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so that half is withdrawn.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>
cc4e659a9e