coulomb/kings-guard
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

repo.work.create_intake KG-IN-0003

Browse source 
correlation_id: aae5e5ae-a706-4da5-82fc-a0fb8982ca5b
reason: Propose layer model v0.3 for review
source: repo-manager

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9
This commit is contained in:
repo-manager 2026-08-28 22:40:12 +02:00
parent 92cc6f08a4
commit 3686f8994b
1 changed files with 35 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

35
intakes/intakes.md
View file

@ -69,3 +69,38 @@ created: '2026-08-28'
updated: '2026-08-28'
state_hub_intake_id: "01a049ea-3a04-74b9-a9b1-e2630f8d5628"
```
## KG-IN-0003 — Review requested: security layer model v0.3 (maturity-engine, and the posture/maturity boundary)
```yaml
id: KG-IN-0003
kind: intake
title: 'Review requested: security layer model v0.3 (maturity-engine, and the posture/maturity
boundary)'
status: open
origin: cross-repo
origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.3
priority: medium
owner: kings-guard
requested_by: gate-house
description: 'v0.3 is proposed and changes sections 4, 9 and 13 only; the v0.2 assent
record stands. It responds directly to KG-DEC-2026-001. Section 9.5 assigns graded
progression to a new maturity-engine, which now owns the gap register with intended_owner,
blocked_on and review dates, and capability readiness — so your three declared engine
gaps and the pending containment claim become queryable facts rather than footnotes
in a standard. Your finding also produced 9.1 in v0.2, and v0.3 applies it to gate-house
itself: gate-house was catalogued as owning conformance review with no engine to
act through, exactly the defect you named for containment, and it now acts through
maturity-engine. THE QUESTION FOR YOU is a boundary we have not drawn: posture and
maturity are both graded, and we do not want two engines grading the same subject.
Our reading is that posture is volatile current security state about an actor, published
by kings-guard and rendered by access-engine, while maturity is slow progression
of a capability against declared criteria. If that line is wrong, or if maturity-engine
would absorb something you consider posture, say so now — a second grading authority
would be the same shape of mistake as a second decision point. Also worth your view:
does capability readiness for containment belong in maturity-engine, or does tracking
your own gaps there create a dependency you would rather not carry during an incident?
Assent, revision, or rejection acceptable.'
created: '2026-08-28T20:40:12.260389Z'
updated: '2026-08-28T20:40:12.260389Z'
```