informed-decision/layer.yaml
tegwick 1fb17aec6b Apply GH-DEC-2026-015/016 and the audit-core registration; both blockers cleared
Origin and evidence path both landed today.

T07 origin: railiance-apps deployed decisions.coulomb.social and corrected the
hostname in this repo — not the decide.coulomb.social this workplan proposed.
Verified here rather than taken on report: both paths 200, TLS verify 0, Let's
Encrypt cert valid to 2026-12-09.

T08: audit-core registered the source with every field as proposed and landed
the detection half. INFD-IN-0003 closed. Their refinements booked — reconciliation
on the high-volume class too, since rate detects a stream stopping but never a
stream missing the particular renders that mattered, which is exactly our threat
model; and PR-12, the custody locator must be a stable non-secret identifier
because redact scans data and an existence declaration arriving without its
pointer looks complete while being useless.

INFD-IN-0004 ruled as GH-DEC-2026-015: gate-house reversed itself and nesting is
permitted for this pair. The decisive ground was not the cycle argument we led
with — our binding slice canonicalizes principal and target, two of the five
digest fields, so co-reference left us performing a partial recomputation of one
act in a second vocabulary, closer to the translation R3 forbade than nesting
is. Our ordering objection was withdrawn as mistaken.

The permission is conditioned and NOT ACTIVE until approval-engine states its
presentation exclusion as normative and tested. layer.yaml is deliberately
unchanged and carries nesting_permission_active false — we do not activate on
our own initiative.

GH-DEC-2026-016 ruled NC-03. Its §5 is live rather than hypothetical and is
booked as PR-11: principal_type: human is a property of the client registration,
structurally the same shape as the gap-route tenant, so a human-in-the-loop
control must not be discharged on it as verified humanity.

T07 stays progress: the submission to key-cape is written but unsent, blocked by
the local permission classifier rather than by any repository.

