# S3 tenancy posture declaration

Work record: `RPF-WP-0018` T01
Declared: 2026-08-17
Framework: `net-kingdom/canon/standards/tenancy-posture_v0.1.md` (draft-8, proposed)
Contract version of this document: `1.0.0`

Machine-readable source: `tenancy.yaml`. This document preserves the review
reasoning; where a snippet and the root declaration differ, `tenancy.yaml` is
authoritative.

This is `railiance-platform`'s response to the Tenancy Posture ratification
test (§20.2): *"Each publishes its own posture vector as part of review. The
framework is validated by whether it can describe them accurately."*

It declares under §6 — **conformance is accuracy, not altitude**. Several
levels below are `0`. None of them is an admission of weakness, and §6 is
explicit that a declared low level is conformant while an unevidenced high
level is not.

**Every level below carries what §13 requires of it.** §13.1: a level is
claimed only with its evidence artifact present. §13.1a: at or below the
"no control" rung, a declaration requires a **stated reason** instead, because
there is nothing to overclaim at the bottom of a ladder. Floor claims here
carry `reason:`; claims above the floor carry `evidence:`. A claim with
neither would be the overclaim §6 prohibits.

Where `target` equals `current`, that is a **settled position, not a stalled
trajectory** — §6 permits a low level to be permanent by design, on the
`flex-auth` precedent (`I1` forever, because verifying its own inputs would
make it the identity provider its scope refuses to be). Those lines carry
`permanent: true` so §12's guard does not nag them.

## Why this is a vector *set* and not a vector

§5 asks a **service** for one level per axis. `railiance-platform` is an OAS
**layer** holding custody of several services with materially different
postures. A single vector for the repo would be an average of things that are
not alike, which is the inaccuracy §6 prohibits.

So: one vector per service, plus an explicit statement of what this repo owns
versus what it merely holds policy for. The distinction matters because
`RAILIANCE-WP-0012` and `RAILIANCE-WP-0015` deliberately moved the deployable
surface to the `rapp-*` repos while custody and policy stayed here.

| Service | This repo's relationship | Deployable owned by |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `apps-pg` | **owns** — cluster CR is `helm/apps-pg-cluster.yaml` | this repo |
| `forgejo-db` | **owns** — cluster CR is `helm/forgejo-db-cluster.yaml` | this repo |
| `openbao` | **custody and policy**; package extracted | `rapp-openbao` |
| `platform-pg` | **policy only**; consumer contract and grants here | `rapp-postgres` |
| Valkey, MinIO | declared capability, no live instance | — |

## The vectors

### `apps-pg` — shared cluster for S5 application databases

```yaml
tenancy:
  service: apps-pg
  role: storage-provider
  current:  { I: 0, A: 0, E: 0, P: "n/a", R: 0, V: 0 }
  target:   { I: 0, A: 0, E: 0, P: "n/a", R: 2, V: 1 }
  service_class: interactive
  reviewed: "2026-08-17"
  gap:
    R: "No backup is configured on this cluster at all — no barmanObjectStore,
        no retentionPolicy, no deletion path. R0 is the accurate reading and
        it is worse than it looks: R0 here means no recovery, not merely no
        erasure policy. Closing this is the highest-value item this
        declaration surfaced. Target R2 requires a backup target first."
  notes:
    - "I/A/E are 0 by construction, not by neglect. apps-pg holds no tenant
       concept, carries no tenant claim, and applies no tenant predicate. The
       tenant boundary for data on this cluster sits entirely in the consuming
       S5 application. See the provider note below."
    - "P is n/a rather than a number. See §P-axis note."
```

