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
