coulomb/net-kingdom
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Apply the v0.8 assent round: nine corrections, one request declined
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
Details
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
Details

Browse source 
The round returned findings from access-engine, approval-engine,
ops-warden and net-kingdom. v0.8 stayed proposed throughout, so these
are corrections to an uncut standard rather than amendments to an
accepted one. §15 items 12-20 list them; §14 records what the round
did and did not cover.

The load-bearing one is §6.4 obligation 1. The obligation said a PEP
must hold "a decision from access-engine", and obligation 2 supplied a
digest test emphatic that it was mechanical rather than a matter of
judgement. That test establishes which request a decision is for and
nothing about who issued it, and it cannot: every input to it is either
sent by the caller or published. Fail-closed protects against a
decision point that is absent, not against one that lies. Obligation 5
was then written over a pair of artifacts whose authenticity only one
half of could be validated, since §9.4 requires the approval object to
have authenticated entries and nothing required it of the decision.
The obligation now requires attribution, states that the digest
comparison does not discharge it, and carries a declared §13 gap with
access-engine as owner rather than a mechanism the standard does not
get to choose.

Obligation 3 gains three things: the drift test promoted SHOULD to MUST
(the strongest obligation in the section had the weakest verification,
in a paragraph arguing that drift is worse than no publication), a
prohibition on totality satisfied by a catch-all, and the requirement
that an absent scope be distinguishable in the record from an unknown
one. The last closes the §16 question opened at the cut: absent fails
closed too, for the stronger reason, and the distinction is in the
record rather than in the stance.

ops-warden asked for a dated transitional unknown: fail_open converting
on coverage. Declined, with its reasons in §6.4: a sanctioned
transitional fail_open is indistinguishable at runtime from the stance
the rule forbids, and would make the rule optional at the only moment
it costs anything. Its second preference is adopted instead — §13.1
records a dated classification-coverage figure beside each stance, so a
strict consumer and an unclassified one stop reading alike. Its measured
figures are in the register, and ops-mason's unpublished map is now
marked as the plainer violation of the same obligation it always was.

§6.4 announced four obligations and listed five. §17 called ownership
of three artifacts unsettled while settling one of them in the same
sentence. §14's tally could not be checked because item 2b's numbering
left a reader unable to tell whether it was a change or a sub-clause.
§19's hole was explained where nobody looks. All four found by
approval-engine.

21 tests pass.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012viPor8WJNCbV64ipwewrm

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1754332@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 9c8ac536-ff5e-46a3-8ab1-a548bde25fc0
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-09 20:10:55 +02:00
parent 303a584bd0
commit 64394e99b9
1 changed files with 244 additions and 35 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

279
canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.8.md
View file

@ -9,8 +9,8 @@ supersedes: canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md
owner: gate-house
publication_owner: net-kingdom
created: "2026-08-28"
updated: "2026-09-07"
last_reviewed: "2026-09-07"
updated: "2026-09-09"
last_reviewed: "2026-09-09"
review_interval: 3m
source_revision: "gate-house@516ed4e"
standard_token: security-layer-model_v0.8
@ -69,8 +69,14 @@ requiring no credential.
Three close a gap between rules already made. §6.4 gains validation by owning
layer and the rule that correspondence between two artifacts is established by
identity rather than translation. §11 gains an emission-guarantee declaration, so
`GH-IN-0001` cannot recur unnoticed. §13.1 gains three rows, a scoping axis, and
an honest statement of what it cannot answer.
`GH-IN-0001` cannot recur unnoticed. §13.1 gains three rows, a scoping axis, a
coverage figure, and an honest statement of what it cannot answer.
Nine more corrections landed during circulation, listed as §15 items 12–20 and
dispositioned in `gate-house/docs/conformance/2026-09-06-v08-assent-round.md`. The
load-bearing one is §6.4 obligation 1: a PEP must be able to *attribute* a
decision to `access-engine`, and no digest comparison does that. Fail-closed
protects against a decision point that is absent, not against one that lies.
