kings-guard/workplans/KG-WP-0004-architecture-layer-vocabulary-sweep.md

id	type	title	domain	repo	status	owner	topic_slug	created	updated	inventory	origin	origin_ref	promoted_from	source_decision	standard	state_hub_workstream_id
KG-WP-0004	workplan	Sweep layer vocabulary through NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md	infotech	kings-guard	active	kings-guard	netkingdom	2026-09-02	2026-09-02	history/2026-09-02-architecture-layer-vocabulary-inventory.md	residual	KG-IN-0002	KG-IN-0002	KG-DEC-2026-001	net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md	104d4cfb-d945-56e4-996e-3d319334f949

Sweep layer vocabulary through NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md

specs/NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md predates the NetKingdom Security Layer Model. A scoping note (2026-08-28, still citing v0.6) heads the file so no reading takes "control plane" as a kings-guard self-description, but the body is unadapted. This is G9 of history/2026-08-29-layer-model-v0.7-scope-intent-review.md. Promoted from intake KG-IN-0002, itself a residual of KG-DEC-2026-001.

Two things are being fixed, and they are the same defect read twice:

• "Control plane" is Engine-layer vocabulary (§8). The document uses it for an estate-wide arrangement that mixes identity, decision, response, memory, and audit. Some uses are legitimate (a Kubernetes control plane, a sovereign tenant's own operations plane). Those stay, labelled. Uses that describe kings-guard, or that collapse Staff judgment into an Engine plane, do not.
• §9.2 moved containment off this repository. Phase 5 still reads as if selected incidents "can be contained automatically" from this architecture. kings-guard proposes; an Engine renders; a PEP acts. The actuation surface is unowned estate-wide.

Boundaries this workplan does not cross

• No code change is required. The scaffold already matches INTENT/SCOPE under v0.7. This is a document sweep of one spec.
• No actuation, no Tooling contact, no engine gap worked around.
• Do not invent a second architecture. The immune planes stay; they are re-homed onto Staff / Engine / Tooling rather than rewritten as a new model.
• Do not delete every occurrence of "control plane". Kubernetes control planes, tenant-sovereign operations planes, and similar Engine/platform uses are disambiguated, not erased.

Known mismatches at promotion

Inventory at 2026-09-02, against v0.7. T01 re-derives this rather than trusting the list as closed.

Location	What is wrong
Head layer note	Cites v0.6; still points at this intake.
§2	"recursive adaptive security control system" — control-system is the same overlap as control plane.
§3.1	In-scope list includes "local and global security decisions" and "automated … response" as if this architecture owns them.
§8 diagram	Subgraph Platform Immune Control Plane holds identity, decision, response regulation, memory, audit, and signal together.
§9.6 Decision Plane	immune_decision with authorized_response is an Engine decision record, written as if it were this architecture's output. §6: one decision point, access-engine.
§9.7 Response Plane	"executes defensive actions" — actuation. Staff proposes; Engine/PEP execute.
§16 authority grant	kg:authority:tenant-isolator granted to a "tenant-immune-node" that isolates. Isolation is Engine/PEP.
§25.2 Effector Contract	decision_ref then action: isolate with no origin observation/signal and no authority-boundary. WP-0003-T06 already fixed the scaffold.
§31 Phase 5	Success = "contained automatically". Stage 3 in INTENT.md is "proposals are well-formed and reconstructable, not when anything is contained".
Remaining "control plane" strings	§9.4 control-plane sentinel; §10.2 cluster and control-plane security; §11 I3 sovereign control plane; §26.3 dedicated tenant control plane. Likely Engine/k8s uses — confirm and label.

Dependency order

T01 inventory
  -> T02 re-home planes and the §8 diagram
    -> T03 remaining "control plane" strings
    -> T04 containment / Phase 5 / effector contract
      -> T05 §6 audit, layer note, version

Task: Inventory every layer mismatch in the architecture spec

id: KG-WP-0004-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "a4feb6c0-7969-5786-9a11-cb9130a625ea"

Re-read specs/NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md against net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md §§3.4, 5, 6, 8, 9.2. Produce a section-by-section map: Staff (observe, judge, propose), Engine (decide, act), Tooling (hold, attest, store), or legitimate platform/k8s wording that stays.

Done when:

• the map lives in history/ (or as a table in this workplan) and names every "control plane" occurrence, every decision/response plane claim, and every place that implies kings-guard actuates;
• each row says keep / re-home / rewrite;
• T02–T04 can be executed from the map without re-discovering the file.

Done 2026-09-02: Map is history/2026-09-02-architecture-layer-vocabulary-inventory.md. It names every control plane occurrence (six hits; four are keep-label k8s/platform), every decision/response-plane claim, and every actuation implication, each with keep / keep-label / re-home / rewrite. Section-by-section table covers frontmatter through §36. T02–T04 slices are listed in §4 of that file.

