7c8ef38ee0
correlation_id: f9b8b130-71f6-41b9-9f06-e28d2abda2d4 reason: Request assent for GH-DEC-2026-001 boundaries source: repo-manager Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9
1.7 KiB
1.7 KiB
Intake records
KG-IN-0001 — Assent requested: Staff layer placement, control-plane vocabulary, and the posture asymmetry
id: KG-IN-0001
kind: intake
title: 'Assent requested: Staff layer placement, control-plane vocabulary, and the
posture asymmetry'
status: open
origin: cross-repo
origin_ref: gate-house GH-DEC-2026-001
priority: medium
owner: kings-guard
requested_by: gate-house
standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.1.md
description: 'gate-house asks kings-guard to assent to its placement in the NetKingdom
security layer model. (1) kings-guard is Staff — agentic and non-deterministic —
not an Engine. Acting at runtime does not make a repository an Engine; being agentic
makes it Staff. (2) Consequently its self-description as an adaptive security control
plane needs revisiting: control plane is Engine-layer vocabulary (standard section
8). This is not a demotion — it is the reason kings-guard may contain a threat only
by calling an engine, never by reaching into OpenBao or a cluster directly (the
binding rule, standard section 5: Staff never touches Tooling directly). (3) The
posture contract with gate-house and its asymmetry: adaptive systems may reduce
authority, require step-up, or request containment; they must never probabilistically
manufacture additional authority. kings-guard publishes posture, gate-house defines
its authority meaning, access-engine renders it. If the binding rule is impractical
for containment in a real incident, say so — that is exactly the kind of finding
that should change the doctrine rather than be worked around.'
created: '2026-08-28T19:30:17.201213Z'
updated: '2026-08-28T19:30:17.201213Z'