One is a defect of the same kind this standard has now corrected repeatedly: §17
stated that emission-cadence ownership was unassigned and unassented after it had
@ -439,7 +445,7 @@ not a repository: `ops-warden` issuing a certificate, `ops-mason` opening a
route, and any protected system acting on a verdict are all PEP-shaped. Being
PEP-shaped does not move a repository out of its layer.
Four obligations, and they are normative:
Five obligations, and they are normative:
1. **No side effect without a decision record, or a recorded stance.** A PEP
MUST NOT perform the protected action unless it holds a decision from
@ -450,6 +456,46 @@ Four obligations, and they are normative:
metadata, never an absent record. `ops-warden` `ca.py` writes the zone, the
failure mode, and a decision id present only where a decision was rendered.
**Held is not attributed, and this obligation requires both.** The decision a
PEP holds MUST be *attributable to* `access-engine`, not merely present and
well-formed. Obligation 2's digest test establishes **which request** a
decision was rendered for; it establishes nothing about **who rendered it**,
and it cannot. Every input to that comparison is either sent by the caller or
published: the request material is what the PEP transmitted, and the policy
and registry digests are computable from a public repository. A responder
knowing a published package id and version reproduces all of it and returns a
well-formed allow, and each further digest published makes a forged envelope
look more authenticated rather than less.
**Fail-closed protects against a decision point that is absent, not against
one that lies.** §9.3's whole apparatus — two failure cases, two owners,
published stance maps — addresses absence. An unreachable PDP denies; a
responder impersonating one allows. The asymmetry with obligation 5 is the
sharp form: §9.4 requires the approval object to have durable, authenticated
entries, so a PEP can validate the approval artifact's authenticity and
cannot yet validate the decision artifact's. Obligation 5 is written over
both halves of that pair and is today satisfiable for only one of them.
This obligation is therefore **not discharged by a digest comparison**, and an
implementer MUST NOT read obligation 2's mechanical test as discharging it.
The channel is unauthenticated today — `flex-auth.decision-record.v1` carries
no signature and pins serve plain HTTP — so the obligation stands with a
declared gap in §13 rather than with a shipped mechanism, owner
`access-engine` (`FLEX-DEC-2026-010`, `FLEX-WP-0024`). The signature scheme is
the owner's under §17; the standard names the property, not the mechanism. A
declared gap is honest; an unstated assumption inside a test called mechanical
is not. Raised by `access-engine` against its own artifact, having recorded it
as its own defect before reviewing this text; put the same way independently by
`secrets-engine`, whose posture *"silently assumes the PDP is the PDP"*, and
carried forward by `approval-engine`, which observed that an approval whose
`pdp_digest` matches a **forged** decision matches perfectly.
§16 had already recorded this observation one layer up, against this
standard's own publication path having no digest, freeze, or rollback
discipline. Applied to the artifact the standard regulates rather than to the
standard, it is this paragraph: the gap was visible from inside and was
recorded against the wrong artifact.
v0.6's unqualified form made the shipped stance §9.3 sanctions into a
violation — the same defect as v0.5's §9.1, a rule written for the clean case
producing a false result on the adjacent case already sanctioned elsewhere.
@ -482,11 +528,18 @@ Four obligations, and they are normative:
rather than held in code comments or in a dataclass default. `ops-warden`
`ADR-0009` and its `pep-stance.yaml` are the reference shape.
The published map MUST equal the shipped behaviour, and that equality SHOULD
be asserted by a test. A published map free to drift from the code is worse
than none, because it invites reliance it cannot support. Raised by
`ops-warden`, which found its own map unpublished while being cited as the
reference for this obligation.
The published map MUST equal the shipped behaviour, and that equality MUST be
asserted by a test. A published map free to drift from the code is worse than
none, because it invites reliance it cannot support. Raised by `ops-warden`,
which found its own map unpublished while being cited as the reference for
this obligation.
