kings-guard/intakes/intakes.md

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: closed
outcome: absorbed
promoted_to: KG-DEC-2026-001
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'
closed: '2026-08-28'
resolution: 'Assent with finding. All three points assented and adopted in
  INTENT.md, SCOPE.md, README.md, AGENTS.md, and docs/AdjacentSystemBoundary.md.
  The invited challenge to the binding rule was taken up and answered: do not
  weaken section 5 — but section 4 catalogs kings-guard as owning containment
  while no engine exposes a containment surface, so the charter is currently
  undischargeable. Two rulings requested of gate-house. Full record:
  decisions/decisions.md KG-DEC-2026-001. Vocabulary sweep of the architecture
  spec handed off as KG-IN-0002.'
state_hub_intake_id: "01a049ea-2e37-7dde-9772-fab7e788d8d7"

KG-IN-0002 — Sweep "control plane" and layer vocabulary through NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md

id: KG-IN-0002
kind: intake
title: Sweep "control plane" and layer vocabulary through NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md
status: closed
outcome: promoted
promoted_to: KG-WP-0004
origin: residual
origin_ref: KG-DEC-2026-001
priority: low
owner: kings-guard
standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.1.md
description: 'specs/NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md (approx. 1900 lines) predates the
  NetKingdom Security Layer Model and uses "control plane" in several places —
  including a "Platform Immune Control Plane" subgraph — where the layer model
  reserves that vocabulary for the Engine layer. A scoping note now sits at the head
  of the document so no reading takes it as a kings-guard self-description, but the
  body is not adapted. Sweep it: separate the components that are engine-layer
  authorities from the observation-and-judgment surface kings-guard actually owns,
  and check that no part of the architecture places a decision point in Staff
  (layer model section 6).'
created: '2026-08-28'
updated: '2026-09-02'
closed: '2026-09-02'
resolution: 'Promoted to KG-WP-0004. The architecture spec still predates the
  layer model; the workplan carries the sweep, including the §9.2 containment
  correction that G9 of the 2026-08-29 review added to this residual.'
state_hub_intake_id: "01a049ea-3a04-74b9-a9b1-e2630f8d5628"

KG-IN-0003 — Review requested: security layer model v0.3 (maturity-engine, and the posture/maturity boundary)

id: KG-IN-0003
kind: intake
title: 'Review requested: security layer model v0.3 (maturity-engine, and the posture/maturity
  boundary)'
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
description: 'v0.3 is proposed and changes sections 4, 9 and 13 only; the v0.2 assent
  record stands. It responds directly to KG-DEC-2026-001. Section 9.5 assigns graded
  progression to a new maturity-engine, which now owns the gap register with intended_owner,
  blocked_on and review dates, and capability readiness — so your three declared engine
  gaps and the pending containment claim become queryable facts rather than footnotes
  in a standard. Your finding also produced 9.1 in v0.2, and v0.3 applies it to gate-house
  itself: gate-house was catalogued as owning conformance review with no engine to
  act through, exactly the defect you named for containment, and it now acts through
  maturity-engine. THE QUESTION FOR YOU is a boundary we have not drawn: posture and
  maturity are both graded, and we do not want two engines grading the same subject.
  Our reading is that posture is volatile current security state about an actor, published
  by kings-guard and rendered by access-engine, while maturity is slow progression
  of a capability against declared criteria. If that line is wrong, or if maturity-engine
  would absorb something you consider posture, say so now — a second grading authority
  would be the same shape of mistake as a second decision point. Also worth your view:
  does capability readiness for containment belong in maturity-engine, or does tracking
  your own gaps there create a dependency you would rather not carry during an incident?
  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"