# Intake records

## NET-IN-0001 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11)

```yaml
id: NET-IN-0001
kind: intake
title: 'Declaration requested: state this repository''s layer in INTENT.md (security
  layer model §11)'
status: open
origin: cross-repo
origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.4 §11
priority: low
owner: net-kingdom
requested_by: gate-house
proposed_layer: Taxonomy
description: 'A conformance sweep on 2026-08-28 found this repository has no layer
  declaration of its own. It carries a layering review note gate-house wrote into
  the top of its INTENT.md on 2026-08-24, and that note names a layer — but the words
  are gate-house''s, sitting above a line admitting the body is unadapted. Section
  11 has since been amended to say so explicitly: a layer stated about a repository
  by another repository is not a declaration; only the repository''s own file, in
  its own voice, conforms. Seven of fifteen estate-authored repositories have declared;
  this is one of the eight that have not, and the standard does not claim adoption
  on the basis of notes gate-house wrote. REQUESTED: state the layer in INTENT.md
  in your own voice, or contest it. PROPOSED LAYER: Taxonomy. NetKingdom standards
  of record and publication. Note this repository publishes the layer model but has
  not declared its own place in it. Contesting is a real option and costs nothing
  — the three repositories that reviewed this model each returned a correction, two
  of which changed the standard. If the proposed layer is wrong for what this repository
  actually does, that is more useful to us than a label added to close a checkbox.
  Standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.4.md.'
created: '2026-08-28T21:01:51.894396Z'
updated: '2026-08-28T21:01:51.894396Z'
state_hub_intake_id: "01a06eb9-8b32-7f2a-aae5-0887b1083137"
```

## NET-IN-0002 — Amend tenant-engine-boundary-contract_v0.1 for Engine/PIP, shipped guardrails, and PEP-shaped writes

```yaml
id: NET-IN-0002
kind: intake
title: 'Amend tenant-engine-boundary-contract_v0.1 for Engine/PIP, shipped guardrails, and PEP-shaped writes'
status: open
origin: cross-repo
origin_ref: TEN-WP-0011-T06
priority: medium
owner: net-kingdom
requested_by: tenant-engine
description: >
  tenant-engine has declared Engine / PIP under security-layer-model v0.7
  (TEN-DEC-2026-001) and shipped guardrail/quota policy (TEN-WP-0006).
  canon/standards/tenant-engine-boundary-contract_v0.1.md still says
  guardrail/quota policy is "reserved, not yet implemented" and that
  tenant-engine is "not a policy enforcement point". Both sentences now
  mislead: guardrails are owned and served as PIP ceilings
  (tenant-engine/docs/tenant-guardrail-policy.md), and writes are
  PEP-shaped even though this repo is not a PDP.

  Requested amendments, without forking the contract into tenant-engine:

  1. Mark guardrail/quota policy as owned and implemented; point at
     tenant-engine/docs/tenant-guardrail-policy.md.
  2. Restate the authorization contract: data source / PIP for decisions;
     PEP-shaped for its own protected writes; never a second PDP.
  3. Mention Engine / PIP and security-layer-model_v0.7 next to the
     existing IAM Profile / ADR-0013 / ADR-0014 references.

  Do not assign approval lifecycle to tenant-engine (TEN-DEC-2026-001
  contested that placement).
created: '2026-08-29'
updated: '2026-08-29'
state_hub_intake_id: "01a06eb9-c4af-7a9e-8ff5-1bc5f845eb38"
```