Answer the exec-path question: the front door reads the ungoverned duplicate.

ops-warden and railiance-platform asked, independently, which OpenBao location
`secrets-engine exec --catalog whynot-design-npm-publish` reads. Answered from
this repository's own code and catalog with no OpenBao read and no value.

It reads `secret/coulomb/whynot-design/npm/publish` — the legacy, ungoverned
duplicate. `_fetch_value` concatenates the catalog's `mount` and `path` with no
override or fallback, so the proven pilot published from the duplicate and the
lowercase `npm_token` field is the field there. ops-warden's front door names
this repository as exec_owner, so it currently routes callers at a path no CCR
covers.

Recorded in SECRETS-WP-0006 with what a move to the governed lane requires, and
flagged that the duplicate must not be destroyed until the lane moves. Whether
the two locations hold the same value is a value comparison and is not answered
here.

Also records GH-DEC-2026-017 against SECRETS-WP-0008: INTENT.md governs, the
sidecar is derived, the vocabulary is case-insensitive so nothing is re-spelled,
and standard_version comes out of layer.yaml once ops-warden updates the
reference form this repository copied.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 63291@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8bd77868-ca68-4f49-bb1e-d539ecc0d703

workplans/SECRETS-WP-0008-layer-model-lifecycle-conformance.md

@@ -354,6 +354,68 @@ Acceptance:
 - No fallback from JWT/service-auth failure into bootstrap or AppRole.
 - Issued delivery sessions continue to self-revoke as in WP-0007-T05.
 
+### 2026-09-21 GH-DEC-2026-017 — section 11 layer declaration ruled
+
+Read from `gate-house/decisions/decisions.md`, not from message text.
+`secrets-engine` is a named affected repository and carries both permitted
+forms, so all four parts apply here. State Hub decision id
+`82dd0fea-fabb-4940-92d5-d6e2ea9985f5`.
+
+What the ruling settles for this repository:
+
+1. **`INTENT.md` governs.** Our declaration is the `layer: Engine` key in
+   `INTENT.md` frontmatter. `layer.yaml` is a **derived artifact**: it must be
+   marked as derived, must name `INTENT.md` as what it derives from, and must
+   agree with it. Our `layer.yaml` already carries `declared_by: INTENT.md` and
+   a `Voice: INTENT.md (this repository's own declaration, §11)` header comment,
+   so we are among the repositories already treating the sidecar as derived in
+   substance. What is missing is the explicit derived marking the ruling now
+   requires as a field rather than a comment.
+2. **The §3 vocabulary is case-insensitive and comparison must ASCII case-fold.**
+   Our `INTENT.md` says `Engine` and our `layer.yaml` says `engine`. Under §2 of
+   the ruling that is **conforming**, it was never a disagreement about a layer,
+   and **nothing here is re-spelled**. flex-auth withdrew the casing finding
+   itself (message `962bf395`) and its validator is the thing that changes. We
+   do not touch either file's spelling, and we do not "align" them.
+3. **The vocabulary is closed with four tokens** — `Taxonomy`, `Tooling`,
+   `Engine`, `Staff`. `Engine` is in it; no action.
+4. **`standard_version` comes out of the declaration.** Our `layer.yaml` carries
+   `standard_version: "0.7"`. A declaration asserts a standing property and must
+   not carry a standard version; version-scoped state belongs in the derived
+   conformance record, which must name what it derives from and the version or
+   commit it was derived at.
+
+**Deliberately not done in this session.** The ruling states that
+`standard_version` is not one repository's habit but **ops-warden's reference
+form**, which this repository copied along with seven others, and that ops-warden
+is asked to make the change there rather than each adopter deciding independently.
+ops-warden is updating that reference form in a parallel session. Inventing our
+own sidecar shape ahead of it would produce exactly the divergence the ruling
+exists to close, so we record the requirement and wait for the reference form.
+
+What `secrets-engine` will need, once the reference form lands:
+
+- Adopt the reference form's derived-artifact marking in `layer.yaml`, keeping
+  `declared_by: INTENT.md` or whatever field the reference form names for it.
+- Remove `standard_version: "0.7"` from `layer.yaml`.
+- Move the version the conformance run was derived at into our derived
+  conformance record, per the reference form's field for it. Our conformance
+  checker is `scripts/check_layer_conformance.py`; it reads `layer.yaml` today
+  and will need to read `INTENT.md` as the governing form, read the sidecar as
+  well, and **report a disagreement between them as a finding** rather than
+  resolve it by precedence. A casing-only difference is not such a disagreement.
+- Keep `framework:`, `layer:`, `role:` and the substantive §3/§5/§6/§9.6
+  content unchanged. `role:` is explicitly not ruled and stays as it is.
+- The `Framework:` header comment in `layer.yaml` cites
+  `security-layer-model_v0.7.md` while the ruling is issued against `v0.8`.
+  That is a citation in a comment, not a declaration version, so it is out of
+  scope for part 4 — but it should be refreshed in the same commit so the two
+  are not confused for each other.
+
+No task is opened here by hand. This is a note against the workplan that already
+owns `layer.yaml` / `pep-stance.yaml` / INTENT frontmatter staying in one voice;
+the work lands under that exit criterion when ops-warden's form is published.
+
 ## Exit criteria
 
 - The published PEP stance is the shipped default and stance application is