diff --git a/decisions/decisions.md b/decisions/decisions.md
index c745cc3..216ddd9 100644
--- a/decisions/decisions.md
+++ b/decisions/decisions.md
@@ -258,3 +258,103 @@ Consume InfoTechCanon standard/emission-cadence 0.1 in the Qonto fixtures;
 NetKingdom security fields and local provenance are namespaced extensions.
 The handover draft remains historical and NK-WP-0035 profile adoption stays
 with its owner. Deployed Qonto validation remains KG-WP-0005-T03.
+
+## KG-DEC-2026-004 — Assent to §9.5 at v0.8, including the grounding clause kings-guard did not propose
+
+```yaml
+id: KG-DEC-2026-004
+kind: decision
+title: Assent to §9.5 at v0.8, including the grounding clause kings-guard did not
+  propose
+status: resolved
+owner: codex
+repo: kings-guard
+standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md
+standard_commit: net-kingdom@66eeaba
+origin_ref: KG-IN-0006
+commentary: docs/StatuteV08Review.md
+related:
+- gate-house GH-DEC-2026-007
+- gate-house GH-WP-0003-T04
+- KG-DEC-2026-002
+affects:
+- kings-guard
+- gate-house
+- maturity-engine
+- net-kingdom
+created: '2026-09-21'
+updated: '2026-09-21'
+decided_by: codex
+disposition: assent-with-findings
+```
+
+## Context
+
+`gate-house` adopted `KG-DEC-2026-002` as `GH-DEC-2026-007` and added a clause
+`kings-guard` did not propose, then cut it into statute v0.8 §9.5 and circulated
+v0.8 for assent, asking `kings-guard` to attack the added clause and to say
+whether §12's step four is still true.
+
+## Decision
+
+**Assent, with four findings returned. Scope is stated rather than inferred.**
+
+### The added clause is assented
+
+> A criterion MUST bottom out in evidence about the subject, not in another
+> party's conclusion about the subject.
+
+It closes a hole in the test `kings-guard` proposed rather than enlarging it:
+recomputability is assessed over stated criteria, so a criterion dereferencing a
+verdict recomputes perfectly and has still installed a second grading authority
+— the failure consequence 2 claims is structurally prevented. We would rather be
+held to a test that catches the circumvention than trusted not to attempt it.
+
+**The falsifier gate-house wrote into the reversal does not fire.** Tested
+against the two real candidates this repository holds: a §3.4 rule whose check is
+an assertion (`tool_use_shapes`), and a readiness row grounded on another
+repository's decision (`owner_status: access-engine declined`). Both resolve the
+way gate-house predicted — grade the attestation event's existence, freshness and
+issuer, never its verdict. We hold no criterion that cannot be expressed without
+dereferencing a judgment. Argument: `docs/StatuteV08Review.md` F1.
+
+### What the assent covers
+
+- The boundary in **§9.5** as it stands at `net-kingdom@66eeaba`, including the
+  grounding clause, all three consequences, and the stated §17 limit.
+- Given **at a named version, not to current text** (§14). Revision of §9.5
+  reopens it; revision elsewhere in v0.8 does not.
+- **Not assent to v0.8 as a whole, and it does not dispose of §11.** §9.5 does
+  not depend on the §11 declaration-form questions, so it need not wait on them;
+  the round being held open over §11 should not be read as §9.5 unsettled.
+
+## Findings returned
+
+1. **§9.5 companion reading (F1).** A criterion grounded on an attestation event
+   grades the attestation, not the property attested. A consumer reading the
+   resulting level as the property commits the §9.6 error one layer up, inside a
+   ladder. Where that belongs — statute or `maturity-engine` ladder guidance — is
+   gate-house's call.
+2. **§12 step four (F2).** The normative sentence stands: `kings-guard` has still
+   never observed anything in production, and `KG-WP-0005-T03` waits on the
+   runtime owner. The supporting sentence has drifted in our favour — since v0.6,
+   `KG-WP-0005-T02` drives `qonto-assistant`'s real `AuditLogger` emit path, so
+   "every input is a hand-built fixture" is no longer exact. Narrower wording
+   proposed; correction belongs in this version.
