tegwick
7d5af611f0
Map every control-plane, decision, and actuation mismatch in NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md against layer model v0.7 so T02–T04 can execute without re-discovering the file. Assistant: grok Assistant-Session: 01a05ef1-9e5a-70f2-b0ff-0b05d6b38ae9
23 KiB
23 KiB
| title | date | repo | author | workplan | standard | sections_read | target | status | classification | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Layer-vocabulary inventory of NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md | 2026-09-02 | kings-guard | kings-guard | KG-WP-0004-T01 | net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md |
|
specs/NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md | complete | Public |
Layer-vocabulary inventory of NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md
T01 of KG-WP-0004. Re-derived from the spec against Security Layer Model
v0.7 §§3.4, 5, 6, 8, 9.2. The promotion table in the workplan is a snapshot;
this file is the execution map for T02–T04.
Method
Every section of the spec was read. Each row is classified:
| Action | Meaning |
|---|---|
| keep | Wording is already compatible, or is not a layer claim. |
| keep-label | Phrase stays, but T03 must mark it as Engine / platform / Kubernetes so it cannot be read as kings-guard. |
| re-home | The capability stays in the architecture; T02 assigns it to Engine, PEP, or Tooling rather than this Staff repository. |
| rewrite | The claim is wrong for Staff. T02/T04 change the sentence, diagram, or example. |
Layer of the capability, not of the sentence's current owner:
- Staff — observe, judge, propose (
kings-guard); doctrine (gate-house) - Engine — decide (
access-enginePDP), facts (PIPs), lifecycle, evidence custody - PEP — cause a protected side effect; a shape, not a layer (§6.4)
- Tooling — hold, attest, store (
key-cape, OpenBao) - platform/k8s — a tenant or cluster control/management plane, not this repo
Statute reminders used as the test:
- §8: "control plane" belongs to the Engine layer, not a Staff self-description.
- §6 / §6.3: one decision point,
access-engine. No Staff repository hosts one. - §9.2: kings-guard proposes containment; it never performs it. Actuation is an Engine concept held at zero.
- §3.4 rule 3: agent/immune memory is not a state plane.
- §5: Staff never touches Tooling directly.
1. Every "control plane" occurrence
Complete. grep -nE 'control plane|control-plane|Control Plane'.
| Line | Text | Layer | Action | T0n |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19–25 | Head note: read "control plane" as Engine-layer; sweep tracked as KG-IN-0002 | Staff note | rewrite — cite v0.7, drop the intake pointer, record the sweep date | T05 |
| 436 | mermaid subgraph CONTROL["Platform Immune Control Plane"] |
mixed, currently Staff-shaped | rewrite — split Staff observation/judgment from Engine decision/actuation; do not name a kings-guard control plane | T02 |
| 681 | sentinel class control-plane sentinel |
platform/k8s (observe the cluster API) | keep-label — this is a sentinel of a Kubernetes/platform control plane, not kings-guard being one | T03 |
| 1018 | platform owns "cluster and control-plane security" | platform/k8s | keep-label | T03 |
| 1055 | I3 Sovereign: "Dedicated account, keys, control plane and operations" | platform/k8s (tenant's own cloud) | keep-label | T03 |
| 1873 | dedicated-tenant profile: "dedicated tenant control plane" | platform/k8s | keep-label | T03 |
Near-miss, same defect, not the string "control plane":
| Line | Text | Action | T0n |
|---|---|---|---|
| 56 | "recursive adaptive security control system" | rewrite — same overlap as control plane; INTENT dropped this | T02 |
| 1053 | I2 Dedicated: "Tenant-specific control and compute plane" | keep-label | T03 |
| 154, 650, 2083 | "management plane" / "management-plane separation" | keep-label — platform management plane | T03 |
| 2276 | "recursive, multi-tenant control architecture" | rewrite | T02 / T05 |
After T03, a grep for control plane|control-plane|Control Plane must have only
labelled Engine/platform/k8s hits, or none.
2. Decision, response, and actuation claims
These are the rows T02 and T04 execute. A Staff component must not render allow/deny, cache a verdict, or perform isolate/revoke/contain.
