Implements step 2 (access-engine POST /v1/check) and wires the whole
GH-DEC-2026-003 sequence together, then proves it against a live throwaway
OpenBao rather than only unit-level fakes.
- decision_check.check_decision performs the PDP call; an unreachable or
non-200 PDP raises, since silence is never permission.
- approval_consume.authorize_action coordinates steps 1 and 2 and returns an
AuthorizedAction. Both steps build the same CheckRequest via a shared
_expected_request, since two descriptions of the action cannot produce
corresponding digests.
- apply_unreachable_engine_stance takes authorized=. The published map
defines fail_closed as no side effect WITHOUT a durable decision record,
so holding a validated one means the residue does not apply. Not a bypass:
both steps must have succeeded and CAS consume still precedes OpenBao.
Unconfigured still returns None and fails closed.
The end-to-end test caught one more instance of the cross-vocabulary bug: a
leftover comparison of the claim's binding.action against ours. The claim
says secrets.kv.destroy where we say destroy, so it would have failed against
every real claim. Removed; the tie is pdp_digest.
Integration coverage asserts PIP-then-PDP ordering, that consume is the last
step before the backend, and that an unreachable PDP, denied decision,
invalid claim, missing pdp_digest, consume conflict and action mismatch each
stop before OpenBao. 284 tests pass; production still fails closed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01M65ovP3eiiPHubibvWs9mD
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 393550@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 4bb359f9-1f12-4410-9e76-079cf23c82e4
resolve_consume_binding was a `return None` stub, so protocol step 1 of
docs/approval-consumption.md (GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim) and the
validation join never existed. validate_action_authorization had no caller
in src/ at all - it was reachable only from tests. Production fail-closed
was correct, but for an undocumented second reason, and WP-0007-T04's
"what remains is not local engine work" was wrong.
The join now reproduces the exact CheckRequest via build_action_request,
fetches the durable ActionAuthorization, and validates request binding,
digest, validity, authority, policy pin, and distinct-approver threshold
before offering a consume binding. _require_lane_approval threads the exact
field set for provision/rotate/verify/exec so the digest covers the real
proposed action.
Deliberate choices:
- The approval-engine object id is never inferred from a State Hub decision
UUID; flex-auth stated GET /decisions/{uuid} is not the durable object.
- No default policy pin. flex-auth stated secrets-engine.lifecycle/v1 is
example vocabulary, not a published package.
- A half-configured join raises rather than returning None, so a partial
deployment cannot be mistaken for an unconfigured one.
Behavior is unchanged today: every new input is absent by default, so
production still fails closed and plan/--dry-run still work. 234 tests pass.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01M65ovP3eiiPHubibvWs9mD
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 393550@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 4bb359f9-1f12-4410-9e76-079cf23c82e4
Every live privileged production handler CAS-consumes through
approval-engine before OpenBao. Conflict, unavailability, or a missing
binding fail closed. Live production remains disabled until the durable
decision record is served.
Record kings-guard assent on the secret-use evidence contract.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a05f07-ae72-7781-9fcb-19efd61add00
