v0.2 recorded the approval object as the one open architectural hole, and carried a latent instance of its own §9.1 rule: gate-house was catalogued as owning conformance review with no engine to act through. Two engines were seeded to close both. - §9.4: the approval object goes to approval-engine — not Staff (§3.4 forbids the runtime state), not access-engine (an evaluator owning what it evaluates is self-dealing), not audit-core (append-only is the opposite property). access-engine consumes approvals as input claims under §6.2; audit-core takes the tamper-evident evidence. Operative state and evidence record are separate artifacts with separate owners. - §9.5: graded progression goes to maturity-engine. gate-house judges and proposes; maturity-engine computes and remembers. Carries the guardrail that a level may never gate a decision directly — under §6.1 that would be a second decision point by the graded back door. - §4 catalog gained both engines; §13 register updated. Status proposed: the new engines are seeded by owner direction with no other side to assent yet, and the approval evidence half needs audit-core's assent. 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
18 KiB
| id | type | title | domain | status | version | supersedes | owner | publication_owner | created | updated | last_reviewed | review_interval | source_revision | standard_token | superseded_by | assented_by | related | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| netkingdom-security-layer-model-v0.2 | standard | NetKingdom Security Layer Model v0.2 | netkingdom | superseded | 0.2 | canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.1.md | gate-house | net-kingdom | 2026-08-28 | 2026-08-28 | 2026-08-28 | 3m | gate-house@4f618b4 | security-layer-model_v0.2 | canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.3.md |
|
|
NetKingdom Security Layer Model v0.2
Superseded 2026-08-28 by v0.3, which assigns the approval and maturity concepts §13 recorded as unowned. The assent record in §14 remains the basis on which the model was accepted; v0.3 changes §4, §9, and §13 only.
1. Purpose
This standard states how NetKingdom's IT-security estate is layered, and what each layer may and may not do. It answers one question:
Given a repository, which layer is it in, and what does that permit it to own?
The layers are distinguished by determinism and by the kind of artifact the layer produces, not by technical tier, deployment topology, or team.
It is not an org chart, not a network model, not a deployment topology, and not a dependency graph. It does not assign work, and it does not replace any repository's boundary contract; it constrains what such a contract may claim.
What changed in v0.2. v0.1 was assented to by all three repositories whose boundaries moved, and each returned a finding. v0.1 had one lane for a Staff repository that legitimately touches Tooling — read-only diagnostics — which is narrower than the estate as it actually stands, and a rule with no lane for a real sanctioned case is satisfied by relabelling rather than by closing the gap. v0.1 also catalogued a capability (§4, containment) that §5 forbade discharging, and applied its reconstructability test to engines but not to the doctrine gate-house feeds them. §15 records the full change list.
2. Authority and conformance
| Fact or rule | Authority |
|---|---|
| The layers, their definitions, and the rules between them | This standard, owned by gate-house |
| Which layer a given repository is in | This standard, §4 catalog |
| What a repository owns within its layer | That repository's INTENT.md and boundary contract |
| Whether a specific request is permitted | access-engine — never this standard |
| Whether a Tooling contact is sanctioned | The declaring repository, under the shapes in §5, reviewable by gate-house |
| Security doctrine and invariants | gate-house |
| Publication | net-kingdom canon |
A repository conforms when its INTENT.md declares its layer, its claims fall
within that layer's permissions (§3), and its Tooling contacts take one of the
sanctioned shapes in §5 or are declared as gaps under §5.3.
3. The layers
| Layer | Character | Produces | Deterministic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taxonomy | cross-cutting language | terms, semantic contracts, standards | n/a — describes |
| Tooling | infrastructure and state | data structures, persistence | yes |
| Engines | interfaces for a modeled concept | APIs, contracts | yes |
| Staff | management, operations, change, controlling | specifications, decisions, workplans, tasks | no |
3.1 Taxonomy
Cross-cutting language. Taxonomy repositories define terms and semantic contracts so the other layers interoperate without integration by interpretation. They own no runtime position and no state any layer depends on.
info-tech-canon holds ecosystem-wide semantic contracts. NetKingdom-specific
security architecture — including this standard — is net-kingdom canon's.
