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
tegwick
f62d3fe789