These workplans exist only in the retired local hub. Their random pre-ADR-007
identifiers are refused by C-06 as stale references, so they cannot be
registered. Deriving from the canonical record id takes no identity from
anything: central does not hold them and the old ids die with the cache.
Records central already holds were deliberately left untouched.
Refs CUST-WP-0068-T06
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 2583210@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: f2bff2d5-e9b2-4338-92ca-10282a927006
Two reachable clusters each carry a CNPG Cluster named apps-pg in a
namespace named databases. KUBECONFIG is an environment variable, so the
Makefile ?= default never applied, and RAILIANCE01_KUBECONFIG pointed at
config-hosteurope - a different cluster. Had the environment pointed at the
other reachable cluster instead of an unauthorized one, make apps-pg-deploy
would have applied RPF-WP-0019 connection limits, role timeouts and backup
config to the wrong cluster and reported success. The Unauthorized error was
the only thing that prevented it.
Filename selection cannot protect against this: both kubeconfigs resolve to
a 127.0.0.1 tunnel port and the environment wins either way. railiance01-guard
pins identity instead, comparing the live kube-system namespace UID against
RAILIANCE01_CLUSTER_UID, and fails closed on mismatch or unreachability. It
gates apps-pg deploy, backup-deploy, overflow-dry-run, status and shell.
Verified refusing on the wrong cluster, refusing when unreachable, and
passing on railiance01. Not global: db-status legitimately targets the other
cluster for gitea-db.
RPF-WP-0019 blocker note corrected - the cluster was never unreachable, our
wiring was wrong.
RPF-WP-0020 seeded for the pre-existing CCR test failure, which is two
unrelated problems: CCR-2026-0010 is an active lane missing its whole
openbao.auth block, and CCR-2026-0011 is an honest in-flight draft the suite
has no way to express.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
RPF-WP-0018 closed: all seven tasks done. The provider-declaration finding
was adopted upstream and its canonical form is the provider: block in
tenancy.yaml; adaptive-pricing declined the standing co-signature and
supplied typed tier minima instead, recorded in ADR-0002. Three corrections
against our own output are recorded in the documents rather than edited
away.
RPF-WP-0019 T03 done (ceiling of three, memory binding, apps-pg-2 named as
overflow, enforced by make apps-pg-verify-capacity). T01/T02 are
repository-complete: backup target, retention, per-consumer connection
limits, role timeouts and Burstable resources are declared in source and
published in s3-consumer-interfaces 1.1.0 before rollout. They stay in
progress because no live application, backup success or restore proof
exists, and declared configuration is not a section 13 artifact. T04 waits
on that window.
apps-pg R reason corrected to say the target is declared-not-applied rather
than absent.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Placement policy 3.1 records that the P1 levels for vergabe and
coulomb_social are provisioning declarations without the SS13 isolation
probes - apps-pg has none. 3.2 records that apps-pg cannot produce the
noisy-neighbour artifact at all until per-consumer controls exist, per
SS13.4: with nothing to bind, a probe could only demonstrate degradation.
RPF-WP-0019 seeded for the three live defects the disclosure work found:
no backup, no per-consumer controls, no isolation probes. Kept separate
from RPF-WP-0018 so declaring is not confused with fixing.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
