ops-warden/workplans/WARDEN-WP-0034-layer-model-v07-conformance.md

id	type	title	domain	repo	status	owner	topic_slug	planning_priority	depends_on_workplans	created	updated	state_hub_workstream_id
WARDEN-WP-0034	workplan	Layer model v0.7 conformance — state the deadline, bind the agent boundary, steward the estate's newest rule	infotech	ops-warden	ready	ops-warden	netkingdom	P1	WARDEN-WP-0030	2026-08-29	2026-08-29	ae3ff76f-883d-5e2f-b6aa-144d61e8fdef

WARDEN-WP-0034 — Layer model v0.7 conformance

security-layer-model_v0.7 is accepted. ops-warden declared Staff and PEP-shaped, shipped the two declaration artifacts the standard now cites as estate reference forms, and had four findings adopted into the text between v0.4 and v0.7.

The assessment in history/2026-08-29-v07-scope-intent-assessment.md checked every v0.7 obligation against shipped code rather than intent. Three gaps survive, plus a role the companion assigns that no conformance check will ever catch.

Why a workplan and not an adhoc

T01 is a MUST that is currently unstated. T02 changes an enforcement boundary and touches ADR-0004. T04 is a cross-repo stewardship commitment against a standard eight repositories have yet to adopt. The convention reserves adhocs for low-risk work completed directly; none of these qualify.

Tasks

id: WARDEN-WP-0034-T01
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "8b3bdb9f-d2c2-5b3e-89e2-417bf3e37484"

State the revocation visibility deadline (§9.7.2, a MUST).

ops-warden states none, and the honest value is the certificate TTL: up to 48 hours. A cert issued under an allow remains valid for its full TTL even if the authorizing decision is revoked the next minute. There is no CRL, no KRL distribution, and host-side auth_principals belongs to railiance-infra.

Add the deadline to pep-stance.yaml as what it is — adm 48h / agt 24h / atm 8h — with the mechanism named (TTL expiry, no revocation channel) rather than implied. Assert it against the shipped ActorType TTL policy by test, the same way the stance map is asserted equal to shipped behaviour: a stated deadline free to drift from the code has the same defect as a stated stance free to drift.

Done when: the deadline is published, test-bound to the TTL policy, and the absence of a revocation channel is stated rather than left to inference.

Not in scope: shortening it. Whether 48h is acceptable is a joint question with railiance-infra (KRL distribution) and is T05's to raise, not this task's to decide.

id: WARDEN-WP-0034-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "3318ee1a-b5d9-5d39-baf7-9c42a8bc7b55"

Bind the agent read-boundary to an issued identity (§3.4 rule 1).

ADR-0004's boundary triggers on WARDEN_AGENT_ID — a variable the agent sets about itself. An agent that omits it is not recognised as one. §3.4 rule 1 now requires authority to be issued per task and attributable to the principal acted for.

The identity exists as of KEY-WP-0009-T03: codex-railiance-platform, subject service:codex:railiance-platform, role coding-agent, 15-minute lifetime, with railiance-platform enforcing the OpenBao-side policy.

Key the boundary on the issued identity where one is present; keep WARDEN_AGENT_ID as a fallback that fails toward the boundary, never away from it. State plainly in the ADR trail which half is enforced and which is advisory: the OpenBao-side deny is real, the ops-warden-side refusal is a courtesy that a determined caller can decline.

Done when: an agent presenting the issued identity is recognised without setting WARDEN_AGENT_ID, the fallback still refuses on risk: high lanes, and the enforced/advisory split is written down.

Watch: do not turn this into ops-warden validating a token — that is verifying an identity claim, adjacent to deciding, and ADR-0002/§6 both point away from it. Read the identity; do not adjudicate it.

id: WARDEN-WP-0034-T03
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "a891b32c-b0a7-59f6-a5cd-977be65c09ca"

Derive an emission cadence, or defer it with a reason (§9.6).

ops-warden's trail is attributive, so cadence is a SHOULD rather than v0.7's MUST for load-bearing sources. It has been silent through two reviews, which is the one outcome that is not defensible.

Derive a baseline from the existing audit.jsonl and signatures log. If the signal is too bursty to support a threshold — plausible, since volume is operator-driven — record that as the finding with the distribution that shows it, and declare the deferral in pep-stance.yaml. A measured "no useful baseline" is a result; silence is not.

Done when: either a declared cadence with its derivation, or a declared deferral carrying the data that justifies it.

id: WARDEN-WP-0034-T04
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "94e73daa-f74d-51fd-8639-68896a4066ee"

Answer the question the companion sends the estate here to ask.

"For how to get something done — which lane, which credential, which route — ask ops-warden."

Today the repo answers credential questions and no others. warden route and warden plan cover lanes, owners and acts. Nothing answers "which layer am I", "how do I declare", "I am PEP-shaped, what do I owe" — and eight of fifteen catalogued repositories have yet to declare.

Provide the path, not the doctrine (that boundary is ADR-0010's and does not move): a routing entry and a short playbook that carry a reader from the companion to the files to copy — layer.yaml, pep-stance.yaml, check_layer_conformance.py, test_layer_conformance.py — and the check to run. The standard already names these in §11 and §6.4; what is missing is the route to them.

Done when: warden route find "how do I declare my layer" resolves, and the playbook is reachable from the catalog. Not a restatement of the companion — a pointer layer, per ADR-0001.

id: WARDEN-WP-0034-T05
status: todo
priority: low
state_hub_task_id: "7d1b3c82-9b96-5087-a53a-496212909029"

Two things to raise rather than absorb.

Both are other repositories' to own; ops-warden's obligation is to route them, not to fix them (ADR-0003, ADR-0005).

1. ops-mason has published no stance map. §13.1's register has one row and the standard says that is itself the finding. ops-mason is catalogued PEP-shaped in the same paragraph and is ops-warden's peer lane owner. Offer the reference form; do not write their map.
2. The 48-hour replay window from T01. Once stated, raise with railiance-infra whether KRL distribution is worth building, and with access-engine whether a decision lifetime shorter than the cert TTL is meaningful when nothing can recall the cert. State the question; let the owners answer.

Done when: both are routed with reasoning, and the answers recorded either way — including a refusal, which is an equally good answer.

Related

• history/2026-08-29-v07-scope-intent-assessment.md — the gap analysis behind this plan
• history/2026-08-29-layer-model-v04-review.md, -v06-review.md — the two prior reviews
• security-layer-model_v0.7.md §3.4, §6.4, §9.6, §9.7, §11, §13.1
• net-kingdom/SECURITY-COMPANION.md v0.2
• ADR-0002, ADR-0003, ADR-0004, ADR-0005, ADR-0009, ADR-0010