3.2 Tooling
Deterministic infrastructure: data structures, persistence, and the consistent, performant, scalable keeping of state. Much of it is third-party.
3.3 Engines
Deterministic APIs for a modeled concept — a user, a tenant, a zone, a secret, an access rule. An engine's defining property is that the same authoritative input state yields the same result. Engines are where the estate's deterministic guarantees live, and therefore where every enforcement boundary MUST sit.
A repository whose core function is inference or judgment fails this test by construction and is Staff, however much of its work happens at runtime.
3.4 Staff
Interactive and non-deterministic. Staff is the management layer: operations, change, innovation, and controlling. It works through agentic capability — assistants and autonomous agents — and its artifacts are specifications, decisions, workplans, and tasks.
Staff repositories MUST NOT hold state that another layer depends on at runtime, and MUST NOT render or cache any decision an Engine is responsible for.
Acting at runtime does not make a repository an Engine. Being agentic makes it Staff, and §5 governs how it acts.
4. Layer catalog
| Repository | Layer | Owns |
|---|---|---|
info-tech-canon |
Taxonomy | ecosystem-wide semantic contracts and terminology |
net-kingdom |
Taxonomy | NetKingdom standards of record; publication |
key-cape |
Tooling | packaged identity tooling; IAM profile; authentication |
OpenBao |
Tooling | secret storage, leases, PKI, dynamic secret engines |
user-engine |
Engine | users, accounts, memberships |
tenant-engine |
Engine | tenant-as-an-entity facts |
zone-engine |
Engine | zone identity and membership — offline reference conformance per its 2026-08-23 disposition |
secrets-engine |
Engine | credential abstraction, custody, lifecycle |
access-engine |
Engine | the policy decision — the only decision point (§6) |
gate-house |
Staff | security doctrine, authority context, conformance review, curriculum |
ops-mason |
Staff | building and tearing down access routes and perimeters |
ops-warden |
Staff | operational access lanes, stewardship, runbooks; SSH certificate issuance |
kings-guard |
Staff | adaptive defence, observation; containment — pending (§9.2) |
whitehat-security |
Staff | offensive validation |
access-engine is the ruled name for the repository currently called
flex-auth; both denote the same authority until the governed rename completes.
Execution conditions for that rename are recorded in its migration decision, not
here.
5. The binding rule
Staff never touches Tooling directly. It acts only through Engine APIs.
A Staff repository MUST NOT hold a direct client for a Tooling-layer system — no direct database connection, no direct OpenBao client, no direct cluster mutation — outside the shapes below. This is the architectural form of no privilege from cognition, and it is deliberately mechanically checkable.
Three shapes are sanctioned. Everything else is a violation.
5.1 Read-only diagnostic observation
A Staff repository MAY read Tooling state for diagnostics where the owning
engine exposes no equivalent. It MUST be declared in the repository's
INTENT.md. It grants no write, and it is an engine gap to close, not a
standing arrangement.
5.2 Conduit
A Staff repository MAY run the owner's tool under the caller's identity, supplying no authority of its own. The test is the supplied-authority property: the conduit MUST NOT present its own credential, MUST NOT widen what the caller could already do, and MUST be reconstructable as the caller's action in audit.
A conduit that presents its own token is not a conduit; it is §5.3 or a violation. This shape MUST be declared, and the no-authority property SHOULD be covered by a test.
5.3 Declared engine gap
Where a Staff repository must contact Tooling directly and no engine exposes the capability, it MUST declare the contact rather than take an exemption. A declared gap carries, machine-readably:
| Field | Meaning |
|---|---|
capability |
what the contact does |
intended_owner |
the engine that should own it |
blocked_on |
why it cannot move today |
review |
a date, not "when convenient" |
A declared gap is tracked non-conformance, not conformance. It does not expire on its own and it is not a licence to add more. It exists because a rule offering no lane for a real sanctioned case gets satisfied by relabelling rather than by closing the gap — and a tracked gap is visible, whereas a relabelled one is not.
