inflicted rather than a real conflict.
- .repo-classification.yaml: category product, domain infotech.
- GOAL.md: drop repo_flavor/project_status, add a flavor note explaining that
GOAL.md is retained as the stage statement alongside a stable INTENT.md.
- SCOPE.md: honestly empty — states that nothing is implemented and that
INFD-WP-0001-T06 rewrites it after the gate-house ruling and the specs.
- AGENTS.md: shared State Hub / session / workplan boilerplate, plus the hard
rules for this repository — never decide, never own approval state, never
invent identity, never let awareness enter view_hash, never let an agent
bind, never fork the schema, fail closed.
- INFD-WP-0001: T01 records both corrections; T06 now rewrites SCOPE.md.
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