### `forgejo-db` — dedicated cluster for the forge

```yaml
tenancy:
  service: forgejo-db
  role: storage-provider
  current:  { I: 0, A: 0, E: 0, P: "n/a", R: 0, V: 0 }
  target:   { I: 0, A: 0, E: 0, P: "n/a", R: 2, V: 1 }
  service_class: interactive
  reviewed: "2026-08-17"
  gap:
    R: "Backup exists as a documented procedure (docs/forgejo-backup.md), not
        as a declared retention with a published erasure horizon. R2 needs the
        horizon published to the consumer, which is the point of the level."
  notes:
    - "Single-consumer cluster. Provides P2 to forgejo; is not itself at P2."
```

### `openbao` — platform secrets service

```yaml
tenancy:
  service: openbao
  role: credential-provider
  current:  { I: 0, A: 0, E: 0, P: 0, R: 0, V: 0 }
  target:   { I: 0, A: 0, E: 0, P: 0, R: 1, V: 1 }
  permanent: [I, A, E]
  service_class: latency-critical
  reviewed: "2026-08-17"
  reason:
    I: "No tenant concept. OpenBao authenticates workloads via Kubernetes
        auth; it never receives, parses or validates a NetKingdom tenant
        identifier. Permanent by design — a secrets engine that resolved
        tenant identity would be duplicating tenant-engine."
    A: "No tenant context is carried, so there is nothing to bind. Permanent
        by design, on the §6 flex-auth precedent."
    E: "No tenant-keyed data. OpenBao holds workload secrets, not tenant
        records."
    P: "One instance, every consumer shares it. Single-node rail; §17
        scaling demands apply."
    R: "No retention position on audit device output or on KV version
        history."
  gap:
    R: "R1 (platform default) is reachable cheaply and is not yet declared.
        The only line here with a real trajectory."
```

**Correction, 2026-08-17.** This vector first declared `A: 2`. That was
wrong twice over and both errors are worth recording rather than quietly
editing.

*It was internally incoherent.* `E: 0` was justified on the ground that
OpenBao has no tenant dimension. §4.2's `A2` reads "a single local
authorization boundary; **tenant context** bound once, centrally" — the same
dimension. A declaration cannot invoke the absence of tenant context to claim
the floor on one axis and ignore it to claim a rung on the next.

*It was unevidenced at the moment of claiming.* §13.1 requires the artifact to
be present when the level is claimed, and none was cited. §13.1a would not
have rescued it: the table defines an artifact from `A2` upward, so `A2` is
precisely the first rung where the exemption stops applying.

The irony is the point. This repo routed a finding about unevidenced claims
in the same week it made one.

**What the corrected zeros conceal, and why the provider note below exists.**
`A: 0` now reads as though OpenBao performs no authorization. It performs a
great deal, it is central, and it is mechanically evidenced —
`scripts/openbao-verify-token-grants.py` mints a scoped child token, asserts
it *can* sign with `ssh/sign/agt-role`, and asserts it *cannot* read policy
metadata, then revokes by accessor. That is exactly the shape §13 asks for at
`A2`: choke point identified, unbound request refused. It is pointed at the
**consumer** boundary, and none of the tenancy axes has anywhere to put it.

That evidence is therefore cited under the provider statement rather than
against a consumer axis. Consumer separation in OpenBao is structural — a
workload token's policy cannot address another workload's path at all, which
is `E4`-shaped machinery — and the framework's honest application scores it
`0`.

`A3` is not a target: a PDP in the credential path would put `flex-auth` on
OpenBao's availability path and OpenBao on `flex-auth`'s.

### `platform-pg` — policy relationship only

Declared by `rapp-postgres`. This repo does not restate it. What this repo
declares about it is in `docs/placement-policy.md`: the rule, the placement
owner per consumer, and the triggers. The numbers — `instances: 1`,
`max_connections: 100`, `1Gi`, `retentionPolicy: 30d` — are `rapp-postgres`'s
cluster CR and its declaration to make.

## The P-axis note — why two entries are `n/a`

The P ladder describes **which substrate holds a tenant's data**, from the
point of view of the workload whose data it is. `apps-pg` and `forgejo-db` are
the substrate. Asking a cluster what its own placement level is has no
well-formed answer: `apps-pg` *provides* P1 to each of its consumers, and
`forgejo-db` *provides* P2 to forgejo, but neither *is* at a level.

