Review layer model v0.6; publish the PEP stance map §6.4 requires

All three v0.4 findings were acted on — §9.1 split into pending/declared-gap and
§5's scope rule adopted as recommended and credited, and §9.6 ruled via the
load-bearing/attributive distinction with ops-warden's `# audit must not block
signing` named as the estate's live example.

Checked the favourable ruling rather than accepting it. §9.6's test is "no
control branches on its presence": the only consumer of audit.jsonl is `warden
activity`, which displays. Nothing gates on a signing record, so the lane is
genuinely attributive. AuditTrail.md now records the ruling instead of the open
question, and states that the trade must be revisited if a control ever gates on
the trail.

CONFORMANCE ACTION. §6.4 obligation 3 requires a stance map "published rather
than held in code", and requires every PEP-shaped consumer to publish one so the
maps can be inventoried — naming ADR-0009 as the reference shape. ops-warden was
not doing it: the map lived in PolicyConfig.failure_modes, a dataclass default.
Not a code comment, but not published either.

pep-stance.yaml publishes it, and the test asserts the published map EQUALS the
shipped default. A published map that may drift from the code is worse than no
map, because it invites reliance it cannot support.

Two findings sent to gate-house, in history/2026-08-29-layer-model-v06-review.md:
§6.4 obligation 1 (no side effect without a decision record) contradicts
obligation 3 and §9.3, with ops-warden's blessed fail-open stance as the
instance; and §6.4 mandates a stance-map inventory in §13 that §13 does not
implement — where ops-warden is currently the only PEP to have published one.

402 tests pass, ruff clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YWBMovyFoy9RRrfL7zKvPJ

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 4014535@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d0036016-73e8-4da1-8e47-563e3ab39a3c

tests/test_layer_conformance.py

@@ -96,3 +96,38 @@ class TestConduitSuppliesNoAuthority:
                 f"proxy.py references {forbidden!r} — that is presenting or "
                 f"minting authority, not conducting the caller's"
             )
+
+
+class TestPepStanceMap:
+    """§6.4: every PEP-shaped consumer MUST publish its unreachable-engine
+    stance map, total and per zone, 'published rather than held in code'.
+    ADR-0009 is named as the reference shape, so it should actually hold."""
+
+    def _stance(self) -> dict:
+        return yaml.safe_load((ROOT / "pep-stance.yaml").read_text())
+
+    def test_published_map_equals_shipped_behaviour(self):
+        """The whole point. A published map that may drift from the code is
+        worse than none, because it invites reliance it cannot support."""
+        from warden.config import PolicyConfig
+
+        assert self._stance()["stance"] == PolicyConfig().failure_modes
+
+    def test_stance_is_total_over_the_zone_model(self):
+        """§6.4 obligation 3: total, no implicit default."""
+        stance = self._stance()["stance"]
+        required = {
+            "z0-experimental", "z1-operational", "z2-protected",
+            "z2-continuity", "z3-critical", "unknown", "not-applicable",
+        }
+        assert required <= set(stance), f"stance not total; missing {required - set(stance)}"
+        assert set(stance.values()) <= {"fail_open", "fail_closed"}
+
+    def test_critical_zone_fails_closed(self):
+        """ADR-0009's one non-negotiable row."""
+        assert self._stance()["stance"]["z3-critical"] == "fail_closed"
+
+    def test_verdict_is_never_cached(self):
+        """§6.4 obligation 2: caching an input claim is permitted; caching the
+        answer is a second decision point deciding early (§6.1)."""
+        assert self._stance()["verdict_caching"] == "none"