## Context

An earlier draft of `net-kingdom/canon/standards/tenancy-posture_v0.1.md` §8.2 proposed that database placement policy — dedicated versus shared, and when that changes — be owned by `railiance-platform`, co-signed by `adaptive-pricing`. `tenant-engine` raised the same gap independently on 2026-08-16: both patterns are live on railiance01, neither is written down, and each new service copies whichever neighbour it looked at.

The complication is that this repo no longer holds the specs. `RAILIANCE-WP-0012` and `RAILIANCE-WP-0015` moved the deployable surface to the `rapp-*` repos. `platform-pg`'s `instances`, `max_connections`, memory limit and retention are `rapp-postgres`'s cluster CR. Tenancy Posture §19.8 nonetheless asks this repo for `platform-pg`'s declared maximum size — a question one hop from where its answer lives.

Accepting ownership without stating this would produce either an answer we cannot substantiate or a quiet non-answer.

## Decision

Accept placement ownership, split along rule and number.

This repo owns the rule: the default placement level, what overrides it, who is accountable for each workload's placement, that a shared cluster must publish a ceiling and an overflow target before its third consumer, that retention has a floor and a ceiling, and that a consumer's erasure horizon on shared substrate is disclosed rather than inherited silently.

The package repo owns the number: what the ceiling actually is, which resource binds first, what the retention values are, and the validator that enforces them where the CR lives.

Placement ownership per workload sits with the consuming repo; this repo co-signs. The consumer knows its latency requirement, erasure horizon and compliance position; S3 knows the substrate. A placement change needs both. Putting the decision solely here would recreate the problem §8.2 exists to avoid — an operations-shaped repo holding a commercial decision alone.

`adaptive-pricing` declined the standing co-signature on 2026-08-17. The replacement is binding and machine-reconcilable: it publishes typed tier minimums; this policy validates placement against them. Ownership stays here.

## Consequences

- `docs/placement-policy.md` is the operative document; this ADR is the decision behind it.
- §19.8 is answered for `platform-pg` by `rapp-postgres` ADR-0004: four consumers, with `platform-pg-2` named as the still-absent overflow target. Rule P-4.1 still requires `apps-pg` to declare its own ceiling before its third consumer.
- This repo owes `apps-pg`'s ceiling under its own rule. A policy whose author is exempt is not a policy.
- §8.1 requires triggers to be monitored. This repo has no monitoring plane, so the connection-and-memory-ceiling trigger is recorded `unmonitored` pending `railiance-telemetry`. Declaring a ceiling is a partial substitute — a written threshold is checkable by a human at provisioning, which beats a limit discovered by an OOM kill.
- `adaptive-pricing`'s decline is recorded as single policy ownership plus a mandatory typed constraint join, not as an absent signature.

## Alternatives considered

Decline ownership; route it to `rapp-postgres`. They hold the specs and the operational knowledge. Rejected: placement is a cross-cluster question and `rapp-postgres` owns one package. A policy owned by one substrate's operator cannot govern movement between substrates.

Accept whole, including the numbers. Rejected: it would either re-import the deployable surface this repo deliberately gave up, or produce numbers restated here that drift from the CR — a second source of truth for exactly the values a consumer must be able to trust.