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
2026-09-10 19:19:10 +02:00

201 lines
8.8 KiB
YAML

# informed-decision — NetKingdom security layer declaration
#
# Framework: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md
# Companion: net-kingdom/SECURITY-COMPANION.md v0.2
# Voice: INTENT.md (this repository's own, per §11 "who must declare")
# Ruling: GH-DEC-2026-012 (gate-house@0a1d1d9) answered INFD-IN-0001
#
# Reference form: ops-warden's, adopted by audit-core and kings-guard, with
# kings-guard's adaptation for a repository with no Tooling contacts.
#
# GH-DEC-2026-012 R1 confirmed the SHAPE. The layer is declared here, in this
# repository's own voice, because a layer someone else states about you is not
# a declaration.
schema_version: "0.1"
framework: netkingdom-security-layer-model
standard_version: "0.7"
companion_version: "0.2"
repository: informed-decision
layer: surface
role: pep-shaped
declared_by: INTENT.md
declared_at: "2026-09-09"
ruling: GH-DEC-2026-012
# §6.4 — informed-decision is PEP-shaped: it causes a protected side effect on
# the far side of a decision (recording an approver entry against an approval
# object). Companion §5 is owed and §6.4 applies in full.
#
# Built to v0.8 obligation 3, not v0.7, per GH-DEC-2026-011 — see pep-stance.yaml.
pep_stance: pep-stance.yaml
protected_action: "Approver entry recorded against an approval object (POST /v1/approvals/{id}/entries)"
decision_engine: access-engine
# §6 — no repository other than access-engine exposes an authorization decision.
# This surface renders a question and records a human's answer. A disposition is
# evidence of an act, never a verdict.
decision_surfaces_exposed: none
# §3.3 / GH-DEC-2026-012 R2 — YES to a presentation claim, and NO second catalog
# row: PEP and PIP are shapes a repository has; §4 records the layers it
# occupies. The permission carries three limits, and they are the substance of
# it rather than caveats on it.
presentation_claim:
emitted: true
carries: presentation-only
limits:
- id: L1-presentation-only
rule: >-
The claim carries presentation and nothing else. It MUST NOT carry,
restate, summarise or imply the decision, the verdict, or whether the
act was permitted. A consumer learns from it only what was SHOWN, never
what was DECIDED.
- id: L2-not-an-input
rule: >-
The claim MUST NOT be an input to the decision it presents for. A policy
reading view_hash to decide whether an act is permitted would let the
presenting surface contribute to its own authorization.
note: >-
Load-bearing, not a formality. GH-DEC-2026-012 accepted this
repository's argument that a renderer attesting its own rendering is not
the self-dealing that kept the approval object out of access-engine —
but only because this limit holds. Without it the two collapse into the
same failure.
- id: L3-independent-evidence-path
rule: >-
The evidence copy reaches audit-core INDEPENDENTLY of this repository.
The claim endpoint and the evidence path are different things and
neither substitutes for the other. The copy that is evidence MUST NOT be
reachable only through the party it is evidence about.
note: >-
The limit that matters most here: audit evidence is protected from the
actor being audited, and in this component the actor and the source are
the same. Architecture consequence, tracked in
docs/specs/ArchitectureBlueprint.md.
# §17 — the shared request-claim schema is still unowned. This repository
# publishes at its own boundary and yields to that schema when it exists.
# Position accepted by GH-DEC-2026-012 and matching approval-engine's in
# APPROVAL-IN-0001.
request_claim_schema:
status: unowned-upstream
local_shape: published-at-own-boundary
yields_to: taxonomy-request-claim-schema
# GH-DEC-2026-012 R3 — (b), with the authority rule written down.
binding_digest_relationship:
ruling: GH-DEC-2026-012
view_hash_authoritative_for: what-was-shown
binding_digest_authoritative_for: what-the-request-is
binding_digest_owner: approval-engine
substitutable: false
disagreement_is: >-
A finding against the presenting surface, never a fact about the request.
linkage: co-reference
linkage_rule: >-
The presentation record carries the approval or binding identifier
explicitly, and both attestations are read against that one reference. This
repository MUST NOT recompute or restate approval-engine's binding digest
from its own vocabulary — it references the digest that layer computed and
recorded.
# GH-DEC-2026-015 (INFD-IN-0004) re-ruled: nesting is PERMITTED for this pair,
# CONDITIONED and NOT YET ACTIVE. view_hash may carry binding.digest as a
# field, and our binding slice then stops independently canonicalizing act
# material — but only once approval-engine states its presentation exclusion
# as NORMATIVE and TESTED rather than design intent.
#
# "Co-reference remains in force until that condition is met; the permission
# activates then. You do not act on your own initiative here."
#
# So co-reference below is still the operative rule and this file is
# deliberately unchanged. See docs/finding-r3-linkage-conflict.md.
reruled_by: GH-DEC-2026-015
nesting_permitted_when: >-
approval-engine states the presentation exclusion from binding.digest as
normative and tested. Until then co-reference is in force. Do not activate
on this repository's own initiative.
nesting_permission_active: false
nesting_forbidden: >-
view_hash MUST NOT contain the binding digest, and MUST NOT travel inside
hashed request material while containing it. Option (c) was refused because
nesting reproduces the hash cycle that made GH-DEC-2026-008 unimplementable:
a claim required to name the digest of a request that would come to contain
it, where a fail-closed consumer denies permanently.
# §5 applies to Staff. This is a browser-facing surface with no Tooling contact.
tooling_contacts: []
# §11 — record non-Tooling clients so the check is total.
non_tooling_clients: []
intended_non_tooling_clients:
- target: approval-engine
layer: engine
rationale: >-
GET /v1/approvals/{id} and /claim (approval:read) to render; POST
/v1/approvals/{id}/entries (approval:approve) to record a binding. Never
/consume. Requirements: approval-engine/docs/approver-surface-requirements.md.
- target: access-engine
layer: engine
rationale: >-
Decision consumed before rendering an approval to a person. A 200 from
approval-engine is not entitlement. This surface consumes a decision and
never renders one.
- target: key-cape
layer: engine
rationale: >-
Identity. Authorization-code + PKCE browser client. Identity is imported,
never invented here.
- target: audit-core
layer: engine
rationale: >-
Evidence destination for presentation records and dispositions. Must be an
independent path per limit L3-independent-evidence-path.
- target: state-hub
layer: not-catalogued
rationale: >-
Progress events. Outside §5 by the v0.5 scope rule. Recorded, not policed.
# §9.6 — presentation evidence is load-bearing: it is the only record of what a
# human was shown before binding. Atomicity and attestation cover accident and
# later tampering, never a compromised source.
evidence:
kind: load-bearing
residual: compromised-surface-presents-x-attests-y
residual_closed: false
custody: same-bound-as-every-other-source # §16 decided: no stronger archive
note: >-
GH-DEC-2026-012 states the residual is not closed in those words, and this
repository is not credited with closing it. Same disposition as
approval-engine's equivalent residual for adversarial omission at a
compromised source.
# INHERITED DECLARED GAP — GH-DEC-2026-010.
#
# Obligation 1 now requires a decision be ATTRIBUTABLE to access-engine. No
# consumer can satisfy that today: flex-auth's decision envelope is unsigned.
# This is a declared §13 gap tracked as FLEX-WP-0024, not a clean path this
# repository can walk.
#
# Stated here, and in SCOPE.md and ArchitectureBlueprint.md, because
# GH-DEC-2026-012 requires it be said in this repository's own documents rather
# than describing validation as complete.
inherited_gaps:
- id: GH-DEC-2026-010-attributability
obligation: 1
gap: >-
A decision consumed from access-engine cannot today be proven to have come
from access-engine — the envelope is unsigned.
tracked_by: FLEX-WP-0024
consequence_here: >-
This surface's record can show that a decision was obtained and what it
said. It cannot yet show it was access-engine that said it. Validation of
the decision path MUST NOT be described as complete while this is open.
status: open
declared_shapes:
"5.1": []
"5.2": []
"5.3": []