net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md

---
id: netkingdom-security-layer-model-v0.7
type: standard
title: "NetKingdom Security Layer Model v0.7"
domain: netkingdom
status: accepted
version: "0.7"
supersedes: canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.6.md
owner: gate-house
publication_owner: net-kingdom
created: "2026-08-28"
updated: "2026-08-28"
last_reviewed: "2026-08-28"
review_interval: 3m
source_revision: "gate-house@516ed4e"
standard_token: security-layer-model_v0.7
# "assented_by" records assent to a BOUNDARY, given at the version named.
# It is not assent to the current text. Revision reviews are listed in §14.
assented_by:
  - "flex-auth FLEX-DEC-2026-001"
  - "kings-guard KG-DEC-2026-001"
  - "ops-warden ADR-0010"
  - "audit-core AUDIT-IN-0001, and v0.4 review with three findings"
  - "flex-auth FLEX-DEC-2026-002 (v0.4, §9.3 contested)"
  - "kings-guard v0.4 review, four findings"
  - "ops-warden 2026-08-29 v0.4 review, three findings"
related:
  - canon/standards/security-zones_v0.1.md
  - canon/standards/tenancy-posture_v0.1.md
  - canon/standards/credential-management_v0.2.md
  - gate-house/decisions/decisions.md
  - net-kingdom/history/2026-08-29-layering-standard-assessment.md
  - gate-house/history/2026-08-28-security-layer-model-and-gate-house-recut.md
---

# NetKingdom Security Layer Model v0.7

## 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 v0.7.** v0.6 announced a rule it never wrote: §1 and §15 said
the standard separates human and agent principals inside Staff, and §3.4 was
byte-identical to v0.5. `kings-guard` found it and put it correctly — *a rule
stated about a standard in its own change log is not a rule*, which is §11's own
principle turned on the standard. §3.4 is now written.

The rest are collisions between rules written for the clean case: §6.4's first
obligation forbade what its third obligation blesses, and its second forbade the
session-bound allow §9.7.1 permits. §9.4's atomicity was described as closing a
threat it does not close. §19 graded the document it lived in. And §20 records
the interaction boundary with Railiance operations, on definitions from
`railiance-master` rather than inference. §15 records the change list.

**What changed in v0.6.** An independent assessment against industry practice
(`net-kingdom/history/2026-08-29-layering-standard-assessment.md`) found the model
sound as a layering constitution and incomplete as a *self-healing* one: cognition,
authority, and execution are specified, but the two verbs that close a healing
loop — observe in production and actuate through a deterministic surface — are
pending, and one is unstaffed. It also found the Engine layer untyped, so that
"we need an engine for X" drifts toward "X now decides", and the enforcement
point unnamed.

v0.6 types the engines (§3.3), names the enforcement point (§6.4), replaces the
containment assignment with an actuation surface held at zero (§9.2), separates
human and agent principals inside Staff (§3.4), puts time into the model (§9.7),
requires the Taxonomy artifacts that make §6.2 compileable rather than
reviewable (§17), and composes the sibling standards it had only cited (§18).
Section numbers below §14 are unchanged: the estate cites them.

**What changed in v0.5.** All four reviewing repositories returned findings on
v0.4, and one contested a rule. §9.3 was wrong: it collapsed *engine reachable
but degraded* with *engine not reachable at all*, and the second case has no
evaluator in the path to express anything. §9.1 collapsed *no route exists* with
*route exists under a declared gap*, which would have forced a false "pending"
onto a production capability. §11 claimed mechanical checkability for a rule
that cannot be checked in prose. §13 filed two opposite conformance states in one
table and recorded proposed owners as owners. §9.6 needed the load-bearing
distinction it implied but never drew. §15 records the change list.

**What changed in v0.4.** `audit-core` assented to the approval evidence half
and corrected the rationale twice. v0.3 rested §9.4 on that repository's INTENT
principle 6, which is an aspiration; the shipped bound in its `docs/integrity.md`
is weaker and conditional. More consequentially, no append-only archive can prove
**omission at source** — a suppressed revocation leaves the chain intact — which
is now stated as an estate-wide doctrine constraint (§9.6) rather than left
implicit. `audit-core` was also referenced as an owner in v0.3 without appearing
in the §4 catalog at all; it is catalogued here, as an Engine, on its own
declaration. §15 records the change list.

**What changed in v0.3.** Two engines were seeded to own concepts v0.2 recorded
as unowned: `approval-engine` takes the approval object that §13 left homeless,
and `maturity-engine` takes graded progression — closing a §9.1 defect in
gate-house's own catalog claim, which asserted conformance review with no engine
to act through. §15 records the change list. v0.3 is **proposed**: the two new
engines are seeded by owner direction and have no other side to assent yet, and
the evidence half of the approval split needs `audit-core`'s assent.

**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 |
| Whether an invariant is *watched in practice* | the observing repository's own report — never this standard, and never §12's diagram |

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.

**No estate argument may cite observation that has not happened.** §12 lists
`kings-guard` against the loop's fourth step, and that repository has reported
that it has never observed a real event. Until it reports otherwise, no
assessment, review, or decision in this estate may treat an invariant as being
watched in practice on the strength of the diagram. Lifted here from §12 so it
cannot be lost in a summary.

## 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.

**Engines are typed.** "Engine" is one layer but four roles, and collapsing them
hides different failure modes. Every §4 Engine row carries a role:

| Role | Meaning | Outage means |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **PDP** | renders the authorization decision — `access-engine`, and only it (§6) | consumer residue (§9.3) |
| **PIP** | supplies facts a decision consumes as claims — user, tenant, zone, approval, maturity | input degradation, engine's own fallback (§9.3) |
| **Evidence** | records what happened and proves integrity of what it holds — `audit-core` | MUST NOT block the operation being recorded — a default, not a property; see below |
| **Lifecycle** | a deterministic API over Tooling it owns — `secrets-engine` | the owning engine's failure semantics |

The roles are why *"we need an engine for X"* does not mean *"X now decides"*.
A new engine is a PIP unless this standard is amended to say otherwise, and §6
means it can never be a second PDP.

The Evidence row's outage rule is an estate **trade**, not a property of
evidence engines. Choosing availability there means accepting that a compromised
source can suppress a record and that detection is the answer (§9.6). The
opposite shape — *do not proceed unless an independent custodian already holds
the record* — is the only one that puts evidence outside the actor's blast
radius **before** the act. The estate has not needed it, so it is not ruled out
by a table cell: an operation whose control genuinely requires independent
recording before effect is a declared exception, raised when needed. Raised by
`audit-core` against its own row.

The industry vocabulary is deliberately mirrored here — PDP, PIP, PEP as in
NIST ZTA and XACML — because it is how the estate talks to the outside and how a
PEP is stopped from quietly becoming a PDP. The determinism cut in §3 stays
primary where the two disagree.