The test was a `SHOULD` through v0.8's circulation, which left the strongest
obligation in this section with the weakest verification: a paragraph arguing
that drift is worse than no publication, whose only detector of drift was
optional, sanctioning the failure exactly where the argument says it is worst.
Promotion costs nothing — §13.1's `Shape` column already records such a test
for four of five rows. Raised by `access-engine`.
**`unknown` is not a zone and MUST resolve to `fail_closed`.** §9.3 permits
trading availability for openness *per zone* — knowingly, for a named scope,
@ -504,6 +557,57 @@ Four obligations, and they are normative:
privilege escalation requiring no credential. §8's asymmetry forbids that
wherever it appears. Zone stances are untouched by this rule.
**A map MUST enumerate its axis, and an `unknown` cell MUST NOT be what makes
it total.** Totality satisfied by a catch-all is satisfied *vacuously*: every
scope the author never enumerated lands in `unknown`, fails closed, and nobody
ever learns which those were. The map is then total by having a default rather
than by covering its axis, and the drift test above passes by exercising the
catch-all instead of the axis. `access-engine` recognised the shape because it
published it — a policy package shipped with no tenant rule at all while 29
fixtures passed, because every fixture carried the same tenant
(`FLEX-DEC-2026-008`). A suite that never varies an input cannot report on it,
however many assertions pass; a stance map with a catch-all cannot report which
scopes were never enumerated, however green its test.
**`unknown` and `absent` are one runtime behaviour and two meanings, and the
record MUST distinguish them.** A scope value the map classifies as `unknown`
and a scope value the map does not enumerate at all both fail closed —
`absent` for a stronger reason than `unknown`, since it is the branch reached
by discovering that the author's model of their own axis was wrong, and §8's
asymmetry forbids being more permissive on surprise. But an `unknown` hit is
normal operation under a considered stance, while an `absent` hit is evidence
that this obligation is violated. An `absent` hit MUST therefore be
distinguishable in the record from an `unknown` hit, and MUST surface as a
conformance failure rather than be absorbed by the catch-all. This answers the
question §16 opened at the v0.8 cut, and closes it. Raised by `access-engine`.
**Classification coverage is published alongside the stance, and does not
soften it.** A row reading `unknown` → `fail_closed` while most of that
consumer's targets resolve to no scope at all is conformant and materially
misleading: a reader cannot distinguish a strict consumer from an unclassified
one, and the map becomes accurate about itself while inaccurate about its
effect — §11's published-map-equals-shipped-behaviour rule one level up.
§13.1 therefore records a dated coverage figure beside each stance.
Coverage is disclosure, **not** a transitional licence. `ops-warden` asked
whether this obligation could name a dated, published transitional
`unknown: fail_open` converting on coverage rather than on calendar, having
measured zero of three signing targets and three of twenty-one routing lanes
resolved to a zone: adopting the cell today would fail closed on essentially
every certificate it issues whenever `access-engine` is unreachable, including
the continuity path an operator needs in order to repair that unreachability.
**Declined.** A sanctioned transitional `fail_open` is indistinguishable at
runtime from the stance this rule forbids, and would make the rule optional at
exactly the moment of adoption — the only moment it costs anything. §11's
declared-gap mark already expresses *"correct rule, adoption not yet
affordable"* without inverting the rule's effect, and `ops-warden` proposed
that outcome as its own second preference. The deadlock it names is real, and
is closed by classifying continuity paths into a scope whose stance is open:
that is classification work, not a reason to hold the axis open. A stricter
stance is equally not a licence to manufacture the membership that makes it
survivable — where a scope is unknown because another repository has published
no workload-identity declaration, the consumer MUST NOT infer one.
