informed-decision asked for the caveat under which a registration-bound human
tenant is safe to be a condition of the capability rather than reasoning in a
message, so a future change to registration policy has to confront it. They were
right that it was only prose: the contract stated it, a separate test asserted
registration_endpoint is absent, and nothing connected the two -- so a session
adding dynamic registration would have seen a test about discovery metadata, not
a warning about relabelling users.
The test asserts both halves together: that a client-declared tenant is issued,
and that dynamic registration is not advertised. Whichever is removed first, the
failure points at the other. The message carries the reasoning rather than the
observation -- anyone able to register a client could relabel the users who log in
through it -- and names the two ways out.
Verified in both directions rather than assumed: advertising a
registration_endpoint fails it with the escalation message, and neutering
humanTenant fails it with the message saying to remove the guard along with the
capability it protects.
This is not a vote on the tenant question. It makes one option's precondition
checkable; if option 1 lands, the capability and this guard are removed together.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NV9oijZukGyGbRQGGKnK4P
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 713576@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 384c511d-9bce-4cb8-a676-2aef6c0c8df6