### 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.

**Two principals, one layer.** Humans and agents are both non-deterministic and
both Staff, so they share the layer's permissions. They do not share blast
radius. Four rules bind the agent principal specifically:

1. **No standing credential.** An agent holds no long-lived credential of its
   own. Authority is issued per task, time-bounded under §9.7, and attributable
   to the principal on whose behalf it acts.
2. **Tool use is a conduit or an Engine API.** An agent acts through §5.2 — the
   owner's tool under the caller's identity, presenting no authority of its own
   — or through an engine. There is no third route. Tool availability is not
   permission: a callable tool means the operation exists, not that this actor
   may invoke it.
3. **Agent memory is not a state plane.** Agent memory, tool-call traces, and
   prompt caches are the agent's own. They MUST NOT become state another layer
   depends on at runtime unless catalogued as Tooling in §4, which subjects them
   to §5 like anything else, and to §5's sunset.
4. **Every agent action is reconstructable as the caller's action**, bounded by
   §9.6 — the archive shows the actions it received, not that it received all of
   them.

Session semantics — session loops, tool policy, harness routing, model
selection — are **not** governed here. They belong to `glas-harness` and its
`rein-*` backends (§20). This standard governs what an agent may be authorized
to do; `glas-harness` governs how an agent session is conducted. Rule 2 is the
seam between them, and neither side may treat its own half as sufficient.

v0.6 claimed these rules in its change log and did not write them. Found by
`kings-guard`, which is the repository they bind hardest and which offered to
assent to them sight-unseen.

## 4. Layer catalog

| Repository | Layer | Role | 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 | PIP | users, accounts, memberships |
| `tenant-engine` | Engine | PIP | tenant-as-an-entity facts |
| `zone-engine` | Engine | PIP | zone identity and membership — offline reference conformance per its 2026-08-23 disposition |
| `secrets-engine` | Engine | Lifecycle | credential abstraction, custody, lifecycle |
| `audit-core` | Engine | Evidence | audit event custody, retention, integrity verification, export — explicitly not a decision point (§9.6) |
| `access-engine` | Engine | **PDP** | **the policy decision** — the only decision point (§6) |
| `approval-engine` | Engine | PIP | the approval object — durable, authenticated, consumable, atomically supersedable (§9.4) |
| `maturity-engine` | Engine | PIP | graded progression against declared criteria and evidence; the gap register; capability readiness (§9.5) |
| `gate-house` | Staff | — | security doctrine, authority context, curriculum; **conformance review — through `maturity-engine` (§9.5)** |
| `ops-mason` | Staff | PEP-shaped | building and tearing down access routes and perimeters |
| `ops-warden` | Staff | PEP-shaped | operational access lanes, stewardship, runbooks; SSH certificate issuance — **declared-gap** (§9.1, §13) |
| `kings-guard` | Staff | — | adaptive defence and judgment; observation of Staff-reachable sources — identity and secret observation **pending**; **proposes** containment, which it does not own (§9.2) |
| `whitehat-security` | Staff | — | offensive validation |

An **actuation surface** — reduce authority, require step-up, isolate a workload
— is catalogued nowhere because it does not exist. See §9.2: it is an Engine
concept held at zero, not a Staff capability.

`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.

**Scope.** "Tooling-layer system" means a system catalogued as Tooling in §4.
Infrastructure the estate runs but has not catalogued — the State Hub,
`llm-connect`, and similar — is outside this rule, because a rule that silently
covered them would put every Staff repository in undeclared violation on
adoption day: they all write progress events. Such clients SHOULD be recorded
in the repository's declaration as non-Tooling for completeness of the check,
and the way to bring one under §5 is to catalogue it in §4, deliberately.

Raised by `ops-warden`, which held clients for both and declined to resolve the
scope question on gate-house's behalf.

**The carve-out sunsets.** It is a pressure valve, and a valve left open becomes
a second persistence plane under the Staff layer — which §3.4 forbids in spirit.
Three rules bound it: every non-Tooling client MUST be listed in the
repository's declaration; an uncatalogued store that another layer **reads**
MUST, within two review intervals, either be catalogued as Tooling in §4 or be
declared a gap under §5.3; and a Staff-owned event bus or memory store MUST NOT
become the estate's de facto state plane. Today's instances are the State Hub
and `llm-connect`; tomorrow's are agent memory, tool-call traces, and prompt
caches (§3.4).

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.

The reconstructability requirement is an audit-dependent claim and is therefore
bounded by §9.6: the archive shows the conduit actions it received, not that it
received all of them.

### 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.

**No fourth "operator of third-party Tooling" shape.** It has been proposed, on
the argument that someone must operate `OpenBao` and every operational necessity
otherwise looks like a gap. Declined: §5.3 already sanctions the operation while
keeping it visible, and a clean "operator" shape would convert a tracked gap
into a permanent allowance — the relabelling failure this standard exists to
prevent. A permanent operational necessity is a declared gap whose review
interval keeps returning, which is the correct amount of friction. If the review
becomes ceremonial, that is an argument for closing the gap, not for renaming
it.

## 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.

### 6.4 The enforcement point

The standard has been precise about the decision and silent about the gate. A
decision that nothing refuses to proceed without is advice.

A **PEP** is any runtime that causes a protected side effect. It is a *shape*,
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:

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
   `access-engine` identifying the request it was rendered for, **or** its
   declared §9.3 stance for the applicable scope permits proceeding without one
   **and the application of that stance is recorded in place of the decision**.
   The second limb is stricter than silence, not looser: a fail-open result is
   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.

   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.
   Raised by `ops-warden`, which is the reference shape for limb two.

2. **No recaching of the verdict beyond its own binding.** A stored verdict
   replayed **outside the decision's stated binding and lifetime** is a second
   decision point deciding early (§6.1). Within them it is the decision being
   used as issued — a session-bound allow under §9.7.1 is used across later
   requests by construction, and v0.6 forbade what §9.7.1 permits.

   The test is mechanical, not a matter of implementer judgement: replay is
   permitted **iff the canonical request digest matches and the decision's
   lifetime holds**. `access-engine` computes that digest over normalised
   subject, action, resource, and context, and it is already in every decision
   binding. A retry after a transport failure is therefore the same request; a
   different resource is not.

   **Negative caching is permitted, narrowly.** A cached DENY cannot manufacture
   authority — §8's asymmetry holds — and protects against retry storms. It is
   permitted where the refusal is itself recorded against the request that was
   refused (obligation 4), and where the cache lifetime is declared alongside
   the stance map. A stale deny is an availability failure and will be
   misdiagnosed as a policy one, so it must be visible as what it is. Ruled
   explicitly because it is the first thing an implementer under load reaches
   for. Raised by `access-engine`.

3. **A declared unreachable-engine stance** (§9.3): total, per zone or
   equivalent scope, no implicit default, no per-call discretion, published
   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.

4. **Reconstructability**, bounded by §9.6.

