Correct v0.8 §11: the emission-guarantee check contradicted the profile it cites

gate-house circulated v0.8 with two questions for this repository as owner of
the NetKingdom emission-cadence security profile: whether §17's ownership
paragraph reads in our own voice, and whether §11's new conformance item
follows the profile or diverges from it.

§17 is confirmed as written. It assigns the generic EmissionCadenceDeclaration
contract to info-tech-canon and to net-kingdom the MUST/SHOULD split, the
rare-class rate-monitoring prohibition, and the heartbeat-plus-reconciliation
obligation — which is emission-cadence-security-profile_v0.1.md §3, conjunction
included. No change.

§11 diverged in both directions and is corrected. Requiring a detection surface
of "heartbeat or reconciliation" of every load-bearing source withholds from a
volume class the expected-rate form the profile permits, and accepts for a rare
class either control alone where the profile — and the checker in
tools/emission-cadence-profile — require both. A rare class covered by a
heartbeat alone has no reconciliation to catch divergence, and one covered by
reconciliation alone produces no claim that can go missing, which is the whole
reason §9.6 rejects rate monitoring there. The item also contradicted its own
following paragraph, which admits rate monitoring except where the class is
rare.

The check now defers the form to the governing profile rather than restating a
split that is §17's to assign, carries the volume/rare distinction explicitly,
and states that classification is the source's published inventory and never the
checker's to infer from a name, payload, or observed rate — otherwise omission
detection is circular.

Change log item 6 and §14 record the review. The standard stays proposed;
publication and the acceptance flip wait on the close of the circulation round.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ek3zTdfMa35bPVDjVUyhxx

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 868701@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: b2e101b6-f501-40dc-9ee5-438cac36e21a

workplans/NK-WP-0035-emission-cadence-security-profile.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ owner: codex
 topic_slug: netkingdom
 planning_priority: P1
 created: "2026-09-04"
-updated: "2026-09-05"
+updated: "2026-09-07"
 related:
   - GH-DEC-2026-004
   - canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md
@@ -115,3 +115,34 @@ State Hub reconciliation was attempted with both the installed CLI and current
 checkout. Full reconciliation remains pending because API queries/writes timed
 out or returned connection-refused errors. Generated index/intake metadata was
 reviewed; the source files remain authoritative.
+
+## Review the layer model's use of the profile
+
+```task
+id: NK-WP-0035-T05
+status: done
+priority: high
+```
+
+`gate-house` circulated `security-layer-model_v0.8.md` into this repository with
+two questions for the profile's owner: whether §17's ownership paragraph says
+what NetKingdom would say in its own voice, and whether §11's new
+emission-guarantee conformance item follows the profile or diverges from it.
+
+2026-09-07 review. §17 is confirmed as written: it assigns the generic contract
+to `info-tech-canon` and to this repository the MUST/SHOULD split, the
+rare-class rate-monitoring prohibition, and the heartbeat-plus-reconciliation
+obligation — which is the profile's §3, including the conjunction.
+
+§11 diverged in both directions and was corrected in place. As first cut it
+required a detection surface of *"heartbeat or reconciliation"* of every
+load-bearing source: that withholds from a volume load-bearing class the
+`expected-rate` form the profile permits, and accepts for a rare class either
+control alone where the profile and
+`tools/emission-cadence-profile/emission_cadence_profile.py` require both. It
+also contradicted §11's own following paragraph, which admits rate monitoring
+except where the class is rare. The item now defers the form to the governing
+profile, carries the volume/rare split explicitly, and states that
+classification is the source's to publish and never the checker's to infer.
+Change log item 6 and §14 record the review; the standard remains `proposed` and
+publication waits on the close of the circulation round.