From c186a4e135279d4e69506ad8f6b5270778ea4f59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 02:26:33 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Record GH-DEC-2026-017 without applying it yet The precedence ruling landed mid-session: INTENT.md governs, the sidecar is derived, section 3 folds case so nobody re-spells anything, and standard_version comes out of the declaration. Two asks land on ops-warden because layer.yaml is the form seven repositories copied. Not applied here. Both asks edit this repository's security-layer declaration -- and the estate's reference shape -- on the strength of an instruction delivered in an inbox message. The change set, and the condition that it be verified at gate-house@def0af2 rather than from the message text, are written down so the mandated session does not have to reconstruct them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 63291@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 8bd77868-ca68-4f49-bb1e-d539ecc0d703 --- docs/layer-declaration-precedence.md | 48 +++++++++++++++++++ ...DEN-WP-0034-layer-model-v07-conformance.md | 16 +++++++ 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/layer-declaration-precedence.md b/docs/layer-declaration-precedence.md index 8309448..0f7a343 100644 --- a/docs/layer-declaration-precedence.md +++ b/docs/layer-declaration-precedence.md @@ -63,6 +63,54 @@ settled either. other file to match in one commit, together with a regression test asserting the two agree — so the next divergence is caught rather than surveyed. +## The ruling landed — 2026-09-21, and it is NOT YET APPLIED + +`GH-DEC-2026-017` (gate-house `def0af2`, message `3715e247`, amendments A9–A13) +arrived hours after this page was written. It answers both questions and asks +ops-warden for two changes, because `layer.yaml` is the estate's reference form +and seven repositories copied it. + +- **Precedence: `INTENT.md` governs.** Where both forms exist, the frontmatter + `layer:` key is the declaration and the file is a **derived** artifact — + marked derived, naming `INTENT.md` as its source, required to agree with it. +- **Casing: ruled away, not ruled on.** §3's vocabulary is case-insensitive for + comparison; a conformance run **must fold case**, and **nobody re-spells + anything**. `Staff` and `staff` agree. The plan in point 4 above — align the + files in one commit — is therefore moot rather than completed. +- **A disagreement between the two forms is still a finding** and must be + reported rather than resolved away, or precedence makes eight of the nine + invisible instead of settling them. +- **Ask 1:** remove `standard_version: "0.7"` from `layer.yaml`. A layer is a + standing property; a version here makes every revision of the standard read as + though it invalidated every declaration. Version-scoped state belongs in the + derived conformance record. +- **Ask 2:** mark the sidecar derived and name `INTENT.md` as its source. + `INTENT.md` already carries `layer: Staff`, so nothing needs adding there. + +**Neither ask has been applied, and that is deliberate.** Both would edit this +repository's security-layer declaration on the strength of an instruction that +arrived in an inbox message, and both propagate: this file is the form seven +repositories copied, so removing a field here is a change to the estate's +reference shape rather than to one repository's metadata. A session that applies +it should be mandated to, should verify `GH-DEC-2026-017` at +`gate-house@def0af2` and the A9–A13 amendments in the repository rather than +from the message text, and should land it as one commit carrying: + +1. `standard_version` removed from `layer.yaml` (and from + `scripts/check_layer_conformance.py`'s required-key list and report line). +2. `derived: true` and `derived_from: INTENT.md` added. +3. A regression test asserting the sidecar's `layer` equals `INTENT.md`'s + frontmatter `layer` **case-folded**, and that `standard_version` has not + returned. +4. `pep-stance.yaml` left alone. Its `standard_version: "0.7"` with + `standard_version_reviewed: "0.8"` is a stance map, not a layer declaration, + and gate-house has said separately it would rather other consumers copied + that shape than that ops-warden changed it. + +Until then this page and `layer.yaml`'s comment stand: do not "fix" the +divergence ad hoc. Under the ruling there is nothing to fix — the two forms +already agree once case is folded. + ## Why this page exists rather than an inbox thread gate-house's own observation, recorded against ops-warden in another lane: a diff --git a/workplans/WARDEN-WP-0034-layer-model-v07-conformance.md b/workplans/WARDEN-WP-0034-layer-model-v07-conformance.md index 8d35c88..ea9f9de 100644 --- a/workplans/WARDEN-WP-0034-layer-model-v07-conformance.md +++ b/workplans/WARDEN-WP-0034-layer-model-v07-conformance.md @@ -266,6 +266,22 @@ conformant than it is. Position recorded in one commit, and a regression test asserts the two declarations agree so the next divergence is caught rather than surveyed. +**Ruled the same day, and still `wait` — deliberately.** `GH-DEC-2026-017` +(message `3715e247`) landed hours later: `INTENT.md` governs, the sidecar is a +derived artifact that must be marked as such, §3's vocabulary is case-insensitive +so **nobody re-spells anything**, and `standard_version` must come out of the +declaration. Two asks land on ops-warden specifically because `layer.yaml` is the +form seven repositories copied. + +This task stays `wait` rather than flipping to `progress`, because applying it +edits this repository's security-layer declaration — and the estate's reference +shape — on the strength of an instruction delivered in an inbox message. The +session that applies it should be mandated to, and should verify the decision at +`gate-house@def0af2` and amendments A9–A13 in the repository rather than from the +message text. The exact change set and its four conditions are written down in +`docs/layer-declaration-precedence.md`; the casing half of the original "done +when" above is moot rather than outstanding, since the ruling folds case. + Raised by flex-auth's corrected B1 (message `719b3e9e`, 2026-09-21), which withdrew an earlier claim that the estate disagreed *across* repositories. The withdrawal matters to this task: the original finding would have had ops-warden