Owner is the-custodian; regulatory intake leaves for risk-nexus

Authority is three-way and stated rather than held by one repo: policy-nexus
owns the surface, the-custodian owns what counts as canon and when it is
ratified, railiance-platform owns the substrate. The middle one is the guard
against the real hazard here - a repo that reads every other repo is one step
from becoming the place where "what is current" is decided, and this says
plainly that it renders that judgement rather than making it.

The tell that the split is right is that T01 and T04 need different
competences. T01 asks what supersession means and what a permanent URL
promises; T04 is DNS and ingress. One owner would be weak at one of them.

T06 withdrawn. Regulatory intake is risk work, not publishing work, and it
wanted a different owner and a different skill from everything else in this
workplan. risk-nexus publishes through here, arriving as another manifest
source rather than as a second content type this repo curates.

The consequence is the point: this repo now does one thing, which is what made
its ownership answerable.

Domain corrected from government, a leftover from when this looked like a civic
policy site.

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

INTENT.md

@@ -3,10 +3,14 @@
 ## Why this repo exists
 
 `policy-nexus` is the permanent home for the estate's **policy surface**: the
-place where policy is published, kept current, and gathered from the outside
-world. It serves `policy.coulomb.social`.
+place where policy is published and kept current. It serves
+`policy.coulomb.social`, and is **owned by `the-custodian`**.
 
-Before this repo existed, policy lived in two bad places.
+It does one thing. Gathering policy from the outside world was originally
+scoped here and moved to `risk-nexus` on 2026-08-17 — judging what an external
+rule demands of the estate is risk work, not publishing work.
+
+Before this repo existed, published policy lived in a bad place.
 
 **Published policy was temporary.** Documents that other people needed to read
 were pushed to disposable artifact pages — private URLs, no index, no history,
@@ -16,17 +20,7 @@ already been bitten by the adjacent failure: a canon draft routed for
 ratification on 2026-08-10 sat unratified in neither canon directory because
 nothing tracked that it was in flight.
 
-**Incoming policy was nowhere.** Government and regulatory policy that bears on
-what the estate may do — data protection, procurement rules, sector regulation
-— was consulted ad hoc, at the moment somebody needed it, and never retained.
-The same question was researched more than once, and the answer was never
-recorded against the decision it informed. Tenancy Posture's retention axis is a live
-example: whether key destruction satisfies an erasure obligation is a question
-about external policy that the estate answered in a research digest and has no
-mechanism to keep current when the position moves.
-
-This repo exists so that policy has a permanent address, a known freshness, and
-a path in as well as out.
+This repo exists so that policy has a permanent address and a known freshness.
 
 ## What it owns
 
@@ -49,16 +43,9 @@ a path in as well as out.
 - **Currency.** Every published document carries its status, revision, and when
   it was last reviewed. A stale document is visibly stale rather than silently
   wrong.
-- **Information gathering**, scoped to **regulation bearing on the estate**.
-  The intake path for external policy: what was found, when, from where, and
-  which internal decision it bears on.
-
-  The test for inclusion is whether a rule constrains something the estate
-  actually does. A regulation that governs data the estate holds, a market it
-  sells into, or an obligation it takes on is in scope. Public policy that is
-  merely interesting is not. This is not a civic-information corpus; it is the
-  estate's own compliance surface, kept in one place so the same question is
-  not researched twice and its answer does not silently expire.
+- **Publication for `risk-nexus`.** Regulatory records and publishable findings
+  arrive as another source in the manifest. This repo renders and hosts them;
+  it does not decide what they mean or when they may be seen.
 - **The relevance loop.** Detecting when a published or gathered document has
   gone out of date, and surfacing that rather than waiting for someone to
   notice.

workplans/POLICY-NEXUS-WP-0001-permanent-publication-surface.md

@@ -2,10 +2,10 @@
 id: POLICY-NEXUS-WP-0001
 type: workplan
 title: "Stand up policy.coulomb.social as the permanent publication surface"
-domain: government
+domain: infotech
 repo: policy-nexus
 status: proposed
-owner: unassigned
+owner: the-custodian
 topic_slug: policy-nexus
 created: "2026-08-17"
 updated: "2026-08-17"
@@ -154,56 +154,19 @@ is quietly out of date is worse than no document.
   unratified since 2026-08-10; that fact should be visible on the site, because
   invisibility is precisely why it stalled.
 
-### T06 — Regulatory intake
+### T06 — withdrawn
 
-The information-gathering half, scoped to **regulation bearing on the estate**.
-Deliberately last: the publication path must work before a second content type
-is added.
+Regulatory intake moved to `risk-nexus` on 2026-08-17. Deciding what a rule
+demands of the estate is a judgement about risk, not an act of publishing, and
+it wanted a different owner and a different skill from everything above.
 
