The security layer model moved v0.1 -> v0.4 (accepted) after ops-warden's
assent. Both §5 asks from ADR-0010 were adopted: §5.2 now sanctions the conduit
shape on the supplied-authority property, and §5.3 is the declared engine gap
amendment, carrying the four fields verbatim and crediting ops-warden's
delegation machinery as prior art.
Which creates an obligation. §5.3 requires those fields MACHINE-READABLY, and
§11 makes "every direct Tooling client maps to a declared §5.1/§5.2/§5.3 entry"
a mechanical check. ops-warden's declaration was prose in INTENT.md — the repo
that proposed the shape was not implementing it.
layer.yaml is the map: 5 contacts (2 declared gaps, 1 read-only observation,
2 conduits) plus the non-Tooling clients recorded explicitly so the check is
total rather than silently selective.
scripts/check_layer_conformance.py enforces it and found three undeclared
modules on its first run — all false positives (help text, a docstring, and the
doubles library that SIMULATES bao rather than calling it), which is why the
scan now matches invocation shapes instead of the word: an httpx call built
against the configured OpenBao address, or an argv whose first element is the
bao binary.
tests/test_layer_conformance.py adds the §5.2 test the standard says SHOULD
exist: _caller_env() returns the caller's environment unchanged, and proxy.py
is asserted not to reference X-Vault-Token, approle login, or token create — a
conduit that presents its own token is not a conduit.
No assertion on review dates, deliberately: a date-triggered failure breaks the
build on a calendar day with no code change, the same reasoning WP-0033-T05
recorded for blocker staleness.
398 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
T04 was the last open task, waiting on key-cape to accept or refuse ownership of
the coding-agent OpenBao issuance identity. They accepted, in KEY-WP-0009-T03,
on 2026-08-23: codex-railiance-platform is published in their
config/service-clients.example.yaml with subject service:codex:railiance-platform,
role coding-agent, scope openbao:login, 15m lifetime, and the service-auth
semantics in docs/openbao-service-auth-contract.md. The split is the one we
routed for — KeyCape issues, railiance-platform binds the OpenBao role, OpenBao
enforces, no secret value in either repo.
We found it by reading their repository. KEY-WP-0009-T04 records replying to
ops-warden; the inbox has zero messages from key-cape, read or unread. The task
sat `wait` on an answer that already existed.
That is T05's own lesson arriving on T04: a blocker is a claim about the world at
a date. So the same pass re-verified the two lanes pointing at key-cape against
their source instead of bumping dates:
- rapp-qonto-keycape-client -> verified: source-read. KEY-WP-0009-T02 did add
bounded service-auth, but that is client_credentials JWT issuance for OpenBao
machine login and does not front this client_secret_basic exchange or its
rotation. Blocker stands, now with evidence rather than memory.
- key-cape-oidc-login -> asked of key-cape today, which the entry had recorded
as still outstanding since 2026-08-21.
Also cleared the inbox that hid this: 9 stale unread, all superseded by shipped
work, with late closes sent to secrets-engine and llm-connect on the two threads
that had asked ops-warden something and never got an answer.
391 tests pass, ruff clean, boundary coverage 0 uncovered.
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
c374d41 added net-kingdom-lldap-bind-credential and
net-kingdom-privacyidea-admin-token as `risk: high` and did not re-run the
emitter, so registry/generated/high-risk-data-paths.yaml still described the
catalog at 0fae090. railiance-platform consumes that file instead of
hand-maintaining its deny list, and it has been reading a census two lanes short
since 2026-08-23.
This is precisely the drift WARDEN-WP-0033-T03 built the guard for — a lane
graded high after the last emit silently failing to reach the consumer. The
guard fired; nothing had acted on it.
The deny list itself does not move: both lanes are blocked on their OpenBao path
being published, so they land in `no_concrete_path` and concrete_path_count
stays 14. What changes is the count the consumer sees — 23 high-risk lanes, two
of which have no address yet. That is the honest signal and the reason the
bucket is listed rather than omitted.
check_agent_read_boundary.py still reports 0 uncovered.
The workload-join census moves 9 -> 11 not-applicable: both lanes are
provider/control-plane credentials rather than workload delivery lanes.
