diff --git a/intakes/intakes.md b/intakes/intakes.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..04d62a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/intakes/intakes.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Intake records
+
+## KEY-IN-0001 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11)
+
+```yaml
+id: KEY-IN-0001
+kind: intake
+title: 'Declaration requested: state this repository''s layer in INTENT.md (security
+  layer model §11)'
+status: open
+origin: cross-repo
+origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.4 §11
+priority: low
+owner: key-cape
+requested_by: gate-house
+proposed_layer: Tooling
+description: 'A conformance sweep on 2026-08-28 found this repository has no layer
+  declaration of its own. It carries a layering review note gate-house wrote into
+  the top of its INTENT.md on 2026-08-24, and that note names a layer — but the words
+  are gate-house''s, sitting above a line admitting the body is unadapted. Section
+  11 has since been amended to say so explicitly: a layer stated about a repository
+  by another repository is not a declaration; only the repository''s own file, in
+  its own voice, conforms. Seven of fifteen estate-authored repositories have declared;
+  this is one of the eight that have not, and the standard does not claim adoption
+  on the basis of notes gate-house wrote. REQUESTED: state the layer in INTENT.md
+  in your own voice, or contest it. PROPOSED LAYER: Tooling. Packaged identity tooling
+  (authelia, lldap, privacy-idea) behind a versioned IAM profile; authentication only.
+  Worth stating explicitly that key-cape is not an authorization decision point, since
+  ''auth'' is ambiguous across the estate and access-engine owns the decision. Note
+  also that the components key-cape packages are not catalogued individually — if
+  you think they should be, say so. Contesting is a real option and costs nothing
+  — the three repositories that reviewed this model each returned a correction, two
+  of which changed the standard. If the proposed layer is wrong for what this repository
+  actually does, that is more useful to us than a label added to close a checkbox.
+  Standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.4.md.'
+created: '2026-08-28T21:01:53.604723Z'
+updated: '2026-08-28T21:01:53.604723Z'
+```