Prior art: ops-warden runs equivalent machinery for delegated lanes (27
catalog entries carrying delegation:, queryable via warden route gaps), and
has offered it as reusable.
6. One decision point
access-engine is the only policy decision point in NetKingdom. No other
repository, in any layer, may render or cache authorization decisions.
First ruled in zone-engine/INTENT.md §5 — "flex-auth is the policy decision
point. It stays the only one." The failure mode, from the same source: "It
becomes a second decision point… it would arrive as a small convenience."
6.1 Compiled data that determines an outcome is still deciding
A registry, cache, or schema that resolves a result before the engine runs has decided early. Provenance MUST remain reconstructable from the engine's decision record.
6.2 Doctrine reaches the decision as an input, or it is not applied
This rule binds gate-house on the same terms. An authority ceiling, mandate constraint, or operating-mode restriction that determines an outcome MUST reach the decision either as an input claim on the request or as a rule in the versioned policy package, so that its application is reconstructable from the decision record.
Doctrine that influences outcomes by any other route is a second decision point wearing an author's hat. This is not a limit on gate-house's authorship; it is what keeps that authorship auditable at decision time.
6.3 No Staff repository may host a decision point
A deterministic authority boundary inside a non-deterministic layer contradicts the invariant the estate is built on. gate-house was re-cut on this ground.
7. Relationship to the Active Secrets Management Canon
Staff interactive, non-deterministic ≈ Cognitive Plane
Engines deterministic APIs ≈ Authority Plane
Tooling deterministic state ≈ Execution Plane
Taxonomy cross-cutting language
Cognition proposes. Authority disposes. Infrastructure executes. is therefore NetKingdom's layering rule, not only its security maxim. §5 and §6 are that principle applied to repositories rather than to requests.
8. Vocabulary demarcations
| Term | Belongs to | Not |
|---|---|---|
| access lane | ops-warden, ops-mason (Staff) — how a worker reaches a host | the decision whether they may |
| access rule | access-engine (Engine) — whether an actor may act | the route by which they arrive |
| control plane | Engine layer | a Staff repository's self-description |
| doctrine | gate-house | a lane owner's runbook |
| runbook | the Staff repository stewarding the lane | a substitute for doctrine |
| posture | kings-guard publishes; gate-house defines its authority meaning; access-engine renders it | a privilege source |
Posture carries an asymmetry that MUST hold: adaptive systems may reduce authority, require step-up, or request containment. They MUST NOT probabilistically manufacture additional authority.
9. Capability assignment
9.1 The catalog may not assign what the rules forbid discharging
A Staff repository MUST NOT be catalogued in §4 as owning a capability that requires a Tooling contact no engine exposes. Where the capability is intended but the engine surface does not yet exist, the catalog entry MUST be marked pending and the gap declared under §5.3.
v0.1 violated this: it catalogued kings-guard as owning containment while §5 forbade the only route to discharging it, making the capability zero rather than degraded. Raised by kings-guard, KG-DEC-2026-001.
9.2 Containment is pending an engine surface
No engine exposes a containment surface today — nothing to reduce authority, require step-up, or isolate a workload as a deterministic API. kings-guard's containment claim is marked pending in §4 until one exists.
9.3 Degraded-mode fallback belongs inside the engine
Where a capability must survive partial failure, the fallback belongs to the
engine, not to Staff. The deterministic fail to reduced authority default is
access-engine's, applied when it cannot reach its own inputs.
This keeps the decision at the decision point and keeps the fallback deterministic — which a Staff-layer fallback could never be. It is also why engine-unavailable is not grounds for a Staff break-glass path: an incident is when an attacker most wants the shortcut, and a containment path that bypasses the decision point becomes an authority path the moment it is subverted.
10. Changing layer
A repository's layer is not permanent. zone-engine changed layer in practice
when its runtime hypothesis was falsified.
