coulomb/railiance-master
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
railiance-master/docs/netkingdom-axis-layer-open-questions.md
codex a0c35b7438 feat(RMASTER-WP-0026): declare Taxonomy layer and consume NetKingdom §20 
Add layer.yaml, RMASTER-ADR-0009, the consumption contract, and a tracked
non-answer for the five §20.3 questions. Split admission, exposure, and
authorization without renaming schema fields. Finish the workplan.

Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04c9f-cd6b-7741-bce0-f1d9d1b3c3bc
2026-08-29 12:52:35 +02:00

3 KiB
Raw Blame History

Unsettled axis-to-layer questions (statute §20.3)

Date: 2026-08-29 Status: tracked non-answer under ADR-0009 / RMASTER-WP-0026-T05 Next review: 2026-11-29

Purpose

Statute §20.3 names five questions about how Railiance axes meet the NetKingdom security-layer model and deliberately does not answer them. Guessing a mapping would be worse than admitting the gap.

This record keeps each question visible, owned, and unanswered. It is not an ADR. A mapping ADR is forbidden until the named reviewers have assented.

On disagreement the statute governs: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.7.md §20.3.

Standing non-answer

For every row below: unset. Do not infer an answer from current practice, from a repo prefix, from a Fabric graph edge, or from a declaration field. Implementation repos must not ship a local mapping.

The five questions

# Question Why it is open Propose Must review before any ADR Next review
1 Identity form of a rapp-* as a request-claim resource A rapp is the most likely resource a decision is about, but nothing states its identity form in a claim railiance-master access-engine, gate-house 2026-11-29
2 Whether a rail-* contract can carry PEP obligations PEP shape is most likely to live on a rail, but statute §6.4 attaches to repositories and a rail is a contract railiance-master gate-house; any rail-* that is actually PEP-shaped 2026-11-29
3 Composition of a reef-* with a security zone A reef answers where a workload is bound; a zone answers which scrutiny it has qualified for. Adjacent is not equal. zone-engine already records this as a canon composition problem railiance-master zone-engine, gate-house 2026-11-29
4 Relation of the railiance-* ownership axis to the principal a decision is rendered for Ownership names who owns a capability. That is adjacent to the subject of a decision, not equal to it railiance-master access-engine, gate-house 2026-11-29
5 The glas-harness / statute §3.4 seam Tool policy and session semantics are glas-harness's; an agent may act only through a conduit or an Engine API. Neither half is sufficient. This is where "tool availability is not permission" is enforced or lost glas-harness with railiance-master glas-harness (required), gate-house 2026-11-29

Question 5 is the highest-consequence of the five. No Railiance ADR may answer it without glas-harness assent (statute §20.4).

What this record is not

  • a mapping of rail-* / rapp-* / reef-* / railiance-* onto Taxonomy, Tooling, Engine, or Staff
  • a licence for a rail or rapp to invent a local claim shape
  • a substitute for statute §17 Taxonomy artifacts (request-claim schema, gap-record schema, emission-cadence declaration)

Related