Answer gate-house's v0.8 round and record the §11 declaration-form wait.

Three gate-house messages from 2026-09-05/06 and flex-auth's 2026-09-21
correction had gone unanswered for three weeks.

Assent to §9.5 at v0.8 (KG-DEC-2026-004), scoped to the boundary at
net-kingdom@66eeaba rather than to v0.8 as a whole, so an assent round
held open over §11 does not read as §9.5 unsettled. The criteria-grounding
clause gate-house added is assented and its reversal falsifier was
attacked against the two real candidates this repository holds — an
assertion-form §3.4 check and a readiness row grounded on another
repository's decision. It did not fire.

§12 step four: the normative sentence stands, kings-guard has still
observed nothing in production and KG-WP-0005-T03 waits on the runtime
owner. Its supporting sentence has drifted in our favour and is reported
against ourselves, with narrower wording proposed.

§11 declaration form: INTENT.md says Staff, layer.yaml says staff, and
§11 does not say which governs. Neither file is changed — gate-house holds
precedence and case sensitivity. Recorded as KG-IN-0007 with the position
in layer.yaml rather than left as a silence. KG-IN-0008 declines the
catalog reading that exempts published posture from the new §11
emission-guarantee check.

Commentary: docs/StatuteV08Review.md (KG-COM-0002), marked derived per the
rule v0.8 itself adds.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 63291@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8bd77868-ca68-4f49-bb1e-d539ecc0d703

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'
+```