A layer change MUST be recorded as a decision, MUST update the repository's
INTENT.md, and MUST obtain assent from the repositories whose boundaries move.
A repository MUST NOT acquire a new layer's permissions by gradual practice.
11. Conformance
Conformance has three states, and the distinction is the point:
| State | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Conforming | no Tooling contact, or only §5.1/§5.2 shapes, declared |
| Declared gap | a §5.3 contact with owner, blocker, and review date — tracked non-conformance |
| Undeclared violation | anything else — a finding |
Mechanically checkable:
- every repository in §4 declares its layer in
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-engineexposes an authorization decision surface; - no §4 capability is catalogued without an engine surface or a pending mark.
Requires review: whether claims stay inside layer permissions; whether compiled or cached data has become an early decision (§6.1); whether doctrine is reaching decisions as declared inputs (§6.2); whether the §8 vocabulary is used correctly.
12. The conformance loop
Doctrine no engine implements is fiction. The loop is normative, not aspirational:
gate-house asserts an invariant
→ the engines implement it, or declare a gap
→ whitehat-security tries to break it
→ kings-guard observes it in operation
→ findings return to gate-house as doctrine change
A finding that a rule is unsatisfiable is a success of this loop, not a failure of the reporting repository. v0.2 exists because three repositories used it on first contact.
13. Open gaps
Declared under §5.3 or raised as unowned capability, as of 2026-08-28:
| Gap | Declared by | Intended owner |
|---|---|---|
SSH-CA signing write (VaultCA, bao kv put) |
ops-warden | secrets-engine |
| Authentication / assurance evidence | kings-guard | user-engine, access-engine |
| Secret-use evidence | kings-guard | secrets-engine |
| Containment surface | kings-guard | access-engine + runtime engines |
| Registry-snapshot digest in decision provenance | flex-auth | flex-auth (self-declared) |
| Approval storage and lifecycle — durable object, authenticated entries, atomic supersession | flex-auth | unowned — see below |
The approval gap is the one open architectural hole. It is not gate-house's
(§3.4 forbids Staff holding state another layer depends on at runtime) and not
access-engine's (it does not own the organizational approval lifecycle). It
blocks FLEX-WP-0017 T03 and T05. Assigning it requires a decision and the
assent of the receiving repository; this standard records the gap and does not
assign it.
14. Adoption
Status is accepted. All three repositories whose boundaries moved have assented in writing, each with a decision record:
| Repository | Record | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| flex-auth | FLEX-DEC-2026-001 |
assent to all three items; one self-declared non-conformance; two rename conditions |
| kings-guard | KG-DEC-2026-001 |
assent; declined the offered §5 relaxation; raised §9.1 |
| ops-warden | ADR-0010 |
assent to all three; veto not exercised; offered the §5.3 amendment |
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.
15. Change log
v0.1 → v0.2:
- §5 restructured into three sanctioned shapes. Added §5.2 conduit (ops-warden's question, ruled) and §5.3 declared engine gap (ops-warden's amendment, accepted).
- §6.2 added — doctrine must reach the decision as an input claim or a versioned policy rule (flex-auth's boundary drawn back, accepted).
- §9 added — the catalog may not assign a capability the rules forbid discharging; containment marked pending; degraded-mode fallback ruled into the engine (kings-guard's finding).
- §11 restructured — conformance now has three states, distinguishing a tracked gap from an undeclared violation.
- §12 made normative, with the explicit statement that an unsatisfiability finding is a success of the loop.
- §13 added — open gaps register, including the unowned approval storage and lifecycle capability.
- §4 catalog gained the pending mark and ops-warden's SSH certificate lane.
16. Open questions
- Who owns approval storage and lifecycle (§13). The only structural hole.
- Whether Tooling warrants subdivision between third-party and homegrown.
- How a future
role-enginedivides responsibility withaccess-engine. - Whether declared gaps need an estate-wide register rather than per-repository
declarations; ops-warden's
warden route gapsis candidate machinery. - Whether non-security repositories adopt the same model.