**A published map MUST name the axis it scopes over**, and state its
relationship to security zone: either a mapping, or an explicit declaration
that none exists yet and why. *"Per zone or equivalent scope"* permits axes
@ -1214,6 +1318,7 @@ register distinguishes proposed from assented.
| Identity and secret observation | unowned-capability | kings-guard | as above | proposed |
| Stance-map register had no implementation | declared-contact | ops-warden, access-engine | gate-house | resolved in §13.1 |
| Registry-snapshot digest in decision provenance | declared-contact | flex-auth | flex-auth | self-declared |
| Decision-record authenticity — a PEP cannot attribute a decision to `access-engine` (§6.4 obligation 1); unsigned envelope, plain-HTTP pins | declared-contact | flex-auth | flex-auth | self-declared (`FLEX-DEC-2026-010`, `FLEX-WP-0024`) |
| Approval storage and lifecycle | — | flex-auth | approval-engine | assigned (§9.4) |
| Approval evidence | — | gate-house | audit-core | **assented** (`AUDIT-IN-0001`) |
| Approval evidence custody stronger than the shipped bound — WORM, object lock, transparency log | unowned-capability | audit-core | — | unassigned |
@ -1254,13 +1359,28 @@ the register's real rate of change.
Every PEP-shaped consumer publishes an unreachable-engine stance map (§6.4,
obligation 3). This is the inventory until `maturity-engine` can hold it.
| Consumer | Stance map | Axis | Shape |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `ops-warden` | `ops-warden/pep-stance.yaml` | security zone | total per zone; open `z0`–`z2`, closed `z3-critical`; test asserts the published map equals the shipped default (`ADR-0009`). **`unknown` → `fail_open` is non-conformant under §6.4 obligation 3 as of this version** |
| `user-engine` | `user-engine/pep-stance.yaml` | security zone | total per zone; `fail_closed` for `z0`–`z3`, unknown, and not-applicable; test asserts the published map equals `user_engine.pep_stance` |
| `tenant-engine` | `tenant-engine/pep-stance.yaml` | security zone | total; `fail_closed` for unset, unreachable, non-allow, unknown; test asserts the file equals shipped behaviour |
| `secrets-engine` | `secrets-engine/pep-stance.yaml` | catalog stage — interim, pending zone membership as a claim | total over stage plus unknown; no implicit default; runtime-read; pinned to `SHIPPED_STANCE` by test |
| `ops-mason` | — | — | **not published**; catalogued PEP-shaped in §4 |
| Consumer | Stance map | Axis | Coverage | Shape |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `ops-warden` | `ops-warden/pep-stance.yaml` | security zone | signing targets 0/3 resolved; routing lanes 3/21 resolved (2026-09-09, self-measured) | total per zone; open `z0`–`z2`, closed `z3-critical`; test asserts the published map equals the shipped default (`ADR-0009`). **`unknown` → `fail_open` is non-conformant under §6.4 obligation 3 as of this version**; route `WARDEN-WP-0040` |
| `user-engine` | `user-engine/pep-stance.yaml` | security zone | not reported | total per zone; `fail_closed` for `z0`–`z3`, unknown, and not-applicable; test asserts the published map equals `user_engine.pep_stance` |
| `tenant-engine` | `tenant-engine/pep-stance.yaml` | security zone | not reported | total; `fail_closed` for unset, unreachable, non-allow, unknown; test asserts the file equals shipped behaviour |
| `secrets-engine` | `secrets-engine/pep-stance.yaml` | catalog stage — interim, pending zone membership as a claim | not reported | total over stage plus unknown; no implicit default; runtime-read; pinned to `SHIPPED_STANCE` by test |
| `ops-mason` | — | — | — | **not published — non-conformant under §6.4 obligation 3**; catalogued PEP-shaped in §4; no route recorded |
**Two rows are marked, and the marking is the point.** `ops-warden`'s cell is
wrongly valued in a published map; `ops-mason` has published no map at all, which
is the plainer violation of the same obligation and read as a bare statement of
fact through v0.8's circulation. A reader scanning for the bold marks would have
found one row and concluded the other four were fine. That is §11's marking
obligation applied to this standard's own register, and it was returned to
`gate-house` unchanged by `access-engine`, which had received the same argument
about a stale row of its own.