Every PEP-shaped consumer MUST publish its stance map at a path named in its
layer declaration, and those maps MUST be inventoried in the §13.1 register
until `maturity-engine` can hold them. §9.3 is otherwise a ruling with no
register behind it, and *"`z0`–`z2` and unknown fail open"* becomes the estate's
real policy without anyone having compiled it into a versioned package.

v0.6 named a register that did not exist — a requirement whose register is
missing is a capability catalogued without a surface, by §9.1's own logic.
Raised independently by `ops-warden` and `access-engine`; §13.1 now exists, and
its first inventory has one row, which is itself the finding.

Raised by the 2026-08-29 independent assessment: NIST ZTA splits decide from
enforce, and this standard had only the first half.

## 7. Relationship to the Active Secrets Management Canon

```text
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.

The asymmetry is what bounds the damage when observation is incomplete (§9.6):
suppressed evidence can only prevent a tightening that should have happened, never
engineer a loosening. That is an argument for keeping it absolute rather than
situational.

## 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 it cannot
discharge under these rules. Two marks distinguish the two ways that happens, and
they are not interchangeable:

| Mark | Meaning |
| --- | --- |
| **pending** | No route exists. No engine exposes the capability, the repository makes no Tooling contact, and the capability is **zero** — not degraded. |
| **declared-gap** | A route exists through a §5.3 declared gap. The capability **works** and is tracked, with an intended owner and a review date in §13. |

v0.4 had only `pending`, which forced a false choice. `ops-warden` holds
production-verified SSH certificate issuance through a declared OpenBao contact;
marking it `pending` would have told readers the repository does not do the one
thing it demonstrably does daily, while leaving it unmarked left §4 disagreeing
with §13. Neither is acceptable, and the defect was in this section rather than
in the catalog.

`pending` was written for `kings-guard`'s containment — no route, capability
zero — and remains correct there. `declared-gap` is the case §5.3 was added to
sanction. Raised by `ops-warden`.

Both marks apply per capability, not per repository. A repository may hold one
capability outright, another under a declared gap, and a third pending.

### 9.2 Actuation does not exist, and containment is not Staff's to own

Self-healing needs four verbs: observe, evaluate, decide, actuate. Observation is
`kings-guard` and is unstaffed (§12). Evaluation is `maturity-engine` and is
seeded. Decision is `access-engine` and works. **Actuation has no surface at
all**, and a model with no actuation surface describes a diagnosis machine
rather than a healing one.

v0.5 marked containment `pending` against `kings-guard`, which was the right
mark on the wrong repository. Containment is not a Staff capability that happens
to lack a route: **reduce authority, require step-up, isolate a workload** are
authority-changing operations, and under §6 an authority-changing operation is
rendered by an Engine and enforced by a PEP (§6.4). A Staff repository proposes
containment; it never performs it.

The **actuation surface** is therefore an Engine concept — likely a small
surface on `access-engine` together with runtime PEPs — carrying the same
reconstructability rules as any other decision: a containment action is a
decision record, not a side channel.

It is **unowned and held at zero**. `access-engine` is recorded in §13 as a
*proposed* owner and has explicitly not reviewed it (`FLEX-DEC-2026-002`). No
repository may be catalogued as owning containment until the surface exists —
§9.1 applied to the estate's most operationally tempting gap, and the standard's
own medicine.

Until then `kings-guard` proposes and judges, its containment claim stays at
zero rather than degraded, and no argument may assume the estate can contain
anything automatically.

### 9.3 Degraded mode: two failure cases, two owners

v0.4 collapsed two failures into one rule. They have different owners because
one has an evaluator in the path and the other does not.

**Input degradation — the engine's.** Where `access-engine` is reachable but
cannot reach its own inputs, the deterministic *fail to reduced authority*
default belongs to the engine. This keeps the decision at the decision point and
keeps the fallback deterministic, which a Staff-layer fallback could never be.

**Engine unreachable — necessarily the consumer's.** Where `access-engine` is
not reachable at all, it applies nothing, because it is not running. Whatever
happens next is the consumer's behaviour by construction: fail-open is not
expressible by a policy decision point, since there is no evaluator in the path
to express it. A standard that assigns this to the engine assigns it to nobody.

The consumer's residue is bounded rather than free. A protected system MUST
declare its unreachable-engine stance ahead of time, per zone or equivalent
scope, and that stance MUST be auditable and total — no implicit default, no
per-call discretion. `ops-warden` `ADR-0009` already satisfies this: a total
per-zone map, open for `z0`–`z2` and unknown, closed for `z3-critical`,
replacing the global `policy.enabled` / `policy.fail_closed` switches it
superseded.

**Unchanged: engine-unavailable is not grounds for a Staff break-glass path.**
The distinction is whether an engine is there to ask. A bypass around a
*reachable* engine is a second decision point, and an incident is when an
attacker most wants that shortcut. A consumer choosing its declared behaviour
when there is no engine to ask is not a bypass; it is the only thing left.

Contested by `flex-auth` (`FLEX-DEC-2026-002`), which has held since 2026-08-19
that fail-open is not expressible by a PDP, and which noted v0.4 collided with
shipped behaviour in a repository that had assented to this standard.

### 9.4 Approvals are an engine concept, not a Staff or audit concern

The approval object — durable, authenticated entries, distinct-approver
counting, atomic supersession, single consumption, revocation without holder
cooperation — is owned by `approval-engine`.

It is not Staff's: §3.4 forbids Staff holding state another layer depends on at
runtime. It is not the decision point's: an evaluator that owns the object it
evaluates is self-dealing. It is not the audit fabric's: an approval needs
mutable, in-path, current-state semantics, and an append-only archive is built
for the opposite property.

`access-engine` consumes approvals as **input claims** under §6.2 and never
mutates them. Every issuance, use, supersession, and revocation is emitted to
`audit-core`: the operative state and the evidence record are different
artifacts with different owners.

The evidence guarantee is bounded, and the bound is `audit-core`'s
`docs/integrity.md`, not its INTENT principle 6. An in-database hash chain
detects a rewritten payload only if the attacker does not also recompute the
suffix — which a database owner can. Detection against that class requires the
external chain-head attestation, and even with it the store is not WORM, object
lock, or archival custody. `tamper_evidence` is therefore conditional on live
preconditions, not a property of the store at rest, and approval events receive
exactly the guarantee every other source receives.

**Emission atomicity is `approval-engine`'s obligation.** An approval MUST NOT be
issued, consumed, superseded, or revoked without the corresponding event being
durably queued in the same transaction.

**The queue MUST be local.** The durable queue MUST live in `approval-engine`'s
own transactional store, and **no synchronous dependency on `audit-core` may sit
inside the state-change transaction**. With a genuine local outbox, fail-closed
triggers only when `approval-engine`'s own store is unavailable — where the
change could not have been recorded anyway — and an `audit-core` outage does not
block a revocation. Satisfying the requirement by emitting synchronously to
`audit-core` inside the transaction is also atomic, and turns an audit outage
into an inability to revoke: the operation least tolerable to block during an
incident, and the same coupling this section rejects for reads. Raised by
`audit-core`.
`audit-core` reports what it received and does not imply it is everything that
happened; without atomic emission the evidence half is silently incomplete and
nothing detects the gap. This is a condition of `audit-core`'s assent
(`AUDIT-IN-0001`) and belongs in `approval-engine`'s contract before the evidence
half is treated as load-bearing.

`audit-core` MUST NOT expose an approval-validity query. Records, yes; a verdict
on whether an approval is still valid, never — a consumer branching on that
answer would route an authorization decision through the audit fabric, which is
what this section exists to prevent. Callers needing current state ask
`approval-engine`.

### 9.5 Graded progression is an engine concept

Maturity — how far a subject has progressed against declared criteria and
submitted evidence — is owned by `maturity-engine`. Given the same criteria and
the same evidence it MUST return the same level; that determinism is what makes
it an Engine rather than an opinion.

The division with Staff: **gate-house judges and proposes; maturity-engine
computes and remembers.** Interpretation is inference and stays Staff. A
criterion that cannot be evaluated by rule is not yet a criterion.

This closes a defect in v0.2's own catalog: `gate-house` was assigned
conformance review with no engine to act through, which is exactly the §9.1
problem raised against the containment claim. Staff acts only through Engine
APIs, including gate-house.

**A maturity level MUST NOT be compiled into registry content.** Until
`access-engine`'s decision provenance carries a registry-snapshot digest — a gap
it self-declared in §13 — a level reaching a decision through the registry is not
reconstructable from the decision record. Levels arrive as request claims or as
versioned policy rules. Same constraint, and same reason, as zone stance.

**A maturity level MUST NOT gate a decision directly.** Under §6.1, compiled
data that determines an outcome is still deciding. If a level determines whether
an action is permitted, it MUST reach `access-engine` as an input claim or a
versioned policy rule under §6.2, never by a consumer branching on a fetched
level.

Approvals and maturity are deliberate opposites — a closed binary state machine
against an open graded ladder — and neither engine may drift toward the other.

### 9.6 Evidence proves alteration and truncation, not omission at source

An append-only archive with a verified hash chain proves that records were not
**altered or truncated after arrival**. It cannot prove that a record was never
sent. Against a compromised or buggy source, a suppressed event leaves the chain
perfectly intact and verification reports intact.

This bound is estate-wide. Statements of the form *"the audit record proves it
happened"* are unsound; the sound form is *"the archive proves the records it