-**Inclusion test.** A rule is in scope when it constrains something the estate
-actually does — governs data it holds, a market it sells into, or an obligation
-it has taken on. Public policy that is merely interesting is out. This is a
-compliance surface, not a civic-information corpus.
+`risk-nexus` publishes *through* this repo. When it has records to publish they
+arrive as another source in the T03 manifest, not as a second content type this
+repo curates.
 
-**Record format.** What the source says; the source URL; the date retrieved;
-the jurisdiction; the instrument and article or section; which internal
-document or decision it bears on; who recorded it; when it should next be
-checked.
-
-**The hard rule, written into the format itself:** a record states what a
-source said and when it said it. It does **not** state what the estate must
-therefore do. Interpretation belongs to the repo making the decision, and a
-record that reads as a ruling has failed. The estate has no legal function and
-this repo must not grow one by accident.
-
-**Staleness is sharper here than for internal documents.** External policy
-changes without telling us, so a record is a dated snapshot, never current law.
-The retrieval date is displayed as prominently as the content, and a record
-past its check date is visibly stale rather than quietly wrong.
-
-**Candidate register, to confirm rather than assume.** These are the domains
-the estate's own activity implies; T06 should verify which actually apply
-before treating any as in scope:
-
-| Area | Why the estate touches it | Already live in |
-|---|---|---|
-| Data protection / erasure and retention | Tenant personal data, the erasure horizon, whether key destruction satisfies an erasure obligation | Tenancy Posture axis R; `rapp-postgres` ADR-0002 |
-| Data residency | The `P4` placement level exists for exactly this and has no occupants yet | Tenancy Posture axis P |
-| Public procurement | `vergabe-teilnahme` is a procurement-participation app and the delivery-lane reference implementation | `business-app-service-contract` |
-| Identity assurance | The IAM Profile's `aal2` class drives live re-query rather than cached claims | `iam-profile_v0.3`; Tenancy Posture axis I |
-| Sector and cybersecurity obligations | Whether the estate is an in-scope entity at all is itself an open question worth recording once | — |
-| AI and agentic entities | The tenant taxonomy has an `agentic` grouping for financially enabled AI entities | ADR-0013 |
-
-**Worked example already in hand.** The Tenancy Posture retention research holds a
-finding of exactly this shape: data protection authorities have accepted key
-destruction as erasure where physical deletion is disproportionate, under
-conditions, and the EDPB has not formally endorsed it. True as recorded, likely
-to move, and dangerous if ever restated as settled. Migrating that finding into
-the T06 format is the acceptance test for the format.
-
-**Acceptance:** the format holds that finding without distortion; the record
-displays its retrieval date as prominently as its content; and a reader can get
-from a record to the internal document it bears on, and back.
+The consequence is the point: **this repo now does one thing.** Publication,
+permanence, currency. That makes its ownership answerable and its boundary
+defensible.
 
 ## Sequencing
 
@@ -236,9 +199,20 @@ criterion on T02, not a preference.
 
 - **Publication scope is canon and ADRs.** Not workplans, evidence, runbooks or
   general documentation. Folded into T03 and INTENT.
-- **Intake scope is regulation bearing on the estate.** Not a broader
-  public-interest corpus. T06 is specified accordingly, with an inclusion test
-  and a candidate register to confirm.
+- **Owner is `the-custodian`**, which owns both policy and risk, and carries
+  the duty of deciding what must be discussed with the operator personally.
+- **Regulatory intake left the repo.** It is `risk-nexus`'s (T06, withdrawn).
+
+**Authority is three-way and stated, not held by one repo.** `policy-nexus`
+owns the surface — addressing, permanence, rendering, currency.
+`the-custodian` owns what counts as canon and when it is ratified; this repo
+renders that judgement and never makes it, which is the guard against a
+cross-repo reader accreting authority over "what is current".
+`railiance-platform` owns the substrate — DNS, TLS, ingress, hosting.
+
+The tell that the split is right: **T01 and T04 need different competences.**
+T01 is a canon-process question — what supersession means, what a permanent URL
+promises. T04 is infrastructure. A single owner would be weak at one.
 
 The README's one-line description — "a convergence and publication point for
 government policies" — reads broader than this. Worth updating so the repo does
@@ -246,9 +220,7 @@ not attract the wrong contributions.
 
 ## Open questions for the operator
 
-1. **Owner.** This workplan is `unassigned`. It spans infrastructure and canon
-   process and does not obviously belong to an existing repo's agent.
-2. **Canon subdirectory scope.** `standards` and `architecture` are clearly
+1. **Canon subdirectory scope.** `standards` and `architecture` are clearly
    policy. Are `constitution`, `values`, `tpsc` and `projects` in or out? T03
    needs a yes or no per directory rather than a wildcard.