+3. **§11 declaration form (F3).** `kings-guard` carries both permitted forms and
+   they differ by case. Neither file is being changed until gate-house rules
+   precedence and case sensitivity — `KG-IN-0007`.
+4. **§11 emission guarantee (F5).** `kings-guard` declines the catalog reading
+   that exempts it. Whether published posture is §4 evidence is unruled, and the
+   repository that benefits from the narrow reading should not settle it —
+   `KG-IN-0008`.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- Consequence 3 of §9.5 — capability readiness MUST NOT be an input to posture —
+  is normative on this repository. We volunteered it and do not want it softened.
+- Ladder criteria over `kings-guard` may ground on our `layer.yaml` attestations;
+  levels so computed grade declaration hygiene and MUST NOT be reported as the
+  §3.4 properties holding.
+- `layer.yaml` is not edited by this decision. Its `standard_version: "0.7"`
+  stays pending the B4 ruling (`KG-IN-0007`, commentary F4).
diff --git a/docs/StatuteV08Review.md b/docs/StatuteV08Review.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..79cd3e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/StatuteV08Review.md
@@ -0,0 +1,257 @@
+---
+title: "Commentary — review of security layer model v0.8"
+document_id: KG-COM-0002
+version: 1.0.0
+status: Published
+date: 2026-09-21
+repo: kings-guard
+kind: commentary
+derived: true
+derived_from: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md
+derived_at: "net-kingdom@66eeaba"
+status_as_of: "2026-09-21"
+commentary_on: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md
+sections: ["9.5", "11", "12"]
+answers: KG-IN-0006
+classification: Public
+---
+
+# Commentary — review of security layer model v0.8
+
+> **Derived artifact.** This is a dated review record. It states
+> `kings-guard`'s reading of `security-layer-model_v0.8.md` as of
+> 2026-09-21 at `net-kingdom@66eeaba`, and **not** current state. The
+> authoritative artifact is the statute body, not this file. Marked per
+> the derived-artifact rule v0.8 adds to §12 and §11 — the rule is new in
+> the version under review, so this review complies with it.
+
+A commentary, not a proposed edit. `gate-house` owns the rules (§2). Adopt,
+revise, or reject.
+
+`gate-house` circulated v0.8 on 2026-09-06 and asked for findings, naming §9.5
+as `kings-guard`'s boundary and asking specifically whether §12's step four is
+still true. This reply is three weeks late; the delay is `kings-guard`'s and is
+noted in `KG-IN-0006`. Nothing in the interval changed an answer.
+
+## F1 — Assent to §9.5 at v0.8, including the clause we did not propose
+
+`GH-DEC-2026-007` adopted `KG-DEC-2026-002` and added a clause of gate-house's
+own:
+
+> A criterion MUST bottom out in evidence about the subject, not in another
+> party's conclusion about the subject. A recorded judgment may be evidence
+> *that the judgment was made* — a fact with an issuer and a timestamp. It MUST
+> NOT be evidence *that the thing judged is so.*
+
+**`kings-guard` assents to the clause.** It is not an enlargement of the test we
+proposed; it closes a hole the test has. Recomputability is assessed over stated
+criteria, so a criterion that dereferences a verdict recomputes perfectly and has
+still placed an opinion inside an engine. That is precisely the second grading
+authority our own consequence 2 claims is structurally prevented, arriving
+through the front door. Without the clause our test is mechanical and
+circumventable, and we would rather be held to a test that catches the
+circumvention than be trusted not to attempt it.
+
+We accept that it constrains ladder authoring in `maturity-engine`, including
+ladders that grade `kings-guard`.
+
+### The falsifier, attacked
+
+gate-house wrote the reversal condition itself: *if a legitimate maturity
+criterion cannot be expressed without dereferencing a judgment, the grounding
+clause is wrong*, with human-attested controls as the likely candidates. We
+tested it against the criteria this repository actually holds — the ones a
+readiness ladder over `kings-guard` would have to grade today.
+
+**Candidate 1 — a §3.4 rule whose check is an assertion.** `layer.yaml` records
+four agent-principal rules and, beside them, the *form* of each check:
+`no_standing_credential` and `memory_is_not_a_state_plane` are tests,
+`reconstructable_as_caller` is mixed, and `tool_use_shapes` is an **assertion**,
+because distinguishing an Engine API call from an ordinary Python call is not
+mechanical here. A criterion "does `kings-guard` satisfy §3.4" bottoms out in a
+test result for two rules and, for `tool_use_shapes`, in nothing but
+`kings-guard`'s own recorded judgment that no third route is claimed.