2.1 Decision-shaped objects
| Location | Claim | Action | Notes for T02 |
|---|---|---|---|
| §5 table | Lymph node = "Local correlation and decision"; Adaptive immunity = "Adaptive Decision and Policy Generation" | rewrite | Lymph node → local judgment/posture. Policy generation is doctrine or Engine policy package, not Staff deciding. |
| §8 diagram | DECISION["Decision and Response Engine"] inside the control-plane subgraph |
re-home | This box is access-engine (decide) plus unowned actuation. Not a kings-guard engine. |
| §8 diagram | REGULATION["Safety, Tolerance and Escalation Controller"] |
re-home | Tolerance is Staff genome/contract. Escalation that changes authority is Engine/PEP. Split. |
| §9.2 | trust_posture with valid_until and status: constrained |
re-home | Computed posture is Staff. A lifetime that other layers consume is an input claim to the PDP, not a Staff verdict. |
| §9.4 | observation carries assessment and proposed_response.action: isolate |
rewrite | Observation is not interpretation (ImmuneContracts §2.1). Assessment/proposal belong on phenotype/posture/signal, not on the observation. Proposal itself is Staff-legal. |
| §9.5 | signal type response authorization |
re-home | Authorization is the PDP. Staff may emit response request. |
| §9.6 | "Decision Plane evaluates observations and determines response" | rewrite | Determining response is §6. Plane is Engine. immune_decision YAML is an Engine artifact (access-engine decision record), never a kings-guard posture record. authority: tenant-immune-node is a Staff node given isolate — forbidden. |
| §10 diagram | TN["Tenant Immune Node"] → TR["Tenant Response Effectors"] |
rewrite | Node may propose. Effectors fire only on a decision record / recorded PEP stance. |
| §10.1 | tenant system owns "local response decisions" | rewrite | Local judgment and proposals. Decisions stay the one PDP. A local PEP applying a prior decision is §6.4, not a second PDP. |
| §14.2 | "select bounded response" | rewrite | Select a proposal / posture hint. |
| §15 | VSM System 3 = "Tenant and platform response controllers"; System 5 = "response authority" | re-home | Controllers that change authority are Engine/PEP. System 5 policy authorship is gate-house + policy package, compiled by the PDP. |
| §16.2 | kg:authority:tenant-isolator granted to tenant-immune-node-a with permitted_actions: isolate, revoke-ephemeral-credential |
rewrite | Staff node does not receive isolate as a power it exercises. Authority grant, if it survives, is an Engine/PEP grant. |
| §19.1 | OBSERVATION → DECISION → RESPONSE_ACTION (authorizes) |
keep as estate data model, re-home the DECISION entity onto access-engine |
Add posture/signal between observation and decision. |
| §19.2 | separation includes "decision" and "response authorization" vs "action execution" | keep | This split is the statute. Name the owners. |
| §20.2 | "Policy decisions must expose: effective policies, precedence…" | re-home | PDP reconstructability. Not a Staff API. |
| §22.2 | "decision latency" as immune-system KPI | re-home | PDP metric; kings-guard may publish judgment latency separately. |
| §24 | tree immune-decision/ with policy-evaluation/, decision-schema/ |
rewrite | That tree is a second PDP. kings-guard owns posture/signal/proposal schemas already in specs/ImmuneContracts.md. |
| §25.1 | required "Decision Contract" | re-home | Owned by access-engine (statute §17 moved the decision-record schema there). |
| §27 | participant D as Decision Engine then D->>D: Compare… then D->>R: Propose… then R->>E: Authorize isolation |
rewrite | Two decision-shaped hops. Correct loop: sentinel/PEP may block locally under existing policy; kings-guard publishes posture; access-engine decides; PEP isolates. |
| §31 Phase 4 | "policy evaluation" as a tenant-immune-node deliverable | rewrite | Correlation and recommendations, not evaluation-as-PDP. |
| §33 AD-003 | "observation, decision, response, recovery and learning pattern" as the Kings Guard pattern | rewrite | Staff pattern is observe → judge → propose. Decide and act sit in Engine/PEP. |
| §34 Q2 | "Which response actions may be authorized autonomously at each recursive level?" | rewrite | Autonomy here is a second decision point. Recast as: which proposals may Staff emit, and which PEP stances exist, at each level. |
| §36 | sequence includes assessment then implied response as one architecture | rewrite | Sequence must name propose vs decide vs act. |
2.2 Actuation / containment claims (T04)
Places that imply kings-guard, a "tenant immune node", or this architecture performs isolate / contain / revoke / restore.
