GH-DEC-2026-013 §5 is a finding nobody asked for and ours to implement: tenant is
a bare string, so a consumer cannot tell a zone the directory asserted about the
person from one a registration supplied about the client they came through.
approval-engine exact-matches that string while its contract reads as though it
relies on the first -- the check is sound and the property a reader infers from
it is absent. gate-house named the property and left the mechanism to us.
Every token now carries tenant_source beside tenant: directory, registration or
default. Advertised in claims_supported, and asserted at the token level on both
grants rather than only in the resolution function, since the claim a consumer
reads is the thing under obligation.
Three values where the ruling names two, which is the judgement here. Labelling
an unasserted profile default as directory would reproduce the same defect one
level down -- a consumer reading an assertion the identity layer never made. The
ruling cites GH-DEC-2026-011 §3 on unknown versus absent for the case it
examined; the same rule applies to our own fallback. The agreement case resolves
to directory deliberately: if a registration declares the zone the directory also
assigned, the directory did assert it, and reporting the weaker source would
understate what is known.
Also corrects the guard shipped in 5f516a0. Its failure message offered two ways
out of adding dynamic registration, and condition (b) voids the second: admitting
dynamic registration voids the registration-bound shape that day, whatever state
the adapter is in. The message named an inadmissible resolution in the exact
place someone would read it while making that change.
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
approval-engine answered the presenting-actor question we put to them and the
answer withdrew the client: nobody presents approval-engine-operator. Nothing in
their repository obtains an OAuth token, and scope by scope the bundle never
described a single actor -- approve belongs to the human client, emit is
redundant, and no requester identity was ever settled for create. Annotated as
withdrawn in the example config and the packet rather than deleted, because they
asked for it to stay authenticable under CCR-2026-0018 if a presenter appears.
The separation-of-duties observation is kept because it constrains the
re-request: approve must not travel with the operational scopes.
Raised rather than filed: "do not provision" cannot undo a provision. The client
went live in the 2026-09-09 attended rollout, so the estate now holds a
confidential credential that can create and approve approvals, that nobody
presents, and that no consumer awaits. Standing capability with no counterparty
is a worse resting state than either provisioning it for a named presenter or
disabling it. Disablement is KeyCape's to execute and not KeyCape's to decide
alone, so it goes to the owners rather than into a commit.
Also records GH-DEC-2026-013 conditions (a) and (b) in the tenant contract, both
of which strengthen what we had written about ourselves. Row four is normative,
and in the direction we would not have guessed: a future change preferring the
DIRECTORY is also void, because "the directory won" is still a winner and picking
any winner turns a refusal into a silent cross-tenant assertion. And lifting the
dynamic-registration exclusion now VOIDS the registration-bound shape that day
rather than reopening it for review -- our "must be revisited" was too weak.
The shape is recorded as a declared bounded gap, not the terminal state.
Verification note: the Go suite could not be run green for this commit because a
peer session is mid-edit on token.go and human_tenant_test.go for the §5
provenance work. Every file in this commit is YAML or Markdown; both YAML files
were parsed and the example config's scope set and tenant were asserted unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016uV8zoCKpA1WRAxsKRYbdH
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1182213@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 966597b9-ae61-46a4-8b9e-1594ab3ec4ad
informed-decision replied on KEY-WP-0013-T05 asking for one thing that is ours:
the caveat under which a registration-bound human tenant is safe should be a
condition of the capability, so a future change to registration policy has to
confront it, rather than reasoning left in a message. They will hold the approver
registration, so they are the party that inherits the risk.
The contract now states it as a condition rather than a caveat, in a form that
says removing the paragraph is not the decision, and points at the test that
enforces it.
I also wrote a guard test for this and then deleted it: tests/profile has
asserted registration_endpoint's absence all along, and a peer session was
concurrently writing a better guard that asserts both halves together -- the
capability still issuing, and the endpoint still absent -- so whichever is
removed first the failure points at the other. That connection is the whole
value, and a third assertion of the same fact would have been the duplication
this repository keeps correcting. The contract cites theirs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016uV8zoCKpA1WRAxsKRYbdH
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1182213@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 966597b9-ae61-46a4-8b9e-1594ab3ec4ad
KEY-WP-0013-T05's tenant blocker did not need the decision it was waiting on. The
two proposed resolutions differ in where a human's tenant comes from -- the
directory record, or the client registration -- and an implementation exists that
is correct under either, so the choice can be made later without another
migration.
A client registration may now declare a tenant. humanTenant() resolves it by four
rules: no declaration keeps the directory answer unchanged; a declared zone
applies where the directory has placed the user nowhere; agreement passes; and a
declared zone conflicting with a directory assignment refuses issuance rather
than relabelling the user.
The refusal is the design, not an edge case. A registration can bind a zone for
unplaced users and can never move a placed one, so this gets the approval chain
its tenant:platform without writing a general cross-tenant override into the
issuer. It fails closed rather than picking a winner, because either answer would
be a silent cross-tenant assertion, and it reports 403 with
error_type: tenant_binding so an operator can tell a misconfigured registration
from a rejected login. If the owners later populate directory tenants, the same
code stops supplying the zone and starts enforcing agreement with it.
Safe only because client registrations are static and deployment-owned. The
tenant contract records that this rule must be revisited if dynamic client
registration is ever admitted.
Tests cover all four rules; neutering the conflict check fails the relabel test
rather than passing silently.
T05 now waits on one thing only: the client_id and callback URI from
informed-decision once it has a deployed origin.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016uV8zoCKpA1WRAxsKRYbdH
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1182213@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 966597b9-ae61-46a4-8b9e-1594ab3ec4ad
Operator decision 5ed3fb35-eca9-413a-82b9-95171ba85bf6 accepts tenant:platform
as the platform management tenant for the Glas approval chain, requiring exact
spelling across the approval store, the service-client JWT claim and the
lifecycle CheckRequest.
Changes the tenant field on secrets-engine-approval and approval-engine-operator
only, in the registration fixture and the provisioning packet. Unrelated clients
and the human directory default keep tenant:coulomb, and no audience, scope,
subject, role, lifetime or MFA grant changes.
Adds issuance evidence that the approval shape emits tenant:platform exactly and
never an alias the caller requests, that the OpenBao client gains no
cross-tenant reach, and a fixture guard pinning every reviewed client's tenant.
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
Answers the GLAS-WP-0015 tenant-alignment request. The JWT tenant is
tenant:coulomb for all four reviewed service registrations; the approval store
tenant and the policy tenant belong to other owners and KeyCape does no
normalization between them. No mapping is invented and no live registration
changes.
Adds regression tests proving the tenant claim is bound at registration and is
not influenced by request parameters, that distinct registrations never carry
each other's tenant, and that human tokens fall back to the platform tenant
rather than an empty claim.
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
