docs: mark the unknown cell, measure the coverage we asked to publish

gate-house ruled the v0.8 assent round (GH-DEC-2026-011, net-kingdom@64394e9):
ask 1 declined, ask 2 adopted.

Ask 1's refusal is accepted without reservation and the reason is better than
the ask -- a sanctioned transitional fail_open is indistinguishable at runtime
from the stance the rule forbids, and would make the rule optional at the only
moment it costs anything.

Ask 2 gave §13.1 a Coverage column with this repo's figures as its first
entries. Since we asked for the column, we owe it accuracy:
scripts/report_coverage.py measures both populations from the artifacts the
runtime uses (reusing the workload-join build rather than re-deriving it), and
a test asserts pep-stance.yaml's published block equals what it measures.
A hand-counted number in a register that explicitly does not recompute it
decays silently, and a stale figure beside a marked cell is worse than the
blank the other four rows carry.

pep-stance.yaml marks the unknown cell inline as a declared gap -- assent, the
measured reason for not flipping, the declined ask, WARDEN-WP-0040 as route --
and a second test keeps it marked while it is fail_open, failing when it is
flipped. standard_version stays 0.7 because that is what binds; v0.8 is
proposed, so it gains standard_version_reviewed rather than pre-adopting.

Separately, gate-house corrected GH-DEC-2026-008: the claim/decision digest
comparison it originally required is unimplementable and a fail-closed
consumer obeying it would have denied permanently. We had never copied the
wording, so nothing to unwind -- but everything they have sent about this lane
was living in an inbox thread, a bad home for a correction that only matters
when someone finally wires the consume. Now wiki/ApprovalConsumption.md,
leading with "nothing is wired", carrying the corrected target and the
attribution gap that digest matching does not discharge.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013EPuTc18FjU5WFqoSEKH3C

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1276224@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 426ec497-e1c4-4dd3-b417-dfce1ca1dbc3

wiki/ApprovalConsumption.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# Approval consumption — notes for the signing lane's future consume
+
+**Status:** notes only. **Nothing is wired.** ops-warden's pre-sign gate consults
+flex-auth (`wiki/PolicyGatedSigning.md`); it does not yet consume an approval
+artifact. This page exists so the corrections we have already been given survive
+until it does, rather than sitting in an inbox thread.
+
+Owner of the contract: `gate-house`, `docs/contracts/approval-consumption.md`.
+ops-warden is one of two PEP-shaped consumers named there (the SSH signing lane).
+
+## Validate across two artifacts, never one
+
+`GH-DEC-2026-005` settles the step-1 artifact: `GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim`
+serves the **approval-claim**. flex-auth's proposed `ActionAuthorization` is not
+required there and will not be served from that endpoint.
+
+| Artifact | Carries |
+| --- | --- |
+| approval-claim (step 1) | the approval fact — binding digest, validity window, consumption state, freshness, issuer |
+| `DecisionEnvelope` (step 2) | exact `CheckRequest` match, policy pin |
+
+v0.8 §6.4 obligation 5 hardened this: each artifact **must** be validated against
+the layer that owns its data, and a PIP **must not** republish the PDP's decision.
+Neither artifact may be taken from the other.
+
+## Three things that are easy to get wrong
+
+**1. Do not require `provenance.authority == 'state-hub'`.**
+
+State Hub is a read model with no runtime approval authority. This is easy to get
+wrong precisely *because* the hub is where everything else about a workplan lives,
+so a consumer reaches for it as the authority on approval too.
+
+Worth holding as a shape rather than an instance: a PEP requiring the hub to have
+asserted an approval is the same boundary violated from the **consuming** side
+that "never register workplans or tasks by hand" forbids from the **writing**
+side. Same rule, two directions.
+
+**2. The digest comparison target was corrected. Use `binding.approval_binding_digest`.**
+
+`GH-DEC-2026-008` as originally issued required the claim's `pdp_digest` to equal
+the decision's `request_digest`. That is unimplementable — a claim travelling
+inside a hashed request cannot name the digest of the request containing it — and
+a fail-closed consumer obeying it would have denied permanently. Corrected by
+`FLEX-DEC-2026-007` to the PDP's published **exclusion-scoped** digest,
+`binding.approval_binding_digest`.
+
+ops-warden never copied the superseded wording anywhere (checked 2026-09-09), so
+there was nothing to unwind. Recorded here so it cannot be reintroduced from an
+older reading of the contract.
+
+**3. Digest comparison does not discharge attribution, and attribution is not
+available today.**
+
+`GH-DEC-2026-010` rules that a PEP must be able to **attribute** a decision to
+access-engine, and that matching digests does not achieve that. flex-auth's
+envelope is unsigned and its pins serve plain HTTP, so that half is a declared
+§13 gap owned by access-engine until `FLEX-WP-0024` lands.
+
+Nothing for ops-warden to build. But when this lane is wired, its validation is
+**complete-minus-attribution** and must be described that way: fail-closed
+protects against a decision point that is absent, not against one that lies.
+
+## Open dependency
+
+`WARDEN-WP-0039-T03` — whether an admitted flex-auth contract exists for a
+delegated credential read where caller and resource owner differ. If the answer
+changes the caller shape it may reach how this lane's consume is built, and
+`gate-house` has asked to hear that before rather than after: a contract admitted
+for that shape would reach §6.4 obligation 5, and whether such a delegation
+attenuates or widens is doctrine they own.
+
+## See also
+
+- `wiki/PolicyGatedSigning.md` — the pre-sign gate as it actually is today
+- `pep-stance.yaml` — unreachable-engine stance, and the marked `unknown` cell
+- `history/2026-09-09-layer-model-v08-review.md` — the v0.8 assent round