| Location | Claim | Action | Notes for T04 |
|---|---|---|---|
| §1 item 2 | architecture "identify and contain disturbances near their origin" | rewrite | Estate goal. kings-guard identifies and proposes containment. |
| §4.9 | Effector = "component authorized to perform a concrete defensive action" (isolate, revoke, terminate…) | re-home | Effector is PEP-shaped. Staff emits effector_request as a proposal (ImmuneContracts / WP-0003-T06). |
| §6.4 | "Local components receive bounded authority" and escalate | rewrite | Local PEPs receive a decision or a declared stance, not a standing isolate grant from this architecture. |
| §6.7 | every critical capability must have "containment" | keep as estate requirement, re-home who performs it | Engine/PEP; unowned today (§9.2). |
| §8 diagram | EFFECTORS / PEFFECTORS fed by REGULATION |
re-home | Effectors are PEPs. Regulation that authorizes is the PDP. |
| §9.3 | membrane "response hooks" | keep | Hooks are PEP-shaped integration, not Staff actuation. |
| §9.7 | "Response Plane executes defensive actions"; ladder R1–R9 | rewrite | Ladder can stay as the kinds of proposal / kinds of PEP action. Plane execution is Engine+PEP. R0 Observe is Staff. |
| §9.7 safety envelope | "Every automated action requires authorized issuer…" | re-home | Correct envelope for a PEP/actuation surface that does not exist yet. Do not hang it on kings-guard. |
| §9.8 | Recovery plane executes redeploy, rotation, evacuation | re-home | Recovery is Engine/runtime. Staff may request reconstitution. |
| §14.1 | Purpose: "immediate containment"; example "isolate a process" | re-home | Fast local loop is PEP-shaped (live example: qonto-assistant deny-escalation). Not kings-guard. Keep the loop. |
| §14.2 | examples: revoke session, isolate workload group, rotate credentials | rewrite | Those are proposals from Staff or PEP actions under a decision. |
| §14.3 | "coordinate platform response" / "validate containment" | re-home | Platform coordination may be Staff; containment validation is of a PEP outcome. |
| §16 entire | Response Authority Model granting isolate to a Staff node | rewrite | See 2.1. T04 owns the grant example. |
| §23.3 | KPIs: mean time to isolate, containment success rate | keep as estate KPIs, re-home | They measure the actuation surface, which is unowned. Do not imply kings-guard reports them as its own discharge. |
| §24 | immune-response/effectors/, authority-control/ |
rewrite | Not a kings-guard tree. Point at Engine/PEP when they exist. |
| §25.2 | effector_request with decision_ref then action: isolate; no observation/signal origin; no authority_boundary |
rewrite | Match WP-0003-T06: originating observation/signal, explicit authority_boundary, restrictive direction, no widened authority. effector_result is a PEP/Engine artifact. |
| §27 | E->>W: Isolate workload; "tenant compartment contains the possible compromise" |
rewrite | Isolation is PEP after a decision. Result sentence: compartment is the unit of containment, performed by Engine/PEP, not by the node. |
| §31 Phase 5 | title "Bounded Automated Response"; success = "contained automatically" | rewrite | INTENT stage 3: complete when proposals are well-formed and reconstructable, not when anything is contained. Actuation unowned. |
| §32 | deliverables ResponseAuthorityStandard.md, EffectorInterfaceSpecification.md as kings-guard repo contents |
rewrite | Proposal contract lives here. Authority/effector execution specs belong with the Engine/PEP owner. |
| §33 AD-005 | "Every automated action is limited by…" | rewrite | Staff: every proposal is bounded. Automated action is Engine/PEP, currently zero. |
| §34 Q2 | autonomous authorization of response | rewrite | See 2.1. |
| §35 | "local disturbances can be contained locally" | rewrite | Estate success criterion. Name Engine/PEP as the actor; Staff as the proposer. |
| §36 | "control architecture" closing the loop through response | rewrite | Propose, do not close the act. |
3. Section-by-section map
Frontmatter through §36. "Own" means who the section should describe after the sweep, not who currently speaks.
