All four reviewing repositories returned findings on v0.4 and one contested a
rule. Every change below came from a reviewer, not from gate-house.
- §9.1 split into `pending` (no route, capability zero) and `declared-gap`
(route exists under §5.3, capability works). v0.4's single mark would have
forced a false "pending" onto ops-warden's production SSH issuance —
the fix was worse than the defect, and the defect was in this section.
- §9.3 rewritten. flex-auth contested it and was right: it collapsed "engine
reachable but degraded" with "engine unreachable", and the second has no
evaluator in the path to express anything. Input degradation is the engine's;
unreachability is the consumer's, bounded by a declared auditable total
stance — which ops-warden ADR-0009 already satisfies. v0.4 had ruled against
shipped behaviour in a repository that assented to it.
- §5 scoped: "Tooling-layer system" means a §4 Tooling row. Without this every
Staff repository was in undeclared violation for writing progress events.
- §9.4 requires the outbox to be local — no synchronous audit-core dependency
inside the state-change transaction, so an audit outage cannot block a
revocation.
- §9.5 forbids compiling maturity levels into registry content while decision
provenance carries no registry-snapshot digest.
- §9.6 gained load-bearing versus attributive evidence, the mirror rule that
absence is not evidence of non-occurrence, and kings-guard's finding that
suppression biases posture optimistic and silently.
- §11 gained a fourth state: blocked-clean, which MUST NOT rank below
conforming. A repository that declined a break-glass path and left a
capability at zero complied at cost; one that quietly opened a client and
declared nothing did not.
- §11 gained a machine-readable declaration form; ops-warden's layer.yaml is
the reference implementation.
- §13 gained state and owner-status columns; access-engine's decline of
authentication evidence is recorded.
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
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
audit-core assented to the approval evidence half with conditions and
corrected the rationale twice. Both corrections were against wording this
standard had taken from that repository's INTENT rather than its contract.
- §4 catalogues audit-core as an Engine, on its own declaration. v0.3 named it
as an owner in §9.4 and §13 without listing it — a §11 defect in the standard
itself, which audit-core raised.
- §9.4 rationale rewritten to cite docs/integrity.md rather than INTENT
principle 6: an in-database chain detects a rewritten payload only if the
attacker does not recompute the suffix, which a database owner can, and even
with external attestation the store is not WORM or object lock. tamper
evidence is conditional on live preconditions.
- §9.4 gained emission atomicity as approval-engine's obligation, and the
prohibition on audit-core exposing an approval-validity query — a boundary
audit-core stated unprompted, applying §6.1 to itself.
- §9.6 added, estate-wide: evidence proves alteration and truncation, not
omission at source. A suppressed revocation leaves the chain intact and
verification reports intact. "The audit record proves it happened" is unsound
and is replaced with the sound form.
- §13 gained two gaps: stronger approval custody (unassigned — deciding whether
approvals need archival custody distinct from other sources is doctrine work
not yet done) and emission atomicity (approval-engine).
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
