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
tegwick
4b37bb18a5