| Section | Own after sweep | Action | What T02–T05 do |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frontmatter | Staff spec | rewrite | Version bump, date, owners. T05. |
| Head layer note | Staff | rewrite | v0.7; propose-not-act; memory not a state plane; sweep complete, not KG-IN-0002. T05. |
| §1 Purpose | Staff describing an estate architecture | rewrite | "Contain" → identify and propose containment near origin. This file is the immune architecture, not a claim that kings-guard is the whole loop. |
| §2 Proposition | Staff | rewrite | Drop "control system". Cycle: observe → judge → propose; decide/act are Engine/PEP and currently half-missing (actuation at zero). |
| §3.1 In scope | mixed | rewrite | Identities, authz, admission, enforcement, "local and global security decisions", "automated response" are Engine/PEP/Tooling. In-scope for this spec as estate map may list them if each is layered. In-scope for the kings-guard repository must not. Split the two. |
| §3.2 Out of scope | keep | keep | Product-neutrality is still right. |
| §4.1–4.8 Organism…Signal | Staff contracts | keep | Align names with ImmuneContracts.md if they drift; no layer defect. |
| §4.2 "management plane" example | platform | keep-label | T03. |
| §4.9 Effector | PEP | re-home | T04. |
| §4.10 Immune Memory | Staff | rewrite | Add §3.4 rule 3: not a runtime input for other layers. T05 (and T02 if the plane text moves). |
| §4.11–4.13 Tolerance, Inflammation, Reconstitution | Staff concepts; reconstitution is Engine/runtime | re-home reconstitution | Tolerance/inflammation stay Staff. |
| §5 Analogy table | mixed | rewrite | Lymph node / adaptive decision / complement=effectors rows. |
| §6.1–6.3, 6.5, 6.8–6.12 Principles | Staff | keep | Intent-before-anomaly, evidence-before-judgment, memory governance already match INTENT. |
| §6.4 Local response first | PEP + Staff proposal | rewrite | Bounded proposal locally; execution is PEP under a decision. |
| §6.6 Reversible automation | Engine/PEP | re-home | Principle stands for whoever actuates. Staff does not automate isolate. |
| §6.7 Recovery / containment as required capabilities | estate | re-home actors | T04. |
| §6.11 Fail securely | Engine §9.3 stance | re-home | Degraded mode is the PDP/PEP stance map, not a Staff fail-open. |
| §7 Recursive model | estate | keep | Recursion is fine. Each level still has only one PDP. |
| §8 Top-level diagram | mixed | rewrite | T02 load-bearing task. Split CONTROL subgraph. |
| §9 intro (nine planes) | mixed | rewrite | Each plane states its layer. |
| §9.1 Genome plane | Staff consumes; owners produce | re-home "maintain canonical" | kings-guard does not run the intent registry. Contract stays. |
| §9.2 Identity plane | Tooling key-cape + Engine user-engine |
re-home | Trust-posture publication is Staff; issuance is not. |
| §9.3 Membrane plane | Engine/PEP/runtime | re-home | "policy enforcement" is PEP. |
| §9.4 Sentinel/evidence plane | Staff observes Staff-reachable sources; many sentinels are PEP/runtime | rewrite observation contract; keep-label control-plane sentinel | Identity/secret sentinels stay pending (blocked-clean). T02 + T03. |
| §9.5 Signal plane | Staff + coordination | re-home response authorization |
T02. |
| §9.6 Decision plane | Engine PDP | rewrite | T02. Entire plane is not Staff. |
| §9.7 Response plane | Engine + PEP; actuation unowned | rewrite | T04. |
| §9.8 Recovery plane | Engine/runtime | re-home | T04. |
| §9.9 Memory plane | Staff | rewrite | Not a state plane; engines/PEPs must not read it as runtime input. |
| §10 Tenant architecture | mixed | rewrite | Immune node ≠ PDP. Effectors ≠ Staff. "local response decisions" out. |
| §10.2 "cluster and control-plane security" | platform/k8s | keep-label | T03. |
| §10.3 "contain platform-level incidents" | Engine/PEP | re-home | Platform may request / may decide to override; it does not give kings-guard isolate. |
| §11 Isolation profiles | platform | keep-label I2/I3 control plane | T03. |
| §12 Brokerage | Engine/platform | keep | Not a Staff decision point. |
| §13 Admission | Engine/PEP (admission controller) | re-home | Genome is an input. Admission verdict is a decision. |
| §14.1 Fast local loop | PEP | re-home | T04. Keep; name qonto-assistant as the live Staff-adjacent PEP example. |
| §14.2 Tenant adaptive loop | Staff propose + Engine/PEP act | rewrite | T04. |
| §14.3 Platform loop | mixed | re-home containment validation | T04. |
| §14.4 Strategic learning | Staff + Taxonomy | keep | |
| §15 VSM mapping | mixed | re-home Systems 3 and 5 | T02. |
| §16 Authority model | Engine/PEP | rewrite | T04. Dimensions can stay as bounds on a future actuation surface. |