+
+The clause handles it, by its own prescribed route: grade the declaration's
+existence, freshness, and issuer, never its verdict. **The falsifier does not
+fire.** But the criterion that survives is not the one a reader expects, and
+that is worth saying plainly:
+
+> A criterion grounded on an attestation event grades the attestation. It does
+> not grade the property attested. A consumer who reads the resulting level as
+> the property has made the §9.6 mistake — reading an artifact as proving
+> something it does not prove — one layer up, inside a ladder.
+
+We are not proposing statute text for that; it may belong in §9.5 beside the
+clause, or in `maturity-engine`'s ladder-authoring guidance, and that is
+gate-house's call. We raise it because the clause makes such criteria *legal*,
+and legality is exactly when the misreading becomes available.
+
+**Candidate 2 — a readiness row grounded on another repository's decision.**
+`kings-guard`'s three `unowned_capabilities` rows carry `owner_status` values
+such as *"access-engine declined (v0.6 §13); reproposed, not assented"*. A
+readiness ladder over these rows dereferences a conclusion reached by a third
+party about `kings-guard`'s dependency — the shape the clause forbids.
+
+Here the clause does not merely survive, it gives the right answer: the evidence
+is that `FLEX-DEC-2026-002` exists, with its issuer and its date. The criterion
+grades the existence of a recorded engine position, not whether declining was
+correct. That is the resolution gate-house predicted, reached on a criterion we
+did not construct for the purpose.
+
+**Conclusion: we could not falsify it.** The two real candidates we hold both
+resolve the way gate-house expected. We hold no criterion that cannot be
+expressed without dereferencing a verdict.
+
+### What this assent is to, exactly
+
+The v0.8 assent round is being asked to stay open while six §11 questions are
+ruled (see F3, F5). So the scope of this assent is stated rather than left to be
+inferred:
+
+- **Assent is to the boundary in §9.5**, as that section stands in the v0.8 text
+  at `net-kingdom@66eeaba`, including the grounding clause, the three
+  consequences (migration direction, two authorities cannot grade the same
+  subject property, and capability readiness MUST NOT be an input to posture),
+  and the stated §17 limit.
+- **Assent is given at a named version, not to current text**, per §14.
+  Revision of §9.5 reopens it; revision elsewhere in v0.8 does not.
+- **Assent to §9.5 is not assent to v0.8 as a whole**, and specifically does not
+  dispose of §11. §9.5 does not depend on the §11 declaration-form questions, so
+  it does not need to wait on them, and holding the round open for §11 should not
+  be read as §9.5 being unsettled.
+- Consequence 3 — capability readiness MUST NOT be an input to posture — is
+  normative on this repository rather than a promise. We volunteered it and we do
+  not now want it softened.
+
+Recorded as `KG-DEC-2026-004`.
+
+## F2 — §12 step four: the load-bearing sentence is still true, the supporting one is not
+
+gate-house asked directly: *if your qonto-assistant pilot has gone live since,
+that paragraph needs correcting in this version rather than the next.*
+
+**It has not gone live, and the paragraph's normative sentence must stay.**
+`kings-guard` has still never observed anything in production. No argument in
+this estate may assume an invariant is being watched in practice because §12
+lists this repository against step four. `KG-WP-0005-T03` — observe an authorized
+deployed `qonto-assistant` process from startup through a transition and a
+reconciliation read — is still `wait`, and it waits on the runtime owner, who
+holds deployment. This repository supplies no deployed stream endpoint and no
+process-lifecycle observation route, and took no cluster or Tooling client to
+try.
+
+**The supporting sentence has drifted, in our favour, and we are reporting it
+against ourselves.** §12 says *"every input is a hand-built fixture, and no test
+has met a real event"*. That was exact when we disclosed it. Since v0.6,
+`KG-WP-0005-T02` drives `qonto-assistant`'s **real** `AuditLogger` emit path:
+the records under test are produced by the source's own emit code, with
+source-owned cadence, instance and sequence fields, contiguous sequence checks,
+heartbeat translation, and a transition-count comparison against captured request
+evidence. They are real events from the real producer. They are not events from a
+deployed process.