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
risk-nexus accepted the offer to match their convention rather than grow a second
one, and published it: 14d critical/high, 30d medium, 60d low, nothing auto-closing
on staleness alone. Their preference — point warden route gaps at those windows and
the two registers agree without a shared mechanism — is better than a joint tool.
blocker_stale_days() now maps lane risk onto those windows. A flat 14 would have
been wrong in both directions: too aggressive for a low-risk pointer, and it treated
an admin PAT lane the same as one.
ungraded takes the shortest window, not the longest. ADR-0007 makes an absent grade
a defect and ADR-0008 makes a grade cover the whole path, so a lane nobody graded is
the one whose blocker deserves least trust. Encoding that as 60 days would have been
the fail-open default this repo already fixed once.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The 90-day --stale-days default on `warden route gaps` was not a loose threshold,
it was an inert one: the delegation register was created 2026-08-15, so it could
not have fired before November. It was inherited from the catalog pointer cadence
and applied to a claim with a completely different half-life.
Two changes. DEFAULT_BLOCKER_STALE_DAYS = 14 now governs interim blockers, while
DEFAULT_STALE_DAYS = 90 keeps governing pointer freshness -- "is this the right
owner and page" is quarterly, "has the owner answered" is not. 14 is calibrated
on blockers that actually cost something: ten days for the secrets-engine lanes,
one for RISK-F-0001, roughly fifty for FLEX-WP-0007.
The second change matters more. `reviewed` records when someone touched an entry,
which is indistinguishable from re-checking it -- six lanes read as freshly
reviewed today because I typed in them. `verified:` now says how the claim was
established, and asked-and-waiting explicitly does NOT count: that is the state
the secrets-engine blocker sat in for ten days while looking current. A lane in
that state is stale at zero days old, and key-cape-oidc-login proves it works.
8 of 14 interim lanes are honestly marked unverified rather than given a fresh
date they did not earn.
--fail-on-stale exits 3 for a cron or gate. No CI test on age: a date-triggered
failure breaks the build for whoever commits next instead of whoever owns the
blocker. The CI test is structural -- every interim lane must record how it was
verified -- so it fails on the commit that introduces the omission.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
test_catalog_gaps_lists_only_interim asserted openbao-api-key was an interim
cover. It encoded the same classification the entry did, so it defended the
wrong answer rather than catching it -- the second time this session a test has
held a judgement still (see ADR-0008).
The staleness test added in T03 did its job on the first real change: it failed
the moment the catalog moved without the generated artifact being re-emitted.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three fixes, the first of which is my own botched edit from an hour ago.
1. The "six delivery modes" claim was never actually removed. I ran a str.replace
with no assertion on the result, it matched nothing, and the print said "ok".
The wrong claim sat in all seven lanes while I told secrets-engine it was
fixed. This edit asserts 5/1/1 and fails loudly otherwise.
2. Five lanes ACCEPTED (SECRETS-WP-0006, decision ae676382). The blocker now
records that secrets-engine holds the entry and that the interim proxy retires
on approved native verification in T05 -- not on acceptance. Retiring early
would drop the cover before the replacement is proven.
3. Two lanes REFUSED, and both refusals are right:
- key-cape-oidc-login: intended_owner corrected secrets-engine -> key-cape.
Login and identity-token issuance were never secrets-engine's. Not yet asked
of key-cape, and the record says so.
- openbao-api-key: not a delegable lane at all -- a <domain>/<workload>/<bundle>
routing template, not one secret lane, so there is no front door to own.
interim -> native with railiance-platform named: OpenBao is itself the front
door and this entry is a pointer to it, never an interim cover. It should
not have been inflating the interim count.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
railiance-platform asked for a generated list to consume instead of hand-
maintaining agent-high-risk-boundary. Hand-maintaining it is what let the two
lists drift for four lanes in RISK-F-0009.
19 high-risk lanes, 14 concrete data paths, 5 without a single KV address listed
separately so absence does not read as omission. Carries catalog_revision and a
dirty flag. fields is null where unestablished, never a one-element guess.
The header states plainly that this is an input and not a policy: railiance-
platform owns the deny set and may deny more, less, or dispute a grade. ADR-0002
survives the handoff.
Two CI tests guard staleness, because a consumer applies this to a live control.
Note the immediate consequence of T02: 2 uncovered against a policy they closed
to 0 yesterday.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