| §17 Posture model | Staff publishes; gate-house meaning; access-engine renders | rewrite | Align names with PostureLevel (healthy/elevated/inflamed/compromised) or explicitly map Green/Blue/Amber/Red. Do not let posture look like a privilege source. |
| §18 Pathologies | Staff + estate | keep | Autoimmunity/immunodeficiency still useful. "disabled effectors" is PEP health. |
| §19 Data model | estate | re-home DECISION | T02. Insert posture/signal. |
| §20 Policy architecture | Engine + gate-house doctrine | re-home | Constitutional policy is Taxonomy/gate-house. Resolution is the PDP. |
| §21 Evidence | Engine audit-core |
re-home | Custody is not Staff. Completeness bound §9.6 is already in the scaffold. |
| §22 Observability | mixed | re-home decision/response latency | T02. |
| §23 KPIs | estate | re-home containment KPIs | T04. Evidence completeness KPI stays relevant to Staff. |
| §24 Capability tree | Staff vs not | rewrite | Drop or re-home identity-immunity, compartment-control, immune-decision, immune-response, immune-recovery as other repos. Keep genome, sentinel consumption, coordination, memory (governed), regulation-as-safety-of-proposals. T02 + T04. |
| §25 Contracts | mixed | re-home Decision; rewrite Effector | T02 + T04. Observation/signal/genome/memory already have ImmuneContracts.md. |
| §26.1–26.2 k8s profiles | platform | keep | |
| §26.3 "dedicated tenant control plane" | platform/k8s | keep-label | T03. |
| §26.4–26.5 Sovereign / edge | platform | keep | |
| §27 Incident flow | mixed | rewrite | T02 (decision hops) + T04 (isolate actor). |
| §28 Federation | Staff memory publication | keep | Quarantine-before-enforcement is PEP/PDP, not Staff enforcing. |
| §29 Implementation independence | keep | keep | |
| §30 Assurance | mixed | re-home "policy enforcement" / "response authority" | Continuous assurance of those is Engine/PEP. |
| §31 Phase 1–2 | Engine/Tooling/platform | re-home | Not kings-guard deliverables. |
| §31 Phase 3 | Staff observation + source-published streams | keep as Staff slice | Matches WP-0003. |
| §31 Phase 4 | Staff judgment | rewrite | Recommendations, not policy evaluation. |
| §31 Phase 5 | Staff proposals; actuation unowned | rewrite | T04 load-bearing. |
| §31 Phase 6 | Engine/runtime | re-home | |
| §31 Phase 7 | Staff memory | rewrite | Federated memory must not become a state plane (INTENT stage 5). |
| §31 Phase 8 | Staff + Taxonomy | keep | |
| §32 Repo deliverables | Staff | rewrite | Align with files that exist (INTENT, this spec, ImmuneContracts, pilots). Do not list identity/attestation/effector-execution specs as this repo's. |
| §33 AD-001–002, 004, 006–009 | keep | keep | |
| §33 AD-003, AD-005 | Staff vs Engine | rewrite | T04 / T05. |
| §34 Open questions | mixed | rewrite Q2, keep Q12 | Q12 is this workplan's question; T05 can answer: kings-guard owns observation, judgment, proposal, governed memory; not identity, PDP, secrets, actuation. |
| §35 Success | estate | rewrite containment actor | T04 / T05. |
| §36 Summary | Staff | rewrite | Drop control-architecture; name propose/decide/act. |
4. How T02–T04 execute from this map
Do not re-discover the file. Use these slices:
T02 — diagram and planes
§5 analogy, §8 diagram, §9 intro through §9.6 and §9.9, §10 node/effectors,
§15 VSM, §19 data model, §20.2, §22.2, §24 immune-decision/, §25.1 Decision
Contract, §27 decision hops, §31 Phase 4.
T03 — remaining control-plane strings The six rows in §1 of this file, plus I2 "control and compute plane" and management-plane near-misses. Label or remove. Then grep.
T04 — containment / Phase 5 / effector §2.2 of this file in full, especially §4.9, §9.7, §14, §16, §25.2, §27, §31 Phase 5, §33 AD-005.
T05 — §6 audit and layer note
Walk every rewrite row in §2.1 after T02–T04 land. Refresh the head note
to v0.7. Answer §34 Q12. Confirm make test / make check-layer still pass.
5. Explicitly not mismatches
Listed so T02 does not "fix" them:
- Product-neutral out-of-scope (§3.2, §29).
- Genome / observation / signal / phenotype / tolerance / inflammation as vocabulary — already the Staff contract set.
- Tenant isolation as an estate property (membranes, profiles I0–I4).
- Evidence treated as a protected asset (§21) — custody is Engine; the requirement is fine.
- Recursion (§7) and VSM as a reading aid, once Systems 3 and 5 are re-homed.
- Asymmetry of posture (reduce / step-up / request containment, never manufacture authority) — already in INTENT; §17 should cite it, not invent a privilege source.
- WP-0003 scaffold (
contracts.py, stream completeness, origin-linked proposals). This inventory does not ask for code changes.