holds were not altered or truncated after arrival"*. Its mirror is equally
unsound: **absence of a record is not evidence of non-occurrence**, and no
control may read it as such.

**Load-bearing versus attributive evidence.** The atomicity obligation attaches
to the first, not to both:

| Kind | Test | Obligation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Load-bearing** | a control's soundness depends on the event being present or absent — an approval revocation, a containment action, a denial | emission MUST be atomic with the state change (§9.4) |
| **Attributive** | the event supports forensic reconstruction and attribution, and no control branches on its presence | atomicity SHOULD be sought; where it is deliberately traded away, the trade MUST be declared and completeness MUST NOT be claimed |

Where a repository deliberately makes emission non-atomic — `ops-warden`'s
`# audit must not block signing` is the estate's live example, chosen so that an
audit-store failure cannot remove production host access — the trade is
legitimate for attributive evidence, MUST be declared where the trail is
documented, and MUST NOT be described in terms that imply completeness. The
availability argument is real in both directions: making it atomic gives the
estate's operational access lane a new dependency on its own evidence store.

**Consequence for adaptive systems.** Suppression does not degrade observation
neutrally, it biases it optimistic, and silently: an event never emitted is never
evaluated, so no finding is raised and the last posture stands. A confidence
score computed from the richness of the record in hand cannot express doubt about
the completeness of the stream — a well-formed observation from a 90%-suppressed
stream scores high. That is this section's failure reproduced one layer up, in
the consumer.

Two things follow.

**Which control covers which threat.** v0.6 read as though emission atomicity
closed this section's opening sentence. It does not, and the decomposition is
owed to the reader:

| Threat | Covered by | When |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Accidental omission** — process dies between mutation and emit | emission atomicity, local outbox (§9.4) | prevented |
| **Adversarial omission** — a compromised source declines to insert, deletes before drain, or drains to nowhere | cadence and reconciliation | **detected, after the fact** |
| Adversarial omission at a compromised source | — | **nothing in this model prevents it** |

The outbox sits inside the blast radius of the component whose compromise this
section posits, so it makes emission atomic against crash and partial failure
and nothing more. That residual is real and is stated rather than implied.
Raised by `audit-core`, correcting a remedy it had itself proposed.

1. **The §8 asymmetry bounds the damage, and this is its clearest payoff.**
   Because an adaptive system may only reduce authority and never manufacture it,
   suppression can only prevent a tightening that should have happened. It cannot
   be used to engineer a loosening. The harm is a missed reduction, not an
   invented privilege — which is an argument for keeping the asymmetry absolute.
2. **Silence is a signal, and for load-bearing evidence it is the only control
   in its class.** A source of **attributive** evidence SHOULD declare an
   expected emission cadence; a source of **load-bearing** evidence **MUST**.
   A drop below the declared rate is a finding in its own right — the stream
   observed, not only its contents — and needs no Tooling contact, because the
   source publishes its own stream.

   **Rate monitoring is the wrong form for rare events**, and rare is exactly
   where the stakes are highest: the most valuable event to suppress is the
   negative one, and revocations, denials, and containment actions are
   infrequent by nature. A source emitting a handful of revocations a month has
   no rate to drop below, and suppression is indistinguishable from a quiet
   month. For **low-volume load-bearing classes** the required form is therefore
   **positive reconciliation or a heartbeat**: compare the source's own state
   transitions against the evidence engine's event count per class and treat
   divergence as a finding, or assert *nothing to report* as a signed positive
   claim that can itself go missing. Rate monitoring never produces a claim that
   can be missing; a heartbeat does. `GH-WP-0002-T04` is the reference instance.
   Raised by `audit-core`.

Raised by `audit-core` against its own principle; extended by `kings-guard` from
its own evaluator and confidence model.

### 9.7 Decisions have a lifetime

A single decision point deciding on stale claims is a single decision point
deciding wrongly. The model has had no temporal law, and the approval race in
§16 was its first symptom.

1. **Every allow has an explicit lifetime** — a TTL, or a binding to a session
   or obligation that ends. An allow with no stated end is a standing grant, and
   standing grants are what this estate exists to remove.
2. **Revocation and supersession have a visibility deadline**, and its shape
   differs by role. A **PEP** has one boundary and MUST state one deadline. A
   **PDP** MUST state a deadline **per input class**, because a decision is a
   join over sources with unrelated refresh behaviour — approval-claim freshness,
   registry snapshot cadence, policy package activation, directory ETag. A single
   number at a PDP is either a fiction or the worst case, and the worst case is
   the slowest and least visible input. "Eventually" is not a stance; an unstated
   deadline is an unbounded replay window.

   A consequence worth naming: a stated deadline for a fact carried by a
   registry snapshot is unfalsifiable while decision provenance holds no snapshot
   digest, since nobody can determine afterwards which snapshot a decision read.
   The deadline and the digest are one gap seen from two sides, which promotes
   `access-engine`'s self-declared provenance gap (§13) from housekeeping to a
   conformance prerequisite. Raised by `access-engine` against its own backlog.
3. **Consumption is a state change, never an inference.** An approval is
   consumed by a mutation in `approval-engine` (§9.4). It MUST NOT be inferred
   from the existence of a decision record — the decision precedes the action
   and the action precedes consumption, so a decision record proves an intent to
   act, not an act.
4. **Three failure modes are named, and each needs an owner**: an allow rendered
   then never consumed; a double consumption by racing callers; consumption
   after the authorized action has already failed. Neither engine closes these
   alone. Recorded in §16 and `GH-WP-0002-T06`.

### 9.8 Partition is not one-dimensional

§9.3 handles *engine unreachable*. A real estate spends most of its incident
time in the band between reachable and gone: partial PIP reachability, clock
skew across a decision and its enforcement, and two consumers with different
declared stances seeing different worlds at the same moment.

Two rules hold today, and the rest is open (§16). A PEP MUST resolve its own
stance from its declared map without consulting another consumer — divergent
views are expected and are not a coordination problem to be solved at enforcement
time. And where clock skew could extend a lifetime under §9.7, the shorter
reading governs.

## 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.

"No gradual practice" needs a check rather than a sentence. A layer change MUST
carry six artifacts, written from the `zone-engine` case that the procedure
should have been derived from in the first place:

| Artifact | Why |
| --- | --- |
| before/after `INTENT.md` | the declaration is the conformance surface (§11) |
| client inventory | what the repository holds against Tooling, before and after |
| gap inventory | which §5.3 gaps close, open, or transfer |
| assent list | every repository whose boundary moves |
| state-migration decision | what happens to live state and to consumers reading it |
| permission freeze | no new permissions of the target layer are exercised until the cut completes |

The freeze is the one that makes the rule checkable: a repository mid-change
holds its old permissions, not the union of both.

## 11. Conformance

Conformance has four states, and the distinction between the last two is the
point:

| State | Meaning |
| --- | --- |
| **Conforming** | no Tooling contact, or only §5.1/§5.2 shapes, declared |
| **Blocked-clean** | the capability does not exist because no engine exposes it, and the repository makes **no** Tooling contact — §9.1 `pending`, and not a non-conformance |
| **Declared gap** | a §5.3 contact with owner, blocker, and review date — tracked non-conformance |
| **Undeclared violation** | anything else — a finding |

**Blocked-clean is not a lesser state than conforming.** A repository that
declined a break-glass path and left a capability at zero has complied at cost;
a repository that quietly opened a direct client and declared nothing has not.
Any downstream scoring — `maturity-engine` included (§9.5) — MUST NOT rank the
first below the second. Raised by `kings-guard`, whose three gaps are all of
this kind and which would otherwise have been graded down three times for
having taken the standard seriously.

**Who must declare.** A repository the estate authors declares its layer in its
own `INTENT.md`. For a component the estate catalogues but does not author —
third-party or vendored, such as `OpenBao` — the §4 catalog row **is** the
declaration, and no `INTENT.md` obligation attaches. A rule that assigns an
obligation the holder cannot discharge is the §9.1 defect applied to conformance
rather than capability.

A layer stated *about* a repository by another repository is not a declaration.
Review notes, catalog rows, and correspondence record an intent to adopt; only
the repository's own file conforms.

**Declaration form.** Because prose cannot distinguish a declaration from a
transcribed review, a declaration MUST carry a machine-readable form: a `layer:`
key in the `INTENT.md` frontmatter, or an equivalent declaration file. Without
it this section asserts a property it cannot deliver — the defect this standard
has now corrected three times elsewhere. `ops-warden` has implemented a reference
form (`layer.yaml`, a conformance script, and a test covering the §5.2
no-authority property) and offered it to the repositories that have yet to
declare. Raised by `audit-core`, which noted that `flex-auth`'s conforming
declaration is legible as one only by following its decision trail.

Mechanically checkable:

- every estate-authored repository in §4 carries a machine-readable layer
  declaration;
- every direct Tooling client in a Staff repository maps to a declared §5.1,
  §5.2, or §5.3 entry, and non-Tooling clients are recorded so the check is
  total;
- no repository other than `access-engine` exposes an authorization decision
  surface;
- no §4 capability is catalogued without an engine surface, a `pending` mark, or
  a `declared-gap` 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:

```text
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. Four of this standard's five versions exist
because a reviewing repository used it.

**Step four is currently aspiration.** `kings-guard` has disclosed that it has
never observed anything in operation: the pilot is specified and scaffolded, every
input is a hand-built fixture, and no test has met a real event. Until it reports
otherwise, no argument in this estate may assume an invariant is being watched in
practice because §12 lists a repository against that step.

## 13. Open gaps

Two different things are recorded here, and they are opposite conformance states
(§11). A **declared contact** means the repository touches Tooling because no
engine exposes the capability. An **unowned capability** means no route exists
and the repository makes no contact at all. Reading them as one list would grade
restraint as though it were non-conformance.

An `intended owner` is a **proposal to** the named repository, not an assignment
**onto** it. §2 keeps ownership in the repository's own `INTENT.md`, so the
register distinguishes proposed from assented.

| Gap | State | Declared by | Owner | Owner status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SSH-CA signing write (`VaultCA`, `bao kv put`) | declared-contact | ops-warden | secrets-engine | proposed |
| Authentication / assurance evidence | unowned-capability | kings-guard | identity layer + audit-core | **access-engine declined** |
| Secret-use evidence | unowned-capability | kings-guard | secrets-engine | proposed |
| Actuation / containment surface | unowned-capability | **gate-house (estate-wide)** | access-engine + runtime engines | proposed |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Emission atomicity for approval state changes | — | audit-core | approval-engine | assigned (§9.4) |
| Non-atomic audit emission on the SSH signing lane | declared-contact | ops-warden | ops-warden | self-declared, attributive (§9.6) |

The actuation row is no longer attributed to `kings-guard`. §9.2 ruled that
containment is not a Staff capability lacking a route, so `kings-guard` is not
its declarer: the gap is estate-wide and blocks every repository's ability to
act. Raised by `kings-guard`, which asked not to carry a row for a capability
the standard had just ruled was never theirs.

`access-engine` declined authentication and assurance evidence
(`FLEX-DEC-2026-002`): it consumes assurance claims as input and never redefines
them, so evidence of authentication belongs to the identity layer and
`audit-core`. It owns evidence of the decision, which it already emits. The
containment surface is recorded as proposed and remains `pending` under §9.2.

Whether approvals warrant custody stronger than every other source is doctrine
work not yet done; until it is, approval evidence carries the same guarantee as
any other source and §9.6 bounds what may be claimed from it.

