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>
Self-audit after reading SS6, SS11, SS12 and SS13 in full rather than the
sections cited in review.
openbao A:2 -> A:0. The claim was incoherent (it invoked the absence of
tenant context to justify E:0 and ignored it to claim A2, which SS4.2
defines in terms of tenant context) and unevidenced at the moment of
claiming, which SS13.1 forbids and SS13.1a does not excuse above the floor.
The real authorization evidence, openbao-verify-token-grants.py, is
consumer-boundary and is now cited under the provider statement.
Floor claims carry reason: per SS13.1a; permanent-by-design lines are
marked so SS12 guard does not read them as stalled.
The provider-versus-consumer finding is narrowed: SS6 plus the flex-auth
I1-forever precedent already express a structurally permanent low level,
so that half is withdrawn. What survives is that a provider cannot state
the level it makes reachable for its consumers.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
T01 docs/tenancy-posture.md - vector set per service rather than one repo
vector, with the provider-versus-consumer finding routed to net-kingdom.
T02/T03/T06 docs/placement-policy.md - accepts placement ownership scoped
to rule-here/number-there, records a placement owner per workload, reports
the latency-critical + batch co-residency on platform-pg, marks the
connection-ceiling trigger unmonitored pending railiance-telemetry, and
answers the retention floor/ceiling question.
T04 s3-consumer-interfaces 1.1.0 - quota disclosure per SS10.2. Surfaces
that apps-pg has no backup, no resource limits and no tuned parameters.
T05 docs/adr/ created with a mandatory-frontmatter convention and the
first three ADRs. This repo previously held none.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
32 assertions, 31 pass on Railiance01. The one failure is a real defect the old
loose assertion could never have seen: Flannel VXLAN declared open to Anywhere
with no source restriction, currently absent from the host, so converging would
introduce the exposure rather than correct drift.
Also records the sharper finding from wiring it up: verify.yaml was missing the
vars_files the bootstrap play had, so the firewall assertions rendered empty and
silently asserted nothing - worse than having no check at all.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
T04 done, and the answer changes the order. Item 10 was scored size 5 as a
greenfield build. It is not. railiance-infra already has a Goss baseline suite,
an ansible runner, a make verify target that runs it against all hosts and
commits TAP reports to git, and an evidence trail in reports/. The mechanism is
built and wired.
Two things are wrong with it and neither is a build. Nothing runs it - the last
TAP report is dated 2026-03-09, five months ago. And its firewall assertion
matches /6443\/tcp.*ALLOW/, which asserts the port is allowed but not from
whom - it passes identically whether 6443 is restricted to one operator address
or open to the internet, which is exactly the drift that went undetected. It
would however have caught the other finding, since it asserts Status: active and
UFW is inactive on CoulombCore.
Rescoped into slices: 10a (run it, tighten the assertion) is size 1-2 and rises
to WSJF 12.0, fourth overall and the highest-value item after the ratifications.
10b (schedule + alert path) is 7.0. Names the shared dependency - 10b and 9b are
the same plumbing, and building either of 9 or 10 without it produces logs
nobody reads.
The lesson recorded: the gap analysis correctly identified no-conformance-loop
as a capability gap, but the capability was two-thirds built and abandoned.
Before sizing a gap as a build, check whether it is actually an abandonment.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
T03 done: sent as ac73b172 with the recommendation that master takes the eight
ratification and taxonomy items, and including the correction that our earlier
ArgoCD report to them was wrong.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