**Coverage is reported by the consumer and is not inferred here.** A blank is
"not reported", never "complete": the register does not compute another
repository's classification coverage, and a stance with no coverage figure beside
it says less than it appears to. §6.4 obligation 3 states why the figure belongs
next to the stance, and why it does not soften it.
**Cross-axis aggregation is unavailable.** Three maps scope by security zone and
one by catalog stage, which §6.4 permits as an equivalent scope. The register
@ -1300,13 +1420,20 @@ Two things that acceptance does and does not mean, kept apart because
| --- | --- |
| **Boundary assent** | given by the four repositories below, at the version named in each record, and undisturbed since |
| **Revision review** | v0.7's changes were each the adopted remedy of a v0.6 finding. All fifteen v0.6 findings were subsequently audited against the v0.7 body — not against its change log — and confirmed dispositioned (`gate-house/docs/conformance/2026-09-06-v06-findings-audit.md`) |
| **Not claimed** | no repository has yet reviewed v0.8 *as text*, apart from `net-kingdom`'s review of §11 and §17 against the profile it owns (2026-09-07: §17 confirmed in its own voice, §11 corrected). This version is circulated for that review before acceptance |
| **Reviewed as text** | v0.8's circulated round returned findings from `access-engine`, `approval-engine`, `ops-warden`, and `net-kingdom`, and every finding is dispositioned in `gate-house/docs/conformance/2026-09-06-v08-assent-round.md`. Nine corrections landed in this text during circulation (§15 items 12–20) and one request was declined with its reasons in §6.4 |
| **Not claimed** | `kings-guard` and `audit-core` have not returned a text review; the sections each was asked to attack — §9.5's criteria-grounding clause and §12's step-four paragraph for the first, §11's emission-guarantee wording for the second — carry no assent from the repository best placed to test them. `approval-engine` named the sections it did **not** read (§1–§4, §7, §8, §9.1–§9.2, §9.5–§9.6, §9.8, §10, §18, §20) rather than let a three-finding review read as a clean bill |
**Ten of this version's eleven changes were requested by another repository**,
seven of them by a repository arguing against its own interest or reporting its
own error. The exception is §17's ownership correction, which `gate-house` found
by auditing its own accepted text. That ratio is the reason the standard is
**Ten of this version's twelve changes as cut were requested by another
repository**, seven of them by a repository arguing against its own interest or
reporting its own error. There are two exceptions, not one: §17's ownership
correction, which `gate-house` found by auditing its own accepted text, and item
2b, which `access-engine` flagged as a near miss it was explicitly *not* asking to
have written down. The count was stated as ten of eleven until `approval-engine`
observed that item 2b's numbering left a reader unable to tell whether it was a
change or a sub-clause — and that the ambiguity moved both halves of a ratio §14
calls the argument rather than the background. The nine corrections applied during
circulation (items 12–20) were all requested by another repository. That ratio is the reason the standard is
circulated rather than accepted on the owner's decision as v0.7 was: this version
imposes costs on named repositories — `ops-warden` acquires a non-conformant
stance cell, `approval-engine` acquires an issue-time obligation — and a cost
@ -1359,7 +1486,10 @@ v0.7 → v0.8:
within hours of the ruling, which as first written mandated a check that could
never pass (`GH-DEC-2026-008`, raised by `access-engine`, which declined to
close it locally).
2b. **§6.4 obligation 5 gains the replay-identity property** — an evidence-bearing
2b. **A change in its own right, not a sub-clause of 2** — the label is retained
rather than renumbered so that references written against this list do not
silently repoint. §14's tally counts it. **§6.4 obligation 5 gains the
replay-identity property** — an evidence-bearing
input may be excluded from a correspondence digest but never from the replay
identity, because two requests differing only in which approval was presented
decide differently. Flagged by `access-engine` as a near miss rather than a
@ -1406,6 +1536,53 @@ v0.7 → v0.8:
11. **§16 reconciled** against the decision log; two questions closed, one opened
on whether an absent scope differs from an unknown one.