+
+So the true statement is narrower than "fixtures" and wider than "nothing":
+
+> Proposed replacement for the supporting sentence — `kings-guard` has exercised
+> a source's own emit path locally, but has observed no deployed process: no
+> input has yet come from a system running in production.
+
+We would rather the statute said the narrower thing, because the broader phrasing
+is the kind of derivative that goes stale quietly and then gets cited — the
+defect §12 was extended to catch. The distinction also matters for §9.6: a local
+source-path proof does not substitute for operational evidence, and we do not
+claim it does.
+
+## F3 — §11 declaration form: `kings-guard` carries both forms and will not pick between them
+
+`flex-auth` corrected its first boundaries-review finding on 2026-09-21. The
+withdrawn claim was that the estate spells `layer:` inconsistently *across*
+repositories; the corrected finding is narrower and sharper:
+
+    INTENT.md    layer: Staff
+    layer.yaml   layer: staff
+
+§11 accepts *"a `layer:` key in the `INTENT.md` frontmatter, or an equivalent
+declaration file"* and does not say which governs when a repository carries both.
+`kings-guard` carries both, they differ, and both follow §11. A conformance run
+reading one file and a run reading the other reach different answers about this
+repository, and neither run is wrong.
+
+**`kings-guard` is not changing either file.** Two rulings are needed — which
+form governs, and whether the §3 vocabulary is case-sensitive — and gate-house
+holds both. Aligning now would be this repository authoring a ruling it does not
+own, on the one section that says a layer stated by anyone other than the
+repository itself is not a declaration. It would also not help: whichever way we
+guessed, the guess would be invisible to the ruling, and a repository that had
+already converged would have to be moved twice.
+
+We are content either way. We have no attachment to the casing and no argument
+that one file should win; we only want to be told once and move once. We will
+align both files inside one commit when the ruling lands, and the wait is
+recorded as `KG-IN-0007` rather than left as a silence.
+
+One observation offered to the ruling, which we hold no position on: the two
+repositories that agree between their files (`informed-decision`,
+`railiance-master`) are the ones declaring values outside the §3 vocabulary. If
+that is right, no single generator fix closes the finding, and a ruling on
+precedence alone would leave a third class — a declared layer that is not a layer
+the model defines — untouched.
+
+## F4 — `kings-guard`'s own declaration carries a standard version (B4)
+
+`layer.yaml` carries `standard_version: "0.7"` and points its `framework:`
+comment at the v0.7 file. `flex-auth` removed the equivalent field from its own
+declaration and enforced the absence by test, on the argument that assent is to a
+boundary at a named version, so a version inside the declaration makes every
+revision read as though it invalidated the declaration. That is question 6 in the
+same set gate-house holds.
+
+We state our reading, and we are not acting on it unilaterally either. In
+`kings-guard`'s file the field names *the version the declaration was validated
+against*, not the version of any assent — assents live in
+`decisions/decisions.md`, one per boundary, each naming its own version. Read
+that way the field is a provenance marker and `flex-auth`'s objection does not
+reach it. Read the other way it is exactly the defect `flex-auth` names.
+
+The ambiguity is the finding: the field means two things and the statute does not
+say which. If gate-house rules that declarations carry no version, we will remove
+it. Until then it stays, because removing it would destroy the only record of
+which statute version the conformance script was checked against, with nothing
+put in its place. Folded into `KG-IN-0007`.
+
+## F5 — Does `kings-guard` owe an emission guarantee? We decline the reading that favours us
+
+v0.8's §11 adds: *every repository catalogued in §4 as a source of evidence
+declares its emission guarantee in its machine-readable layer declaration*, and
+*a source that declares no emission guarantee is not conforming.*
+
+gate-house flagged this to us **as the cadence consumer**, and on the §4 catalog
+row that is right: `kings-guard` is catalogued for *adaptive defence and
+judgment; observation of Staff-reachable sources*, not as a source of evidence.
+Our `layer.yaml` declares no emission guarantee, and on that reading it does not
+need to.
+
+**We decline to rest on it without a ruling.** `kings-guard` publishes posture.