**What is normative here, and what is a snapshot.** Three rules are part of this
standard and survive wherever the register lives:

1. the two marks — `pending` and `declared-gap` (§9.1);
2. the owner-status rule — a proposed owner is not an assigned one (§2);
3. the scoring rule — `blocked-clean` MUST NOT rank below conforming (§11).

**The table above is a snapshot, not statute.** It moves into `maturity-engine`
as soon as that engine can store state, and the `state` and owner-status columns
MUST survive the migration. A standard that is also a backlog keeps attracting
findings that belong in the register, and its review interval is far slower than
the register's real rate of change.

### 13.1 PEP stance-map register

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 | Shape |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `ops-warden` | `ops-warden/pep-stance.yaml` | total per-zone; open `z0`–`z2` and unknown, closed `z3-critical`; test asserts the published map equals the shipped default (`ADR-0009`) |
| `ops-mason` | — | **not published**; catalogued PEP-shaped in §4 |

**One row is the finding.** The aggregate of consumer stances is the estate's
real authorization behaviour, and it is currently one published map and one
absence. `access-engine` has noted it is the repository positioned to notice
when that aggregate diverges from what the policy packages say — which it cannot
do while the register is nearly empty.

## 14. Adoption

Status is **accepted**, on the owner's decision of 2026-08-29.

Two things that acceptance does and does not mean, kept apart because
`ops-warden` asked for the distinction:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| **Boundary assent** | given by the four repositories below, at the version named in each record, and undisturbed since |
| **Revision review** | each of the four reviewed v0.6 and returned findings; **every change in v0.7 is the adopted remedy of a finding they raised** |
| **Not claimed** | no repository has reviewed v0.7 *as text*. The first revision review will confirm or correct it |

Accepting a standard nobody has re-read is a deliberate call: the estate learns
more from using it than from another round of prose refinement, and the changes
in v0.7 were requested rather than invented. Findings against the accepted text
remain welcome and are §12's normal business, not an exception.

| 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 |
| audit-core | `AUDIT-IN-0001` | assent to the evidence half with conditions; corrected the rationale twice; raised §9.6 |

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.

**Adoption status as of 2026-08-29: seven of sixteen** estate-authored §4
repositories have declared in their own voice — `gate-house`, `flex-auth`,
`kings-guard`, `ops-warden`, `audit-core`, `approval-engine`, `maturity-engine`.
The remaining nine — `info-tech-canon`, `net-kingdom`, `key-cape`,
`user-engine`, `tenant-engine`, `zone-engine`, `secrets-engine`, `ops-mason`,
`whitehat-security` — carry a layering review note authored by `gate-house` and
have not answered it. Those notes state a layer but do not constitute a
declaration, and this standard does not claim estate-wide adoption on their
basis. Declaration requests are open as intakes in each.

## 15. Change log

v0.1 → v0.2:

1. **§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).
2. **§6.2 added** — doctrine must reach the decision as an input claim or a
   versioned policy rule (flex-auth's boundary drawn back, accepted).
3. **§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).
4. **§11 restructured** — conformance now has three states, distinguishing a
   tracked gap from an undeclared violation.
5. **§12 made normative**, with the explicit statement that an
   unsatisfiability finding is a success of the loop.
6. **§13 added** — open gaps register, including the unowned approval storage
   and lifecycle capability.
7. §4 catalog gained the pending mark and ops-warden's SSH certificate lane.

v0.2 → v0.3:

1. **§9.4 added** — approvals assigned to `approval-engine`, with the operative
   state and the evidence record separated between it and `audit-core`.
2. **§9.5 added** — graded progression assigned to `maturity-engine`, closing
   the §9.1 defect in gate-house's own conformance-review claim, and carrying
   the guardrail that a level may never gate a decision directly.
3. §4 catalog gained both engines; gate-house's conformance-review claim now
   names the engine it acts through.
4. §13 register updated: the approval hole is assigned, two new entries added.

v0.6 → v0.7, from four reviews:

1. **§3.4 is written.** v0.6 announced the human/agent principal separation in
   §1 and §15 and left §3.4 byte-identical to v0.5 — a silent edit failure. A
   rule stated about a standard in its own change log is not a rule. Found by
   `kings-guard`. The same failure had also dropped two §16 entries, restored
   here.
2. **§6.4 obligation 1 rewritten** — it forbade what obligation 3 blesses. A PEP
   may proceed under its declared §9.3 stance provided the application of that
   stance is *recorded in place of* the decision. Stricter than v0.6 where it
   counts: a fail-open result is metadata, never silence. Raised by `ops-warden`.
3. **§6.4 obligation 2 rewritten** — it forbade the session-bound allow §9.7.1
   permits. Scoped to replay outside the decision's own binding and lifetime,
   with the canonical request digest as the mechanical test, and negative
   caching ruled permitted where the refusal is recorded and the cache lifetime
   declared. Raised by `access-engine`.
4. **§6.4 obligation 3** gained the requirement that the published stance map
   equal shipped behaviour, asserted by test. **§13.1** now exists as the
   register §6.4 mandated and v0.6 did not implement.
5. **§9.6 gained a threat decomposition** — atomicity prevents accidental
   omission; cadence and reconciliation detect the adversarial case after the
   fact; nothing prevents it at a compromised source. Raised by `audit-core`
   against its own proposed remedy.
6. **§9.6 cadence is now MUST for load-bearing sources**, with positive
   reconciliation or a heartbeat as the required form for low-volume classes,
   because rate monitoring fails exactly where the stakes are highest.
7. **§9.7.2 splits by role** — a PDP states a deadline per input class, a PEP one
   at its boundary. Promotes `access-engine`'s provenance gap to a conformance
   prerequisite.
8. **§3.3's Evidence row** is stated as an estate trade rather than a property,
   leaving independent-recording-before-effect raisable as a declared exception.
9. **§17** moves the decision-record schema to `access-engine`, which argued it
   against its own interest; `kings-guard` drafts the emission-cadence schema.
10. **§13** no longer attributes the actuation gap to `kings-guard`; it is
    estate-wide. **§19 removed** — a verdict inside a standard grades the
    document it lives in. **§17/§18** demoted from H1 to H2.
11. **§20 added** — the Railiance interaction boundary, on `railiance-master`'s
    definitions, including that `rein-*` is not a fifth axis.

v0.5 → v0.6, from the independent assessment of 2026-08-29:

1. **§3.3 types the engines** — PDP, PIP, Evidence, Lifecycle, with a role
   column in §4. A new engine is a PIP unless this standard says otherwise, so
   "we need an engine for X" cannot drift into "X now decides".
2. **§6.4 names the enforcement point** — a PEP shape with four obligations: no
   side effect without a decision record, no local recaching of the verdict, a
   declared unreachable-engine stance, reconstructability. The standard had the
   decision and not the gate.
3. **§9.2 replaced** — containment was marked pending against the wrong
   repository. Actuation is an Engine concept, unowned, held at zero; Staff
   proposes containment and never performs it.
4. **§3.4 separates the two Staff principals** — human and agent share the layer
   but not blast radius: no standing credential, conduit or engine API only,
   agent memory is not a state plane, every action reconstructable as the
   caller's.
5. **§9.7 puts time into the model** — explicit lifetimes, revocation visibility
   deadlines, consumption as a state change never inferred, and the three race
   modes named. **§9.8** states what holds under partition and leaves the rest
   open.
6. **§17 requires the Taxonomy artifacts** — claim, decision-record, gap-record,
   and emission-cadence schemas — without which §6.2 and §11 are reviewable but
   not compileable. Ownership proposed, not assigned.
7. **§18 composes the sibling standards** — how zone stance, tenancy posture,
   and a credential lifecycle event each enter a decision as a claim. They were
   cited in frontmatter and nowhere in the rules.
8. **§5 gained a sunset** on the uncatalogued-infrastructure carve-out, and
   §5.3 **declines** a proposed fourth "operator of third-party Tooling" shape:
   it would convert a tracked gap into a permanent allowance.
9. **§10 gained the six artifacts** a layer change must carry, written from the
   `zone-engine` case, including a permission freeze during the cut.
10. **§2 lifts the observation rule** — no estate argument may cite observation
    that has not happened. **§13** separates its three normative rules from the
    table, which is now a snapshot due to move into `maturity-engine`.
11. **§16** the approval custody question is **decided: no**, rather than left
    open. **§19** records the fitness verdict, including that the estate can
    propose and decide but cannot yet watch or act.

v0.4 → v0.5, all from review findings:

1. **§9.1 split into two marks** — `pending` (no route, capability zero) and
   `declared-gap` (route exists under §5.3, capability works and is tracked).
   v0.4's single mark would have forced a false `pending` onto ops-warden's
   production SSH issuance. Raised by `ops-warden`.
2. **§9.3 rewritten** — input degradation is the engine's; engine-unreachability
   is necessarily the consumer's, bounded by a declared, auditable, total stance.
   Contested by `flex-auth`: fail-open is not expressible by a PDP, and v0.4
   collided with `ops-warden` `ADR-0009`.
3. **§5 gained a scope rule** — "Tooling-layer system" means a §4 Tooling row;
   uncatalogued infrastructure is outside §5 and recorded rather than policed.
   Without it every Staff repository was in undeclared violation for writing
   progress events. Raised by `ops-warden`.
4. **§9.4 requires a local outbox** — no synchronous dependency on `audit-core`
   inside the state-change transaction, so an audit outage cannot block a
   revocation. Raised by `audit-core`.
5. **§9.5 forbids compiling maturity levels into registry content** until
   decision provenance carries a registry-snapshot digest. Raised by `flex-auth`.
6. **§9.6 gained the load-bearing / attributive distinction**, the mirror rule
   that absence is not evidence of non-occurrence, the optimistic-bias
   consequence for adaptive systems, and silence-as-signal. Raised by
   `kings-guard` on top of `audit-core`'s original.
7. **§11 gained a fourth state** — blocked-clean, which MUST NOT rank below
   conforming — and a machine-readable declaration form. Raised by `kings-guard`
   and `audit-core`.
8. **§13 gained state and owner-status columns** — declared-contact versus
   unowned-capability, proposed versus assented owner. `access-engine`'s
   decline of authentication evidence is recorded. Raised by `kings-guard` and
   `flex-auth`.
9. **§8** records the asymmetry's payoff under incomplete observation; **§12**
   records that its fourth step is unstaffed; **§14** corrects the adoption
   arithmetic and the status contradiction.

Amended in place while `proposed`, 2026-08-28: §11 gained the who-must-declare
rule after a conformance sweep found the standard required an `INTENT.md`
declaration from `OpenBao`, which the estate does not author; and §14 gained the
honest adoption count.

v0.3 → v0.4:

1. **§4 catalog gained `audit-core`** as an Engine, on its own declaration. v0.3
   named it as an owner in §9.4 and §13 without cataloguing it — a §11 defect in
   the standard itself, raised by `audit-core`.
2. **§9.4 evidence rationale rewritten** to cite `audit-core`'s shipped
   `docs/integrity.md` bound rather than its INTENT principle 6, and to state
   that `tamper_evidence` is conditional on live preconditions.
3. **§9.4 gained emission atomicity** as `approval-engine`'s obligation, and the
   prohibition on `audit-core` exposing an approval-validity query.
4. **§9.6 added** — evidence proves alteration and truncation, not omission at
   source. Estate-wide; the sound and unsound forms of the claim are stated.
5. **§13** — evidence half recorded as assented with conditions; two new gaps:
   stronger approval custody (unassigned) and emission atomicity
   (`approval-engine`).

## 16. Open questions

- ~~Whether approvals warrant archival custody stronger than every other audit
  source.~~ **Decided (§13): no.** Approval evidence carries the same bound as
  every other source. The acute risk for approvals is *omission* — a suppressed
  revocation — and archival custody does not address omission at all; emission
  atomicity with a local outbox (§9.4) and a detection surface
  (`GH-WP-0002-T04`) do. Leaving it open while calling the evidence half
  load-bearing created a promise the archive cannot cash. If a future
  requirement genuinely needs WORM or a transparency log, that is a different
  store with a different owner, raised then.
- Whether SSH certificate issuance evidence is load-bearing or attributive
  (§9.6). Ruled attributive here on the argument that no control branches on the
  presence of a signing record; `ops-warden` asked for the ruling and the trade
  is genuinely two-sided, so it is flagged rather than settled.
- Who marks an approval consumed, and at what point relative to the decision
  (§9.4). `flex-auth` notes the decision precedes the action and the action
  precedes consumption, so an allow rendered against an approval then never
  consumed, or consumed twice by a racing caller, is a gap neither engine closes
  alone. Needed before `FLEX-WP-0017` T05.
- Whether other §4 repositories are missing layer declarations; `audit-core`
  flagged its own absence and asked whether the catalog needs the same
  correction elsewhere.
- Whether the gap register migrates from this standard into `maturity-engine`
  once that engine exists, leaving the standard to state the rules only.
- 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
  declarations; ops-warden's `warden route gaps` is candidate machinery.
- Whether non-security repositories adopt the same model. The determinism cut is
  not security-specific; if non-security Staff also may not hold
  runtime-dependent state, the estate gets one constitution rather than a
  security ghetto.
- The rest of §9.8: split brain, partial PIP reachability, and clock skew beyond
  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.
- 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
  text it grades. Raised by `access-engine`. Its two substantive points remain
  live: observation in production is unstaffed (§12) and actuation has no surface
  (§9.2).
- The **working companion** (`net-kingdom/SECURITY-COMPANION.md`, v0.2, root of
  the repository for onboarding) is the operative form of this statute. The statute governs on disagreement, and a
  disagreement is a finding. The v0.1 gap `access-engine` found — publish
  your stance map, but nowhere saying where, and no inventory obligation — is
  fixed in v0.2 §5.3.
- How the Railiance operational axes meet this model beyond §20's first
  statement, which is deliberately minimal.