Applied during circulation, after the round returned findings against this text
(`gate-house/docs/conformance/2026-09-06-v08-assent-round.md`). The version stayed
`proposed` throughout, so these are corrections to an uncut standard rather than
amendments to an accepted one:
12. **§6.4 obligation 1 gains attribution** — a decision MUST be attributable to
`access-engine`, and obligation 2's mechanical digest test does not discharge
that. Fail-closed protects against a decision point that is absent, not
against one that lies, and obligation 5 was written over a pair of artifacts
whose authenticity only one half of could be validated. Carried as a declared
§13 gap with `access-engine` as owner rather than as a shipped mechanism
(raised by `access-engine` against its own unsigned envelope, having recorded
it as `FLEX-DEC-2026-010` before reviewing this text).
13. **§6.4 obligation 3's drift test promoted `SHOULD` → `MUST`** — the strongest
obligation in the section had the weakest verification, in a paragraph arguing
that drift is worse than no publication. Already met by four of five §13.1
rows (raised by `access-engine`).
14. **§6.4 obligation 3 forbids totality by catch-all**, and requires an `absent`
scope to be distinguishable in the record from an `unknown` one and to surface
as a conformance failure. This closes the question item 11 opened (raised by
`access-engine`, from its own 29-fixture tenant defect).
15. **§6.4 obligation 3 and §13.1 gain classification coverage** — published
beside the stance, because `unknown` → `fail_closed` over a population that is
entirely unclassified is conformant and misleading. A transitional
`unknown: fail_open` was asked for and **declined**: it is indistinguishable at
runtime from the stance the rule forbids (requested by `ops-warden`, which
proposed the declared-gap outcome as its own second preference and measured the
coverage figure now in the register).
16. **§13.1 marks `ops-mason`** — an unpublished map is a plainer violation of
obligation 3 than a wrongly-valued cell in a published one, and was stated as
bare fact while the other was bolded (raised by `access-engine`, returning
`gate-house`'s own §11 marking argument unchanged).
17. **§14's tally corrected and §15 item 2b clarified** — 2b is a change in its own
right and is the second item not requested by another repository, so the ratio
is ten of twelve with two exceptions (raised by `approval-engine`).
18. **§6.4's count sentence corrected** — it announced four obligations and listed
five, leaving a defensible reading under which an implementer omits the one
governing how an approval is compared to a decision (raised by
`approval-engine`).
19. **§17's artifact count and closing status corrected** — v0.8's item 10 reached
the emission-cadence paragraph and not the count sentence, which still called
ownership of the decision-record schema unsettled after `access-engine` took it
on (raised by `approval-engine`).
20. **§19 gains a stub** — the heading gap was explained in a §16 bullet, where a
reader checking whether an edit had dropped a section does not look (raised by
`approval-engine`).
v0.1 → v0.2:
1. **§5 restructured** into three sanctioned shapes. Added §5.2 conduit
@ -1597,10 +1774,15 @@ v0.3 → v0.4:
both registers as data; the migration waits on a committed, versioned export
readable without a live query, because a standard must stay legible in git to a
reader with no cluster access. `GH-DEC-2026-006`.
- Whether §6.4's `unknown` ruling should extend to other total-map scopes that
are absent rather than unknown — a scope a consumer has never enumerated is
not the same as one it cannot classify, and the standard does not yet
distinguish them.
- ~~Whether §6.4's `unknown` ruling should extend to other total-map scopes that
are absent rather than unknown.~~ **Closed** during v0.8's circulation. It
extends, and the distinction is not a distinction in the stance: `absent` fails
closed too, for the stronger reason that it is the branch reached by discovering
the author's model of their own axis was wrong. The distinction is in the
record — an `absent` hit is a conformance failure and MUST be distinguishable
from an `unknown` hit, or obligation 3's totality requirement is satisfied
vacuously by a catch-all. §6.4 obligation 3; answered by `access-engine`, which
raised the question's real cost from its own 29-fixture tenant defect.
