tegwick
024946e9da
Housekeeping the ruling left behind, plus the one piece of blocked work that was substantially ours to move. INFD-IN-0001 closed with its resolution recorded, matching approval-engine's IN-0002 form. It was still open after GH-DEC-2026-012 answered it. INFD-IN-0003 and docs/evidence-path-design.md take up O-02, which was sitting in the blueprint as "mechanism unchosen". Read independence and the local transactional outbox are settled and not in question. The real question is what travels, and it is sharper for us than for approval-engine because a presentation record carries the brief and packet material actually shown to a human. Three candidates with costs; proposal is commitment-only for Stage 1 — hashes, principal, timestamps, acks, co-referenced approval id — which discharges limit 3 and removes our ability to alter the record, while leaving us able to erase the content. That residual is declared alongside the existing compromised-surface one rather than papered over. Deliberately not proposing the full binding document unilaterally: it would put commercial and personal material into the audit fabric under retention and export entitlements designed for audit events. That is a meaningful change in what audit-core holds and is its owner's to accept, not ours to assume. The third option, a separate evidence store, is refused here because that store has no owner and inventing one routes around the §16 decision against stronger archival custody. Cadence declared and its form argued rather than copied: approval-engine's heartbeat answer suits genuinely low-volume classes, but ours are mixed — presentations are one per render, while dispositions and stance applications are low-volume and are the security-relevant ones. Reconciliation per class as primary, heartbeat for the low-volume classes. Depends on AUDIT-WP-0009 T04/T06; declared, not claimed operating. INFD-IN-0002 files the tenant blocker as a tracked record rather than leaving it in message threads and a blueprint footnote. T07 and T08 now name their blocking intakes. 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
7.5 KiB
7.5 KiB
Intake records
INFD-IN-0001 — Layer placement and approver-UI ownership
id: INFD-IN-0001
kind: intake
title: Layer placement and approver-UI ownership
status: closed
origin: coordination
origin_ref: INFD-WP-0001-T02
priority: high
owner: gate-house
repo: informed-decision
lane: blue
tags:
- decision-request
- cross-repo
created: '2026-09-09'
updated: '2026-09-09'
resolution: >-
Resolved 2026-09-09 as GH-DEC-2026-012 (gate-house@0a1d1d9), within a day of
filing. All three ruled. R1: PEP-shaped, confirmed as proposed; the ruling
settles the shape, the layer stays this repository's to declare, so layer.yaml
is written in its own voice. R2: yes to a presentation claim and no second
catalog row — PEP and PIP are shapes a repository has — under three limits now
declared and tested in layer.yaml; limit 2 (never an input to the decision it
presents for) is load-bearing, since the self-dealing argument was accepted
because it holds. R3: option (b) as proposed, with the authority rule written
down — the binding digest is authoritative for what the request is, view_hash
only for what was shown, neither substitutable, and a disagreement between
them is a finding against the presenting surface rather than a fact about the
request. Linkage is co-reference; (c) was refused because nesting reproduces
the GH-DEC-2026-008 hash cycle. Also directed: build the stance map to v0.8
obligation 3 rather than migrate later, and inherit GH-DEC-2026-010 as a
declared open gap. Delivered in layer.yaml, pep-stance.yaml,
informed_decision/stance.py and tests/test_layer_conformance.py.
description: >-
approval-engine names an approvals inbox under Non-Goals, leaving the
browser-facing approver UI unowned; key-cape KEY-WP-0013-T02 is blocked on a
client_id and callback URI no component has claimed, and approval-engine
recorded in docs/keycape-service-registrations.md that they must come from
that component's owner. informed-decision claims the surface and asks
gate-house to rule on three things before any code is written: (R1) layer and
role, proposed PEP-shaped under statute §6.4 and companion §5; (R2) whether a
presentation attestation makes this a PIP as well, or whether presentation
evidence must reach consumers only via audit-core, noting §17 has no assigned
request-claim schema owner; (R3) the relationship between informed-decision's
view_hash and approval-engine's binding digest, which both claim to
canonicalize "the binding" but cover different material. R3 is the highest
risk: shipping both without a stated authority rule leaves the estate with two
canonicalizations of one act. Proposal is (b) — distinct attestations with the
binding digest authoritative for replay and view_hash authoritative only for
what was shown. Full request: docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-placement.md.
