Six inbound messages attended, three of them carrying real asks.
flex-auth FLEX-DEC-2026-004 answers WARDEN-WP-0034-T05's decision-lifetime
question: a decision lifetime shorter than the certificate TTL is meaningful,
but only as authority to ISSUE, never to USE an already-issued certificate.
The question had mistaken a decision lifetime for a credential lifetime. They
declined to move the §9.7.2 revocation residue to their side; that refusal is
right and the stance map is unchanged. T05 still waits on ops-mason and
railiance-infra.
WARDEN-WP-0039-T03 routed to flex-auth: is there an admitted contract for a
delegated credential read where caller and resource owner differ? Three
outcomes named as equally acceptable, including that there should be no such
contract and the interim proxy transport is itself the defect -- which would
shorten WP-0033 rather than block it. Two easy fixes ruled out in writing:
broadening the caller binding, and relabelling resource.system as ops-warden
so the binding matches. The second would make the audit trail assert we own
credentials we deliberately do not, by editing a field instead of making an
argument.
WARDEN-WP-0037: npm path routed to railiance-platform, catalog unchanged
pending their answer. secrets-engine refused to resolve it from a
coordination message and was right; asserting our own pointer is
authoritative because it is ours would route around that. The ask names a
location only, and flags that a `bao kv get` answer would be the 2026-07-16
disclosure vector on a risk: high lane.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013EPuTc18FjU5WFqoSEKH3C
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1276224@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 426ec497-e1c4-4dd3-b417-dfce1ca1dbc3
tegwick
3aedd8f844