# Intake records

## MASON-IN-0001 — Grandfather the legacy MASON-0001 identifier scheme

```yaml
id: MASON-IN-0001
kind: intake
title: Grandfather the legacy MASON-0001 identifier scheme
lane: green
status: closed
outcome: absorbed
origin: residual
origin_ref: MASON-WP-0002
priority: low
owner: ops-mason
description: The finished bootstrap workplan uses legacy MASON-0001 and noncanonical
  MASON-0001-Txx identifiers, including a duplicate T01. Fleet canon says existing
  identifiers are never renamed and legacy schemes must be grandfathered. Coordinate
  with the Custodian canon steward and Repo Manager to add the exact legacy scheme
  mapping, then verify statehub consistency without rewriting registered UUIDs or
  historical source identity.
notes: Custodian decision 3c487545-ee40-4049-89fa-34b41747a7eb grandfathered
  the exact MASON-0001 workplan and MASON-0001-TNN task schemes. Registered UUIDs
  remain unchanged, and the duplicate MASON-0001-T01 source blocks are indexed as
  one logical task while retaining both source locations as diagnostic provenance.
  Absorbed by that decision and the CUST-WP-0063 canon/validator update.
created: '2026-08-22T09:33:08.629717Z'
updated: '2026-08-22T21:19:02Z'
state_hub_intake_id: "01a028d1-c4af-7a06-adb5-c90399721872"
```

## MASON-IN-0002 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11)

```yaml
id: MASON-IN-0002
kind: intake
title: 'Declaration requested: state this repository''s layer in INTENT.md (security
  layer model §11)'
status: open
origin: cross-repo
origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.4 §11
priority: low
owner: ops-mason
requested_by: gate-house
proposed_layer: Staff
description: 'A conformance sweep on 2026-08-28 found this repository has no layer
  declaration of its own. It carries a layering review note gate-house wrote into
  the top of its INTENT.md on 2026-08-24, and that note names a layer — but the words
  are gate-house''s, sitting above a line admitting the body is unadapted. Section
  11 has since been amended to say so explicitly: a layer stated about a repository
  by another repository is not a declaration; only the repository''s own file, in
  its own voice, conforms. Seven of fifteen estate-authored repositories have declared;
  this is one of the eight that have not. REQUESTED: state the layer in INTENT.md
  in your own voice, or contest it. PROPOSED LAYER: Staff. Builds and tears down access
  routes, credentials, and perimeters. Two things to state in your words: the Staff
  binding rule (you act through Engine APIs, never directly against Tooling — a grep
  of your own source is the check, as ops-warden did and found one), and the demarcation
  you are half of: ops-mason and ops-warden own access lanes, access-engine owns access
  rules. Contesting is a real option and costs nothing — the three repositories that
  reviewed this model each returned a correction, two of which changed the standard.
  If the proposed layer is wrong for what this repository actually does, that is more
  useful to us than a label added to close a checkbox. Standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.4.md.'
created: '2026-08-28T21:03:29.920563Z'
updated: '2026-08-28T21:03:29.920563Z'
```