---

## 17. Taxonomy artifacts

§6.2 says doctrine reaches a decision as an input claim or a versioned policy
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:

| Artifact | Contents |
| --- | --- |
| **request-claim schema** | identity, tenant, zone stance, posture, approval, maturity, assurance — each with its issuer and freshness rule |
| ~~decision-record schema~~ | **moved to `access-engine`** — see below |
| **gap-record schema** | the §5.3 fields — `capability`, `intended_owner`, `blocked_on`, `review` — plus the §13 `state` and owner-status |
| **emission-cadence declaration** | the expected rate a source publishes, so silence is a finding (§9.6) |

Until these exist, §6.2 and §11 are reviewable but not compileable, and every
engine invents its own claim shape at its own boundary.

**The decision-record schema is not Taxonomy's.** A decision record is the PDP's
output artifact — the one thing in the estate only `access-engine` produces — and
§2 keeps ownership in the producing repository's own `INTENT.md`. Taxonomy
authoring the schema for an artifact only one engine emits would invert the
ownership rule this standard applies everywhere else. `access-engine` publishes
it as a contract; Taxonomy holds only the shared field vocabulary the claim
schema references.

Raised by `access-engine` **against its own interest** — the same §2 argument it
used to decline authentication evidence, applied where it takes work on rather
than off. Symmetry of that kind is what makes the ownership rule credible.

**The emission-cadence declaration has a drafter.** `kings-guard` is its only
consumer, cannot implement silence-as-signal without it, and has offered to draft
it against `qonto-assistant` and hand it to whichever Taxonomy repository takes
ownership — rather than inventing a local shape, which is the drift §17 exists to
prevent. Accepted as a draft; ownership still rests with Taxonomy.

**Ownership is proposed, not assigned.** `info-tech-canon` holds ecosystem-wide
semantic contracts and `net-kingdom` holds NetKingdom standards of record; the
split between them for these four artifacts is theirs to draw, and §2 keeps
ownership in the owning repository's `INTENT.md`. Neither has assented.

## 18. Composition with the sibling standards

The related-standards list has been frontmatter and little else. If the
following sentences cannot be written, the list is decoration — so they are
written here rather than in the siblings.

**Zone stance** (`security-zones_v0.1`). A zone answers which scrutiny a
workload has qualified for; membership is `zone-engine`'s. The *effect* of a
zone on a decision belongs in a versioned `access-engine` policy package, never
in registry content — that ruling is zone-engine's §5, and §6.1 is its
generalization. Zone stance therefore enters a decision as a **claim on the
request or a rule in the package**, and a decision that turned on a zone must
name the package version that read it.

**Tenancy posture** (`tenancy-posture_v0.1`). Posture is a bounded security-state
input, published by its owner and never a privilege source (§8). It enters as a
**claim**, carries its own freshness, and the §8 asymmetry binds it: posture may
tighten a decision and may never loosen one. A posture too stale to trust is a
missing claim, and a missing claim is not permission.

**Credential lifecycle** (`credential-management_v0.2`). Issuance, rotation, and
revocation are `secrets-engine`'s and `OpenBao`'s, downstream of a decision — a
credential is an artifact of authority, never its source. A lifecycle event
becomes an **input** to a later decision as a claim (this credential is current,
this lease is bound to this task), never a side channel that changes an outcome
without appearing in the decision record. Revocation visibility is bounded by
§9.7.

Each of the three composes the same way, which is the point: **facts arrive as
claims, effects live in versioned policy, and anything that changes an outcome
appears in the decision record.**

---

## 20. The Railiance interaction boundary

Operations is not NetKingdom's. Workload operations are organized by
**Railiance**, whose framework repository is `railiance-master`, and NetKingdom
provides the security and approval framework those operations consume. This
section states the boundary as it stands today. It is expected to evolve, and it
is written here so that evolution is visible rather than inferred.

Definitions are `railiance-master`'s and are restated, not authored, here.

### 20.1 What Railiance organizes

A **workload** is a managed running deployable. Human commands, credential
patterns, broker actions, approvals, and infrastructure resources that are not
themselves deployables **are not workloads** — which is why an approval object
(§9.4) is not a Railiance axis and never becomes one.

Every workload is operated through four composable axes, each answering a
different question about the same workload:

| Prefix | Axis | Question |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `railiance-*` | ownership | Who owns this capability? |
| `rail-*` | execution contract | How does this workload run? |
| `rapp-*` | managed package | What exactly is packaged and operated? |
| `reef-*` | substrate | Where is it bound, and as what operational reality? |

`rein-*` is **not a fifth axis**. Reins are `glas-harness` agent-harness
backends; the name echoes `rail-*` analogically, not taxonomically. Agentic
session semantics — session loops, tool policy, harness routing, model selection
— belong to `glas-harness`. When a rein is installed and operated as a managed
service it is a workload like any other, packaged and bound through the four
axes above.

### 20.2 What holds today

For any Railiance consumer of NetKingdom security, without exception:

1. Authorization decisions come from `access-engine` and from nowhere else (§6).
2. Approvals are objects in `approval-engine`, consumed as claims (§9.4).
3. Credentials are materialized by `secrets-engine` **after** a decision, never
   as a substitute for one.
4. Evidence goes to `audit-core` under the bound in §9.6.
5. Anything causing a protected side effect is **PEP-shaped** and owes the four
   obligations in §6.4 — including a published unreachable-engine stance in the
   §13.1 register.

### 20.3 What is not settled

The mapping between the axes and this model is deliberately thin, because
guessing it would be worse than admitting it:

- A **`rapp-*`** is the most likely *resource* a decision is rendered about, but
  nothing states its identity form in a request claim.
- A **`rail-*`** describes how a workload runs and is therefore where PEP shape
  is most likely to live — but §6.4 obligations attach to repositories, and a
  rail is a contract, so whether a rail can *carry* an obligation is unwritten.
- A **`reef-*`** answers where a workload is bound, which is adjacent to a
  security zone (`security-zones_v0.1`) without being one. `zone-engine` records
  that a reef capping availability for everything bound to it is a canon
  composition problem. That composition is unwritten.
- The **`railiance-*` ownership axis** names who owns a capability, which is
  adjacent to the principal a decision is rendered for. Adjacent is not equal,
  and no rule connects them.
- **`glas-harness` and reins** hold tool policy and session semantics for agents,
  while §3.4 rule 2 holds that an agent acts only through a conduit or an engine
  API. Those two must compose, and neither side may treat its own half as
  sufficient. That seam is the most consequential of the five, because it is
  where "tool availability is not permission" is actually enforced or lost.

### 20.4 How this boundary changes

An interaction boundary between two frameworks is owned by neither alone.
Changes to §20 require assent from `railiance-master` for the axis definitions
and from `glas-harness` for the session and tool-policy seam, on the same terms
as any other boundary in this standard (§10). NetKingdom states what a consumer
owes; it does not define what a rail, rapp, reef, or rein *is*.