secrets-engine/docs/approval-consumption.md
tegwick f62d3fe789 feat: complete and prove the authorization chain end to end
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
2026-09-06 14:56:02 +02:00

6.8 KiB

Approval consumption (PEP)

Status: engine consumer and the PIP claim/validate join are implemented; live production remains fail-closed until approval-engine and access-engine actually serve the durable objects.

Normative protocol: gate-house/docs/contracts/approval-consumption.md (GH-DEC-2026-003). Implementation surface: approval-engine/docs/approval-consumption.md. This document records how secrets-engine, as the PEP for OpenBao writes, consumes that protocol. It does not redefine it.

Sequence

1. PIP  GET  /v1/approvals/{id}/claim
2. PDP  access-engine Check / decide          → ALLOW
3. PEP  POST /v1/approvals/{id}/consume       → CAS
4. PEP  OpenBao call                          → only after consume succeeds

Each artifact is validated by the layer that owns its data (GH-DEC-2026-005). There is no single bundled object:

Step Artifact Owner Validated by
1 approval-claim approval-engine approval_claim.validate_approval_claim
2 DecisionEnvelope flex-auth authorization.validate_decision_envelope

The claim carries the approval fact: issuer, valid_now, consumption state, binding digest, freshness, reason_code. The envelope carries the decision: effect, exact CheckRequest binding, canonical request digest, lifetime, and the policy package/version pin. Neither republishes the other's data.

ActionAuthorization is deferred and was never ratified (FLEX-DEC-2026-006). It cannot be served from a step-1 call, and nothing here validates it. A ratified post-decision form remains a deferred option.

There are two different digests over the same proposed action, and they are never compared to each other:

  • claim.binding.digest — approval-engine native, sha256 over canonical JSON of {action, actor, principal, purpose, target}.
  • decision.binding.request_digest — flex-auth canonical CheckRequest digest.

claim.binding.pdp_digest is the only comparison usable today, and its absence fails the action closed. The claim's binding.action and binding.target speak approval-engine's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy, {"id": ..., "stage": ...}) while ours speaks the catalog's (destroy, catalog:<id>), and no mapping between them is published. flex-auth makes no cross-check either and states the correspondence is ours. Computing a native digest from our own vocabulary would compare two different languages and never match, so this engine does not compute one. Closing that gap needs a published mapping co-authored by approval-engine and flex-auth; it is a prerequisite for SECRETS-WP-0007-T04 making destroy reachable.

What is hashed in the flex-auth digest

tenant, subject, action, resource, context — and nothing else. id is correlation only, policy_version lives in provenance, and caring_context is hashed separately. Including any of them yields a digest that matches no issued decision. digest_material enforces the exclusion and tests/test_decision_replay.py pins it against two real envelopes.

A consumer re-hashing the original unenriched request will not match a decision that turned on registry attributes: the binding is the evaluator's statement of what it hashed, so recompute from the binding tuple.

The approval-engine object id is never inferred from a State Hub decision UUID. It comes from catalog approval.authorization_id, and is the value in the {id} path segment echoed back as approval_id.

There is no authority constant. The engine previously required provenance.authority == "state-hub", which contradicted its own source: State Hub is a read model and holds no runtime approval authority, so that check failed closed against every correctly issued record. The approval fact's authority is approval-engine (checked as issuer); the decision's is flex-auth.

Every live privileged production handler passes _require_lane_approval, which calls require_production_consume before OpenBaoClient.resolve. Dry-run and plan do not consume. Build/test remain fail-open relative to approval-engine. The three-factor unsafe-demo exception is not a consume path.

Fail closed

Condition Result
No served consume binding refuse; no OpenBao
URL/token/authorization id all unset binding is None → refuse; no OpenBao
Partially configured join (missing subject or policy pin) raise; never degrade to "unconfigured"
Claim digest, action, or field set mismatch refuse; no OpenBao
Missing SECRETS_ENGINE_APPROVAL_URL or token file refuse; no OpenBao
HTTP 409 / different digest refuse; no OpenBao
Same digest after consume idempotent success; OpenBao may proceed
401/403/404/503/unreachable refuse; no OpenBao
Side effect fails after consume approval is spent; no unconsume

The consume response is mutation evidence (status=consumed plus the presented digest). It is not a permission. Evidence records approval id, digest, idempotence, and consumed-at only. No token, secret, or accessor.

Required configuration

The join is absent by default, so an unconfigured engine behaves exactly as it did before. Production additionally needs:

Variable Meaning
SECRETS_ENGINE_APPROVAL_URL approval-engine base URL (claim + consume)
SECRETS_ENGINE_APPROVAL_TOKEN_FILE mode-0600 credential, outside Git
SECRETS_ENGINE_AUTHORIZATION_SUBJECT_ID / _SUBJECT_TYPE the acting principal
SECRETS_ENGINE_AUTHORIZATION_POLICY_PACKAGE / _VERSION the live pin (step 2)
SECRETS_ENGINE_PDP_URL / _PDP_TOKEN_FILE the per-consumer access-engine pin

The distinct-approver threshold is no longer a consumer-side check. The claim does not expose approver entries; approval-engine folds that requirement into valid_now, which is true only when enough distinct authenticated approvers have been recorded and the object is not consumed, superseded, revoked, or expired.

There is deliberately no default policy pin. The reserved coordinate is secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle / v1, but that is a reservation, not a publication (FLEX-DEC-2026-005) and must not be configured until FLEX-WP-0021-T02 publishes the package. docs/gated-actions.md supplies the action vocabulary that package is built from.

Step 2 additionally needs the flex-auth-secrets-engine Service DNS. No estate-wide PDP exists by design — flex-auth runs per-consumer cluster-local pins — and that pin has not been created, so the PDP call is not wired yet.

What this does not do

  • It does not enable live production. Unreachable-engine stance still fail-closes production until an access-engine decision record is served (SECRETS-WP-0007-T04 / SECRETS-WP-0008-T02).
  • It does not render or cache an authorization decision.
  • It does not infer consumption from a decision record or from local evidence.