Blocks INFD-WP-0001 T05 and T07; T03, T04 and T06 proceed regardless.
state_hub_intake_id: "01a08610-f458-7fd5-b284-26a65d1d73c2"
INFD-IN-0002 — Human access tokens cannot carry tenant:platform
id: INFD-IN-0002
kind: intake
title: Human access tokens cannot carry tenant:platform
status: open
origin: coordination
origin_ref: INFD-WP-0001-T07
priority: high
owner: key-cape
repo: informed-decision
lane: blue
tags:
- decision-request
- cross-repo
- blocker
created: '2026-09-09'
updated: '2026-09-09'
description: >-
Raised by key-cape (KEY-WP-0013-T05) while reviewing the approver client
shape, and it blocks INFD-WP-0001-T07. The tenant claim on a human token
resolves from the directory user record via effectiveTenant(user); no adapter
populates domain.User.Tenant, so every human token falls back to the platform
default tenant:coulomb. The per-client tenant field, which is how the two
approval service clients carry tenant:platform, is read only on the
client_credentials path. approval-engine compares tenant by exact string
equality and pins near-miss spellings as refused, so an approver token issued
today would be rejected and the failure would surface as a rejected approval
rather than as a registration defect. Two resolutions: directory-sourced
(tenant becomes a property of the person and changes everywhere, needs a
directory attribute and an owner for who is a platform-zone human), or
registration-bound and fail-closed (symmetric with the service registrations
and with decision 5ed3fb35, but writes a cross-tenant capability into the
issuer). informed-decision prefers registration-bound: under it the tenant is
a property of the surface and its registration, which is exactly what the
pre-sign binding slice commits, whereas directory-sourced makes tenant
describe the person, which is closer to awareness than to binding. key-cape
leans the same way but will not implement either unilaterally. Not this
repository's to decide alone; routed to key-cape, approval-engine and
gate-house. If registration-bound is chosen, the condition that it holds only
because registrations are static and deployment-owned should be written into
the contract rather than left as reasoning in a message. Blocks T07; the
client_id and callback URI will not be published until it is resolved, since
registering a client that fails closed at first use is the failure key-cape
flagged.
INFD-IN-0003 — The independent evidence path: what travels to audit-core
id: INFD-IN-0003
kind: intake
title: The independent evidence path — what travels to audit-core
status: open
origin: residual
origin_ref: INFD-WP-0001-T05
priority: high
owner: audit-core
repo: informed-decision
lane: blue
tags:
- decision-request
- cross-repo
created: '2026-09-09'
updated: '2026-09-09'
description: >-
GH-DEC-2026-012 limit L3 requires the evidence copy to reach audit-core
independently of informed-decision, because here the actor being audited and
the evidence source are the same component. Read independence and a local
transactional outbox are settled and not in question. The open question is
what travels, and it is sharper here than for approval-engine because a
presentation record contains the brief and packet material actually shown to a
human, which is frequently commercially or personally sensitive. Three
candidates with costs are in docs/evidence-path-design.md: (a) commitment only
— hashes, principal, timestamps, acks, co-referenced approval id — which
discharges limit 3 and removes our ability to alter the record but not to
erase the content; (b) the full binding document, which survives our
compromise but puts commercial and personal material into the audit fabric
under retention and export entitlements designed for audit events, a
meaningful change in what audit-core holds and its owner's to accept or
refuse; (c) a split with a separate evidence store, refused here because that
store has no owner and inventing one routes around the §16 decision against
stronger archival custody. informed-decision proposes (a) for Stage 1 with the
erasure residual declared alongside the existing compromised-surface residual,
and asks whether the content question is audit-core's as custodian or
gate-house's as doctrine. Also requests a sender registration and asks whether
reconciliation plus a heartbeat for low-volume classes is the right cadence
form for a mixed-volume source — presentations are high-volume, dispositions
and stance applications are low-volume and are the security-relevant ones.
Cadence depends on AUDIT-WP-0009 T04/T06 and is declared, not claimed
operating. The registration tenant is coupled to INFD-IN-0002. Blocks
INFD-WP-0001-T08.