- Whether Tooling warrants subdivision between third-party and homegrown.
- How a future `role-engine` divides responsibility with `access-engine`.
- Whether declared gaps need an estate-wide register rather than per-repository
@ -1613,7 +1795,12 @@ v0.3 → v0.4:
the two rules stated.
- Publication integrity of the Taxonomy layer itself. This standard demands
reconstructability of decisions while its own publication path has no digest,
freeze, or rollback discipline.
freeze, or rollback discipline. `access-engine` observed during v0.8's
circulation that the same observation applied to the artifact this standard
*regulates* is §6.4 obligation 1's attribution gap — the defect was visible from
inside and had been recorded against the wrong artifact. That half is now a
declared §13 gap; this entry is the half that remains open, and it is this
standard's own.
- The fitness verdict formerly at §19 now lives in
`net-kingdom/history/2026-08-29-layering-standard-assessment.md`. A grade
inside a standard of record becomes normative by adjacency and ages against the
@ -1637,8 +1824,11 @@ rule. As prose that is a rule a reviewer can apply. As an interface it does not
exist, because nothing defines what a claim *is*. §11 calls itself mechanically
checkable while resting on that gap.
Four artifacts are therefore required, owned by Taxonomy and versioned like any
standard:
Four artifacts are therefore required and versioned like any standard. **Two of
the four are not Taxonomy's**, and each is settled below rather than open: the
decision-record schema is `access-engine`'s, and the emission-cadence declaration
is split between `info-tech-canon` and `net-kingdom`. The table names all four
because §6.2 needs all four to exist, not because Taxonomy owns all four.
| Artifact | Contents |
| --- | --- |
@ -1686,11 +1876,19 @@ voice (`ITC-WP-0018`, publishing `ITC-EMISSION-CADENCE 0.1` in canon `0.7.0`;
`NK-WP-0035`, publishing `emission-cadence-security-profile_v0.1.md`). The
`kings-guard` draft is frozen as assimilation provenance.
**Ownership of the remaining three artifacts is still proposed.** The
request-claim and gap-record schemas sit between `info-tech-canon` and
`net-kingdom` on the same unsettled line; the decision-record schema is
`access-engine`'s, per above. §2 keeps ownership in the owning repository's
`INTENT.md`.
**Exactly two artifacts are unsettled: the request-claim schema and the
gap-record schema.** Both sit between `info-tech-canon` and `net-kingdom` on the
same line, and neither has an owner in its own voice yet. The other two are
settled above — the decision-record schema is `access-engine`'s, and the
emission-cadence declaration is assigned and accepted by both its owners. §2 keeps
ownership in the owning repository's `INTENT.md`.
This paragraph read *"the remaining three artifacts is still proposed"* while
settling one of the three in its own next clause, so a reader checking whether the
decision-record schema needed an owner found it listed among the unsettled — after
`access-engine` had taken it on against its own interest. Raised by
`approval-engine`; v0.8's item 10 corrected the emission-cadence paragraph and did
not reach this one.
## 18. Composition with the sibling standards
@ -1726,6 +1924,17 @@ appears in the decision record.**
---
## 19. *(retired)*
There is no §19. It held a maturity grade for `qonto-assistant`, removed because a
grade inside a standard of record becomes normative by adjacency — it is an
assessment, and assessments belong in `maturity-engine` and in dated review
records. The number is not reused, so references written against earlier versions
do not silently repoint. Retirement recorded in §16 and in
`gate-house/history/`; raised by `access-engine`, and the stub added because a
reader who sees §18 followed by §20 cannot otherwise tell whether an edit dropped
a section (raised by `approval-engine`).
## 20. The Railiance interaction boundary
Operations is not NetKingdom's. Workload operations are organized by