Declaring `P: 1` for `apps-pg` would read as though the cluster had a
placement, and a later reader would use it to argue about isolation. `n/a`
plus the provider statement is the accurate canonical form.

For `apps-pg`, the provider statement is now backed by live evidence dated
2026-08-20. A separately restored cluster recovered both consumer databases in
56 seconds from the governed 30-day backup path, establishing current R2/V1
for the provider. The 14-assertion isolation harness then proved own-database
access, cross-database denial, both role timeouts, the 20-connection boundary,
and peer availability while one role exhausted its allowance. The measured
wall-time increase is recorded but is not a latency SLO. Evidence:
`docs/evidence/RPF-WP-0019-backup-restore-2026-08-20.md` and
`docs/evidence/RPF-WP-0019-isolation-2026-08-20.md`.

## Finding adopted by `net-kingdom`

**The six ladders describe a consumer of storage. They do not describe a
provider of it.**

**Resolved in draft-7 and formalised in draft-8.** Decision 5.5 adopted the
provider declaration; the draft-8 schema standardises `available`, `maximum`,
conditions and evidence per axis. The canonical form is now in `tenancy.yaml`.

**Narrowed on re-reading, 2026-08-17.** An earlier version of this finding
claimed the framework had no way to say "this zero is structural, not weak".
That was wrong: §6 says exactly that, and §13.1a supplies the mechanism —
`target` equal to `current` with a stated reason is a settled position, on the
`flex-auth` `I1`-forever precedent. This declaration now uses it. Half of the
finding is withdrawn.

What survives is the other half, and it is not expressible: a provider cannot
state **what level it makes reachable for the workloads it holds**, nor record
a control that is real, mechanically evidenced, and simply not on any of the
five consumer axes.

Every service above scores at or near zero on I, A and E, and in each case for
the same structural reason rather than for a weakness: a storage or credential
platform has no tenant dimension of its own. It is exactly as strong or weak as
its consumers make it. The framework anticipates this in §3.3 and in the
"newly absorbed repo" example, but the vector shape gives a provider no way to
say the useful thing, which is not *what level am I at* but **what level do I
make reachable for the workloads I hold**.

The concrete case is the `openbao` E line. `E: 0` is literally correct and
actively misleading — the mechanism in place is credential-scoped structural
separation, the same machinery E4 describes, pointed at a consumer boundary
rather than a tenant one. A reader scanning a table of E values would rank
OpenBao below a service doing per-query filtering in application code, which
inverts the actual security position.

**Proposed amendment at draft-5, offered as the first correction from review rather than
from research (§Status observes that every correction so far came from research
or relocation):** add a **provider declaration** beside the posture vector — a
platform service states, per axis, the maximum level it makes reachable and
what the consumer must do to reach it. For `apps-pg` that is: E4 unreachable
(shared credential per consumer, no per-tenant credential), E3 reachable once
the GUC contract exists, R2 blocked on a backup target. That is the sentence a
consumer actually needs, and no arrangement of the consumer ladders produces
it. Draft-8 adopted and standardised that amendment; the root declaration is
now authoritative.

This is offered as an addition, not a replacement. The consumer vector is
right for consumers, and this repo is not asking for the ladders to be
renumbered.

## What this repo accepts

- The P0–P4 ladder as written, by reference. It describes our estate correctly.
- §8.1's monitoring obligation, with the deferrals stated in
  `docs/placement-policy.md` rather than silently.
- §9.1 — no static long-lived database credentials above E0. Already how the
  credential broker works; no change needed.
- §10.2 — quota disclosure. Landed in `docs/s3-consumer-interfaces.md` 1.1.0.
- §6 — accuracy over altitude, which is why this document declares four zeros.

## Review interval

Six months, or on any of: a service moving placement level, a backup target
becoming available, or the framework reaching `accepted`. Next review due
**2027-02-17**.
