Four reviews. kings-guard found that v0.6 claimed a human/agent principal
separation in §1 and §15 while §3.4 was byte-identical to v0.5: a silent edit
failure, and their framing is the right one — a rule stated about a standard in
its own change log is not a rule, which is §11's principle turned on the
standard. The same failure had dropped two §16 entries. Both restored.
§3.4 is now written: no standing credential, conduit or engine API only, agent
memory is not a state plane, every action reconstructable as the caller's, and
the seam with glas-harness for session semantics.
The rest are collisions between rules each written for its own clean case:
- §6.4(1) forbade what §6.4(3) blesses. A PEP may proceed under its declared
§9.3 stance where the application of that stance is recorded in place of the
decision — stricter than v0.6, since a fail-open result becomes metadata
rather than silence. Raised by ops-warden, the reference shape it made a
violation.
- §6.4(2) forbade the session-bound allow §9.7.1 permits. Now scoped to replay
outside the decision's own binding and lifetime, with access-engine's
canonical request digest as the mechanical test. Negative caching ruled
permitted where the refusal is recorded and the lifetime declared.
- §13.1 now exists: v0.6 mandated a stance-map register and implemented none.
Its first inventory has one row, which is the finding.
- §9.6 gained a threat decomposition after audit-core corrected its own remedy:
atomicity prevents accidental omission, cadence and reconciliation detect the
adversarial case, nothing prevents it at a compromised source. Cadence is now
MUST for load-bearing sources, with heartbeat or reconciliation required for
low-volume classes where rate monitoring cannot work.
- §9.7.2 splits by role: per input class at a PDP, one boundary deadline at a
PEP.
- §17 moves the decision-record schema to access-engine, which argued it against
its own interest.
- §13 stops attributing the actuation gap to kings-guard; §19 removed, since a
verdict inside a standard grades the document it lives in.
§20 records the Railiance interaction boundary on railiance-master's own
definitions: the four axes, that a workload is a managed running deployable so
approvals are never one, and that rein-* is not a fifth axis but a glas-harness
concern. What is unsettled is listed as unsettled.
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
tegwick
ce2554fdc9