Commit graph

4 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
codex
cb321deeab Finish RPF-WP-0019 apps-pg controls and recovery
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
2026-08-20 22:58:45 +02:00
codex
dc4245361d Finish RPF-WP-0018; RPF-WP-0019 repository-complete
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
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>
2026-08-18 13:35:04 +02:00
codex
cc4e659a9e Correct the S3 posture declaration against Tenancy Posture SS13
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so that half is withdrawn.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>
2026-08-17 22:56:03 +02:00
codex
e7e4e33bb8 RPF-WP-0018 T01-T06: publish S3 posture, placement policy, quotas, ADR surface
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>
2026-08-17 21:55:11 +02:00