Populates each canonical dimension with Railiance's actual position, canon's
sub-levels, owners where they exist, and honest status.
Findings from doing it:
- Q1 Security and Compliance is already implemented in S3 to a mature standard
(approval gates, delegated apply, revocation, front-door readiness) and was
never named as a dimension. Evidence the dimensions describe real structure
rather than impose vocabulary.
- Plane is operated in full and declared nowhere. P1 workload, P2 control
(ArgoCD, CNPG, ESO, cert-manager), P3 management (State Hub, master,
workplans). Likely to clarify the rail/rapp relationship, since a rail is
essentially a P1 contract.
- Intelligence is already referenced in practice - qonto-assistant cites an I1
isolation profile - and the whole agent operating model is I4-I5. Leaving it
unmodelled understates what this fleet actually is.
- Q3 Operability and Q7 Governance remain unowned; Q5 unaddressed.
Adds a recommended establishing order for railiance-master to ratify: Quality
first (most unowned concerns), Plane second (cheap, descriptive), Capability
third (blocked on the C1 attribution drift), Intelligence fourth, Logic last or
never if Helix Forge owns functional decomposition.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Reads all ten local railiance-* INTENT.md files as a statement of intended
architecture, cross-checked against git history, remotes and the live cluster.
Ten repos declare eight distinct intents. The aspiration is coherent and the
handoffs are stated from both sides. Findings: railiance-bootstrap is a second
local clone of railiance-cluster rather than a repo (which means fleet counts
built by scanning ~ overcount, including the 112 figure in the org refactor);
railiance-hosts and railiance-infra are distinct remotes with unrelated
histories and byte-identical INTENT, both claiming S1; railiance-forge is
unplaced in the OAS stack dimension; S4 is aspiration-only at 25 commits and
zero workplans.
The strongest finding is a shared thread nobody named: five layers
independently aspire to be "self-evidencing" or "auditable", and no repo owns
the verification substrate that would evaluate those claims. That is the same
gap as the enforcement control loop, arrived at from the opposite direction.
Also notes missing homes for observability, end-to-end restore proof, and the
cost-attribution interface.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
T01: docs/rapp-platform-service-pattern.md generalizes the ownership split
already drawn in the rapp-openbao and rapp-postgres boundary docs into a
reusable four-question test, a reference rapp.yaml for platform services, the
grouped-rapp member rule, and the credential-lane position. It deliberately
does not restate the four-axis model, which railiance-master owns.
T03/T04/T05: proposals routed to the repos that own the model rather than
authored here - reef-railiance (bound_rapps lists 1 of 3 live rapps, and should
be derived rather than hand-listed), railiance-master (rapp.schema.json plus a
family declaration validator, grouped-rapp members field, wave-2 candidate
refresh), the-custodian (canon promotion of the four-axis model, which also
closes the open C-31 multi-segment prefix failures).
T02 is held until the schema settles so the platform rapps and the schema do
not converge on different answers.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Survey of the four-axis repo family model against the live cluster and all six
family repos found the concepts sound but unenforced: rapp.yaml has no schema
and has drifted three ways across the three existing rapps, the reef binding
registry lists 1 of 3 live rapps, the rapp population diverged from the
first-wave plan of record, and the model is not in custodian canon so
fix-consistency cannot check it.
Operator decisions recorded in the workplan: grouped-by-bounded-context rapp
granularity, S3 owns only its own rapps and routes schema/canon changes to the
repos that own them, canonize the model now, and build the missing wave-1
user-facing exemplar.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Five failures in full credential test discovery, none of them broker
regressions:
- CCR-2026-0009 referenced a policy file that was never added, and used a
schema-invalid access_frontdoor.readiness value. Add the least-privilege
workload-kv-read-qonto-assistant.hcl (read-only on tenants/binky/qonto-api)
and set readiness to pending-review. The lane stays proposed and
non-resolvable.
- Three refusal tests used the live CCR-2026-0002 file as their "unapproved
CCR" fixture. That lane is now approved, applied and active, so the gates
correctly permitted it and the tests failed; applier-apply then walked into
its interactive confirmation prompt and raised EOFError under a
non-interactive runner. Add an unapproved_ccr() helper that materializes a
normalized temp copy so approval state is no longer read off a mutable
production artifact.
- The approve/unconfirmed-claim test demoted an active CCR to approved while
leaving resolvable=true, tripping a correct validation rule. Build it from
the same helper.
No gate, blocker, validation rule, or grant semantic was changed. Verified:
credential discovery 52/52 and full discovery 61/61 pass non-interactively,
make credential-change-validate passes all nine CCRs, the grant catalog
validates, and both audit-core openbao-database-credential grants retain
exec-env-only delivery and revoke-on-exec-exit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
RAILIANCE-WP-0011-T01: propose OpenBao path
platform/workloads/reuse/reuse-surface/runtime-secrets with
REUSE_SURFACE_TOKEN and REUSE_SURFACE_FORGEJO_WEBHOOK_SECRET, matching
read policy, and metadata review for Railiance01 interim ESO delivery.
RAILIANCE-WP-0011 plans migration of REUSE_SURFACE_TOKEN and
REUSE_SURFACE_FORGEJO_WEBHOOK_SECRET from bootstrap K8s Secret custody to
OpenBao KV plus External Secrets, following the issue-core lane pattern.
Helper-side preflight scope is complete and unit-tested; the live flex-auth
deny capability is re-scoped to flex-auth-side work (capability request
893ff109). Autonomous decision, documented in the task note for easy revert.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