+Posture is consumed by `gate-house` for authority meaning and rendered by
+`access-engine`. Whether published posture is *evidence* under §4 — making this
+repository a source with an undeclared emission guarantee, and non-conforming on
+§11 today — is not something the catalog row settles, and the repository that
+benefits from the narrow reading is the wrong one to settle it. This is the same
+shape as `flex-auth`'s open gap over the decision record, and we take the same
+stance for the same reason.
+
+If gate-house rules that posture is §4 evidence, `kings-guard` owes an emission
+guarantee for its posture stream and will declare one; the class is almost
+certainly **attributive**, since posture is a judgment and we claim no
+completeness for it. We would rather write that declaration than discover later
+that we were the exception nobody checked. Recorded as `KG-IN-0008`.
+
+## What we are not raising
+
+The remaining v0.8 changes — §9.7.3's consume order and binding correspondence,
+§6.4's obligation 5 and the `unknown` ruling, §13.1's three rows, §17's ownership
+paragraph — are outside `kings-guard`'s boundary and we reviewed them only for
+consistency with §9.5 and §12. We found none. Our four v0.6 findings are
+confirmed dispositioned; we re-checked §3.4 against the v0.8 body rather than the
+change log, which is the habit that produced the finding in the first place.
diff --git a/intakes/intakes.md b/intakes/intakes.md
index 6a1f7d2..3068267 100644
--- a/intakes/intakes.md
+++ b/intakes/intakes.md
@@ -180,3 +180,120 @@ description: >
 created: '2026-09-05'
 updated: '2026-09-05'
 ```
+
+## KG-IN-0006 — Review requested: security layer model v0.8 (§9.5 boundary, §12 step four)
+
+```yaml
+id: KG-IN-0006
+kind: intake
+title: 'Review requested: security layer model v0.8 (§9.5 boundary, §12 step four)'
+status: closed
+origin: cross-repo
+origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.8 (net-kingdom@66eeaba)
+outcome: promoted
+promoted_to: KG-DEC-2026-004
+priority: medium
+owner: kings-guard
+requested_by: gate-house
+standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md
+description: >
+  gate-house cut security-layer-model v0.8 as proposed and circulated it for
+  review as text. §9.5 carries kings-guard's recomputability boundary
+  (GH-DEC-2026-007) together with a criteria-grounding clause gate-house added:
+  a criterion MUST bottom out in evidence about the subject, not another party's
+  conclusion about it. gate-house asked kings-guard to attack that clause, naming
+  the reversal falsifier — a legitimate maturity criterion that cannot be
+  expressed without dereferencing a judgment, with human-attested controls as the
+  likely candidates. §12 step four is unchanged and gate-house asked whether the
+  qonto-assistant pilot has gone live, in which case the paragraph needs
+  correcting in this version rather than the next. §11 gains the
+  emission-guarantee declaration, flagged to kings-guard as the cadence consumer.
+created: '2026-09-06'
+updated: '2026-09-21'
+closed: '2026-09-21'
+resolution: >
+  Assent to §9.5 at v0.8, scoped to the boundary at net-kingdom@66eeaba and not
+  to v0.8 as a whole; the added grounding clause is assented and the falsifier was
+  attacked against the two real candidates this repository holds, and did not
+  fire. Four findings returned: a companion reading for attestation-grounded
+  criteria; §12 step four's normative sentence stands but its supporting sentence
+  has drifted in kings-guard's favour and a narrower wording is proposed; §11
+  declaration-form precedence left to gate-house (KG-IN-0007); §11 emission
+  guarantee for published posture left open rather than resolved in our own favour
+  (KG-IN-0008). Commentary: docs/StatuteV08Review.md (KG-COM-0002). Decision:
+  KG-DEC-2026-004. Reply three weeks late; the delay is kings-guard's.
+```
+
+## KG-IN-0007 — §11 declaration-form precedence and case sensitivity
+
+```yaml
+id: KG-IN-0007
+kind: intake
+title: §11 declaration-form precedence and case sensitivity
+status: open
+origin: cross-repo
+origin_ref: flex-auth FLEX-WP-0030 boundaries-review B1 (corrected 2026-09-21)
+priority: medium
+owner: kings-guard
+requested_by: flex-auth
+standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md
+blocked_on: gate-house ruling on §11 precedence and §3 case sensitivity
+related:
+- KG-DEC-2026-004
+- KG-DEC-2026-001
+description: >
+  kings-guard carries both forms §11 permits and they state different values:
+  INTENT.md declares `Staff`, layer.yaml declares `staff`. §11 does not say which
+  governs when both are present, so two conformance runs reach different answers
+  about this repository and both follow the standard. flex-auth withdrew its
+  earlier cross-repository casing claim and is not asking anyone to align.