Task: Re-home the §8 diagram and the nine planes onto Staff / Engine / Tooling

id: KG-WP-0004-T02
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "2f7b3303-d87c-5c29-9249-98afd746631f"

The Platform Immune Control Plane subgraph is the load-bearing error. Split it so a reader can see which boxes are Engine authorities (identity issuance, decision, actuation) and which are kings-guard's observation-and-judgment surface (genome consumption, phenotype, posture, signals, proposals, governed memory that is not a state plane).

§9.6 Decision Plane becomes the Engine decision point (access-engine), not a Staff output. §9.7 Response Plane becomes Engine + PEP. Genome, sentinel/evidence, signal, and memory stay readable as Staff-owned or shared contracts, not as a second PDP.

Done when:

• the §8 diagram no longer names a kings-guard control plane;
• each of the nine planes states its layer;
• immune_decision is explicitly an Engine artifact, not a kings-guard posture record.

Done 2026-09-02: §8 subgraph is Staff (observe/judge/propose) vs Engine (PDP, facts, evidence, unowned actuation) — no kings-guard control plane. Each of the nine planes states its layer. immune_decision is labelled an access-engine artifact. Observation no longer carries assessment/proposed response. Related T02 slices: §2 cycle, §3.1 estate-vs-repo, §5 analogy, §10 node, §15 VSM, §17 posture publisher, §19 data model, §20.2, §22.2, §24 immune-judgment/, §25.1, §27 decision hops, §31 Phase 4. T03/T04 strings and actuation copy left in place.

Task: Disambiguate remaining "control plane" strings

id: KG-WP-0004-T03
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "4e97c257-9819-51fc-900b-d632992d096d"

The leftover strings are probably not about kings-guard. Confirm and label them so a later reader does not have to guess:

• §9.4 "control-plane sentinel"
• §10.2 "cluster and control-plane security"
• §11 I3 "Dedicated account, keys, control plane and operations"
• §26.3 "dedicated tenant control plane"

Done when:

• every remaining "control plane" occurrence is either gone or clearly an Engine/platform/Kubernetes plane;
• a grep for control plane / control-plane / Control Plane in the spec has no unlabeled hit.

Done 2026-09-02: Remaining hits are all labelled as Kubernetes/platform API planes, or as the Staff denial "not an Engine-layer control plane". I2 "control and compute plane" and management-plane near-misses labelled the same way. Head note still cites v0.6 / KG-IN-0002 — that rewrite is T05.

Task: Correct containment, Phase 5, and the effector contract

id: KG-WP-0004-T04
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "bbb4c1aa-2808-5fde-8f9b-7fb7730f13c7"

Statute §9.2: kings-guard proposes containment and never performs it. INTENT.md stage 3 is complete when proposals are well-formed and reconstructable, not when anything is contained. Phase 5's success condition ("contained automatically") is the pre-v0.6 charter.

Align:

• §9.7 response ladder — proposal vs execution;
• §16 authority grant — a Staff node does not receive isolate/revoke as a power it exercises;
• §25.2 effector contract — origin observation/signal, explicit authority_boundary, no widened authority (matches WP-0003-T06);
• §31 Phase 5 — bounded proposal, actuation unowned.

Done when:

• no sentence in the spec claims kings-guard contains, isolates, or otherwise actuates;
• Phase 5 cannot be read as "kings-guard will automatically contain";
• the effector example is a proposal, reconstructable to its origin.

Task: Prove no Staff decision point; refresh the layer note

id: KG-WP-0004-T05
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "e56c68ee-0b52-51ad-9fef-b3e4e0f22ffa"

Statute §6: one decision point, access-engine. After T02–T04, walk the file and confirm no Staff component renders or caches an allow/deny. Update the head layer note from v0.6 to v0.7, drop the "tracked as KG-IN-0002" pointer, bump the document version, and record the sweep date.

Done when:

• a short audit (in the workplan or history/) lists candidate decision-shaped objects and where each now lives;
• the layer note matches INTENT.md (Staff, v0.7, proposes containment, does not own it);
• git diff --check is clean.

Success criteria

1. Every task above is done.
2. grep -nE 'control plane|control-plane|Control Plane' specs/NetKingdomImmuneArchitecture.md has only labelled Engine/platform/k8s hits, or none.
3. The spec cannot be read as placing a decision point or an actuator in Staff.
4. INTENT.md, SCOPE.md, and this spec agree on layer, containment, and memory-as-not-a-state-plane.
5. make test and make check-layer still pass (no code change expected).