---
title: "§6 audit — no Staff decision point in NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md"
date: 2026-09-02
repo: kings-guard
author: kings-guard
workplan: KG-WP-0004-T05
standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md
target: specs/NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md
status: complete
classification: Public
---

# §6 audit — no Staff decision point

After T02–T04. Statute §6: `access-engine` is the only policy decision point.
No Staff component may render or cache allow/deny. This list is every
decision-shaped object from the T01 inventory §2.1, plus the §8/§9.6
artifacts T02 introduced, and where each now lives.

| Object | Lives now | Staff renders allow/deny? |
| --- | --- | --- |
| §5 lymph node / adaptive "decision" | Staff judgment / posture; policy generation is doctrine + PDP package | no |
| §8 former "Decision and Response Engine" | `access-engine` box in the Engine subgraph | no |
| §8 former Regulation controller | split: Staff proposals vs PDP/PEP | no |
| §9.2 `trust_posture` + `valid_until` | Staff publication; lifetime is an input claim to the PDP | no |
| §9.4 observation `assessment` / `proposed_response` | removed from the observation; phenotype/posture/signal | no |
| §9.5 `response authorization` signal | gone as a Staff type; PDP decision record | no |
| §9.6 `immune_decision` | Engine artifact, `pdp: access-engine` | no |
| §9.6 former `authority: tenant-immune-node` | `authority: access-engine`, `enforcement: pep` | no |
| §10 `TN → TR` | coordination; effectors fire on a decision record or recorded stance | no |
| §10.1 "local response decisions" | rewritten to proposals; decisions stay the one PDP | no |
| §14.1 fast local loop | PEP under existing policy / stance (qonto-assistant) | no — PEP, not Staff |
| §14.2 "select bounded response" | emit a bounded proposal | no |
| §15 VSM System 3 | `access-engine` + PEP stance maps | no |
| §16 isolate grant | issued to a PEP by `access-engine`, not to a Staff node | no |
| §19 `DECISION` entity | `access-engine` only; posture/signal sit in front | no |
| §20.2 policy decision reconstructability | PDP obligation | no |
| §22.2 decision latency | labelled PDP; Staff has judgment latency | no |
| §24 `immune-decision/` | replaced by `immune-judgment/` (Staff) | no |
| §25.1 Decision Contract | owned by `access-engine` | no |
| §25.2 `effector_request` | Staff proposal with origin; not a verdict | no |
| §27 former two-hop authorize | posture claim → PDP → PEP | no |
| §31 Phase 4 policy evaluation | recommendations; evaluation remains `access-engine` | no |
| §33 AD-003 | observe → judge → propose; decide/act are Engine/PEP | no |
| §34 Q2 autonomous authorization | recast as proposals + existing PEP stances | no |
| §36 sequence | names proposal, decision, unowned actuation | no |

No remaining object is a Staff allow/deny. Caching a verdict is not described
as a kings-guard behaviour. Actuation remains unowned (§9.2).

Control-plane grep after T03+T05: remaining hits are labelled Kubernetes /
platform API planes, or an explicit denial that kings-guard is not one.