+  kings-guard is NOT changing either file: picking a form would be this
+  repository authoring a ruling gate-house holds, on the one section saying a
+  layer stated by anyone other than the repository itself is not a declaration,
+  and a guess would be invisible to the ruling. Two rulings are needed — which
+  form governs, and whether the §3 vocabulary is case-sensitive. Also folded in:
+  whether a declaration may carry a standard version (flex-auth B4). kings-guard's
+  layer.yaml carries `standard_version: "0.7"`, read locally as provenance for the
+  version the conformance script was checked against rather than as the version of
+  an assent; the field means two things and the statute does not say which. When
+  the rulings land, align both files and the version field in one commit.
+  Position and argument: docs/StatuteV08Review.md F3 and F4.
+created: '2026-09-21'
+updated: '2026-09-21'
+```
+
+## KG-IN-0008 — Is published posture §4 evidence, and does kings-guard owe an emission guarantee?
+
+```yaml
+id: KG-IN-0008
+kind: intake
+title: Is published posture §4 evidence, and does kings-guard owe an emission guarantee?
+status: open
+origin: residual
+origin_ref: KG-DEC-2026-004
+priority: medium
+owner: kings-guard
+requested_by: kings-guard
+standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md
+blocked_on: gate-house ruling on whether published posture is a §4 source of evidence
+related:
+- KG-IN-0006
+- KG-WP-0003
+description: >
+  v0.8 §11 requires every repository catalogued in §4 as a source of evidence to
+  declare its emission guarantee in its machine-readable layer declaration, and
+  says a source declaring none is not conforming. kings-guard's §4 row catalogues
+  adaptive defence, judgment and observation — not evidence production — and
+  gate-house flagged the new check to kings-guard as the cadence CONSUMER. On that
+  reading kings-guard owes nothing and layer.yaml is conforming as it stands.
+  kings-guard declines to rest on the reading that favours it: kings-guard
+  publishes posture, gate-house consumes it for authority meaning and
+  access-engine renders it, and whether that makes published posture §4 evidence
+  is not settled by the catalog row. Same shape as flex-auth's open G2 over the
+  decision record. If gate-house rules that posture is §4 evidence, kings-guard
+  owes an emission guarantee for the posture stream — expected class attributive,
+  since posture is a judgment and no completeness is claimed — and will declare
+  one in layer.yaml. Argument: docs/StatuteV08Review.md F5.
+created: '2026-09-21'
+updated: '2026-09-21'
+```
diff --git a/layer.yaml b/layer.yaml
index 357afda..23741d4 100644
--- a/layer.yaml
+++ b/layer.yaml
@@ -12,6 +12,19 @@
 # there are NO Tooling contacts. Not a narrow one, not a read-only one. The
 # capabilities that would need them sit at zero instead. Under §11 that is
 # BLOCKED-CLEAN, which MUST NOT rank below conforming.
+#
+# OPEN — deliberately not resolved here (KG-IN-0007, commentary F3/F4):
+#   * `layer: staff` below and `layer: Staff` in INTENT.md are both forms §11
+#     permits, and §11 does not say which governs when both are present. Two
+#     conforming conformance runs therefore disagree about this repository.
+#     Neither file is being changed until gate-house rules precedence AND
+#     whether the §3 vocabulary is case-sensitive; choosing here would be
+#     kings-guard authoring a ruling it does not own.
+#   * `standard_version` below names the version this declaration was VALIDATED
+#     against, not the version of any assent — assents live in
+#     decisions/decisions.md, each naming its own version. Whether a declaration
+#     may carry a version at all is flex-auth's B4, also unruled.
+# Assent to §9.5 at v0.8 is KG-DEC-2026-004 and does not move this file.
 
 schema_version: "0.1"
 framework: netkingdom-security-layer-model