Amend §11: who must declare, and what a declaration is

Conformance sweep across the §4 catalog found two defects in this standard.

§11 required every catalogued repository to declare its layer in INTENT.md,
which OpenBao cannot do — the estate catalogues it but does not author it. That
is the §9.1 defect applied to conformance rather than capability: a rule
assigning an obligation the holder cannot discharge. For components the estate
does not author, the catalog row is the declaration.

§11 also did not say what a declaration is. A layer stated about a repository
by another repository is not one. The nine repositories carrying gate-house's
layering review note appear to declare a layer, but the words are gate-house's
and sit above a line admitting the body is unadapted — assertion, not assent,
which is the pattern this estate rejects.

§14 now records the honest count: seven of fifteen estate-authored repositories
have declared in their own voice. Adoption is not claimed on the basis of notes
gate-house wrote into other repositories.

Amended in place rather than versioned: v0.4 is proposed and unassented.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-08-28 23:01:35 +02:00
parent 584738bd9f
commit 2aaf46ce95

View file

@ -414,9 +414,21 @@ Conformance has three states, and the distinction is the point:
| **Declared gap** | a §5.3 contact with owner, blocker, and review date — tracked non-conformance |
| **Undeclared violation** | anything else — a finding |
**Who must declare.** A repository the estate authors declares its layer in its
own `INTENT.md`, in its own voice. For a component the estate catalogues but does
not author — third-party or vendored, such as `OpenBao` — the §4 catalog row
**is** the declaration, and no `INTENT.md` obligation attaches. A rule that
assigns an obligation the holder cannot discharge is the §9.1 defect applied to
conformance rather than capability.
A layer stated *about* a repository by another repository is not a declaration.
Review notes, catalog rows, and correspondence record an intent to adopt; only
the repository's own file, in its own voice, conforms.
Mechanically checkable:
- every repository in §4 declares its layer in `INTENT.md`;
- every estate-authored repository in §4 declares its layer in its own
`INTENT.md`;
- every direct Tooling client in a Staff repository maps to a declared §5.1,
§5.2, or §5.3 entry;
- no repository other than `access-engine` exposes an authorization decision
@ -493,6 +505,16 @@ Adoption for a repository means its `INTENT.md` declares its layer, its
ownership claims fall inside that layer, its Tooling contacts are declared under
§5, and any shared boundary has been assented to by the other side.
**Adoption status as of 2026-08-28: seven of fifteen** estate-authored §4
repositories have declared in their own voice — `gate-house`, `flex-auth`,
`kings-guard`, `ops-warden`, `audit-core`, `approval-engine`, `maturity-engine`.
The remaining eight — `info-tech-canon`, `net-kingdom`, `key-cape`,
`user-engine`, `tenant-engine`, `zone-engine`, `secrets-engine`, `ops-mason`,
`whitehat-security` — carry a layering review note authored by `gate-house` and
have not answered it. Those notes state a layer but do not constitute a
declaration, and this standard does not claim estate-wide adoption on their
basis. Declaration requests are open as intakes in each.
## 15. Change log
v0.1 → v0.2:
@ -524,6 +546,11 @@ v0.2 → v0.3:
names the engine it acts through.
4. §13 register updated: the approval hole is assigned, two new entries added.
Amended in place while `proposed`, 2026-08-28: §11 gained the who-must-declare
rule after a conformance sweep found the standard required an `INTENT.md`
declaration from `OpenBao`, which the estate does not author; and §14 gained the
honest adoption count.
v0.3 → v0.4:
1. **§4 catalog gained `audit-core`** as an Engine, on its own declaration. v0.3