WARDEN-WP-0033 T01/T02: two under-graded lanes, and ADR-0008

secrets-engine reviewed our catalog metadata while drafting their five entries
and graded issue-core-ingestion-api-key and reuse-surface-hub-write-token high.
We had both as standard, and had deliberately regraded them DOWN on 2026-08-19.

They are right. Both paths carry a second credential our grade never looked at --
GITEA_BACKEND_TOKEN (CCR-2026-0002, a deliberate field-set decision) and a
dual-consumer webhook HMAC (CCR-2026-0005). Neither is recovered by rotating the
credential the lane is named after.

The defect is structural: we graded the lane by its headline field, but a read
returns every field at the path. Worse, the evidence was already in the CCRs we
cite as authoritative -- not missing, unread -- and a test asserted the wrong
answer, so a correct first-pass grade got overruled by it.

ADR-0008 records the rule: a grade covers every field its path discloses.
ADR-0007 is unchanged and still governs; this says what the grade is of.

Six of the remaining standard lanes have no KV path. Two have paths and no field
evidence; per ADR-0008 they are stated as unknown rather than assumed, and left
for operator-sanctioned grading.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/rules/architecture.md

@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ distinction that matters here.
 | `ADR-0005` | Implement one lane narrowly, route everything else |
 | `ADR-0006` | Enforcement is zone-scoped, never a global flag |
 | `ADR-0007` | Build-stage permissiveness stops at credential disclosure; every lane carries an explicit `risk` grade |
+| `ADR-0008` | A lane's risk grade covers every field its path discloses, not just the field it is named after |
 
 ### Owned versus inherited — check `owner:` before changing anything