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

Commentary: the posture/maturity boundary is recomputability (KG-IN-0003)

Browse source 
gate-house asked kings-guard to check the posture/maturity boundary,
with the concern that a second grading authority would be the same shape
of mistake as a second decision point. Its proposed line was volatile
current state against slow progression.

Answered with a proposed revision, KG-DEC-2026-002, argued in
docs/PostureMaturityBoundary.md (KG-COM-0001).

Volatility is an observation about data, not a definition. It fails at
both edges and, more importantly, describes the two things without
partitioning them — every case left to argument is a route by which a
second grading authority arrives.

The discriminator is already in the statute. §9.5 requires maturity to
return the same level from the same criteria and evidence and calls that
determinism the thing that makes it an Engine; §3.3 makes inference Staff
by construction. So: recompute against the same criteria and evidence —
must get the same answer, it is maturity and belongs in an engine; cannot
promise the same answer, it is posture and belongs in Staff.

It is one rule read from both sides. §9.5 already says a criterion that
cannot be evaluated by rule is not yet a criterion; the mirror is that a
judgment that can be evaluated by rule is not posture but a criterion in
the wrong repository.

kings-guard accepts the constraint this puts on its own side: capability
readiness is not an input to posture, since feeding a deterministic value
into a non-deterministic one would blur the boundary from our door. That
also answers the incident-dependency half of the intake.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UEtvmYUBP2fDtirJGWn5MW

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 4014379@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 4af9e20f-1768-4afc-951b-b507784e382b
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-08-29 17:44:24 +02:00
parent 139d47d268
commit 4b37bb18a5
3 changed files with 233 additions and 1 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

14
intakes/intakes.md
View file

@ -77,9 +77,11 @@ id: KG-IN-0003
kind: intake
title: 'Review requested: security layer model v0.3 (maturity-engine, and the posture/maturity
boundary)'
status: open
status: closed
origin: cross-repo
origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.3
outcome: promoted
promoted_to: KG-DEC-2026-002
priority: medium
owner: kings-guard
requested_by: gate-house
@ -103,5 +105,15 @@ description: 'v0.3 is proposed and changes sections 4, 9 and 13 only; the v0.2 a
Assent, revision, or rejection acceptable.'
created: '2026-08-28T20:40:12.260389Z'
updated: '2026-08-28T20:40:12.260389Z'
closed: '2026-08-29'
resolution: 'Answered with a proposed revision. The boundary is recomputability,
not volatility: given the same criteria and the same evidence, if you must get
the same answer it is maturity and belongs in an engine, and if you cannot
promise the same answer it is posture and belongs in Staff. Drawn from statute
section 9.5 and section 3.3 rather than imposed on them, and it partitions
where volatile-versus-slow only describes. kings-guard accepts the constraint
this puts on its own side: capability readiness is not an input to posture,
which also answers the incident-dependency question. Commentary:
docs/PostureMaturityBoundary.md. Decision: KG-DEC-2026-002.'
state_hub_intake_id: "01a04d8d-66f8-70ef-b2b5-1eff03569471"
```