fix-consistency indexed SECURITY-WP-0002 and SECURITY-DEC-2026-004 and wrote the ids back. The generated-only commit path rejected the writeback, so this commit keeps the files.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a12ce1-7ded-7e03-a845-2ece8a573af4
Insert DevOps Secrets Management Canon v1.0 unchanged, with a placement preface that keeps shared roots upstream. Publish it on the federation card.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a12ce1-7ded-7e03-a845-2ece8a573af4
Updated by fix-consistency on 2026-09-24:
- update .custodian-brief.md for security-canon
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a0d25d-d358-7e13-b84a-d007fbb7e34f
InfoTechCanon reviewed the demand signal separately and accepted option B as
INFO-DEC-2026-001: the CARING section 32 role set now applies wherever a
subject's access is exercised through another party, rather than to non-human
subjects only. CARING moves to canon version 0.4.0-RC2-itc2.
The change is additive and no SecurityCanon declaration moves. The blank cell in
the mapping table stands: InfoTechCanon's access-control model still has no
on-behalf-of relation.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
InfoTechCanon re-verified this boundary against its enlarged ownership index
under INFO-WP-0027-T04. The original manifest was verified by file hash, which
every entry passed; nothing checked that the named concept exists in the named
file. Five of twelve did not.
Artifact becomes CanonArtifact, which is what Core defines; bare Artifact now
resolves to the DevSecOps build artifact, a different concept. Relationship
becomes RelationshipDefinition, since the identity model owns Relationship as
its actor-linking taxonomy. Ownership moves to the Organization Model, which the
kernel map names as its owner. AccessOperations becomes Operation, the upstream
name. PrincipalType stops being an import: the identity model does not define
it, and it is SecurityCanon's own classification of the imported Principal.
Eleven imports remain, no concept is contested, and no semantic disposition
changes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
The kernel map concept-owner table names Landscape as the owner of Environment;
CARING section 21.5 enumerates values for it. InfoTechCanon declared it to the
Landscape Model under INFO-WP-0027-T02. The import moves to that artifact at the
same pinned source commit.
This is the second time a value enumeration was read as a definition, after
Scope. A re-verification of both boundaries against InfoTechCanon's enlarged
ownership index is owed and is tracked there as INFO-WP-0027-T04.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Updated by fix-consistency on 2026-09-20:
- update .custodian-brief.md for security-canon
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
All tasks resolved: T01, T02, T03, T04, T06 and T07 done, T05 cancelled. The
workplan delivered the governed repository, the Mode of Authority vocabulary at
v0.2.0, the federation interface card, three decisions, the concept-placement
record and the reference-impact survey.
It also concluded that the migration it was preparing should not happen. The
material this canon was meant to receive is load-bearing where it sits, and
SecurityCanon's real contribution is an architecture-layer vocabulary that
InfoTechCanon does not have, so it is an extension canon rather than a
destination for extracted material. Nothing moves; the boundary holds by
declared imports, twelve InfoTechCanon concepts pinned and nine owned here.
SCOPE.md carries the three open questions to their answers rather than leaving
them carried, and points at the placement record and the survey.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
The placement record named ITC-ACCESS the owner of Scope and imports.json pinned
it there. The corpus says otherwise: ITC-IDENT section 2.10 defines Scope as the
general boundary, and ITC-ACCESS section 11.8 ResourceScope already declares
itself a refinement of it rather than a competing definition. The second use R-1
was actually reaching for is CARING section 21, resolved upstream in
InfoTechCanon by ADHOC-2026-09-20-T01.
Scope now imports from InfoTechCanonIdentityModel. No hash changes: both files
were already pinned at the same source commit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Updated by fix-consistency on 2026-09-20:
- update .custodian-brief.md for security-canon
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Fifty-two InfoTechCanon files mention authority; twenty are live canon and
thirty-two are preserved assimilation source. The survey separates three senses
of the word already in use — the right itself (itc-org:Authority, ITC-ORG 10.17),
an external body compelling disclosure (CARING 10.7 exposure mode), and the
relationship in which authority is exercised (sec-authority:AuthMode) — and
records, per artifact, how SecurityCanon must reference rather than restate them.
Two corrections follow, applied through the amendment procedure
SECURITY-DEC-2026-003 requires. itc-org:Authority is a live concept that no
owned_concepts declaration lists, so the boundary review's conflict check could
not see it; it becomes a declared import on the existing organization-model
entry, whose pinned hash is unchanged. Environment was listed as
SecurityCanon-owned but CARING 21.5 already defines it, which the decision
forbids; InfoTechCanon owns it, SecurityCanon imports it with a newly pinned
CARING hash, and the RECOVERY value is carried as an upstream value proposal.
The declared import list goes from ten concepts to twelve.
Two findings need no change here. CARING's Authority exposure mode against
itc-org:Authority becomes residual R-3, InfoTechCanon-internal. itc-ident:Realm
against AuthorityRealm owes the disambiguation page a line but no rename.
AuthorityContext, AuthorityProvenance, Activation, EvidenceBoundary and
AccessSituation collide with nothing in the live corpus. No InfoTechCanon file is
changed by this survey.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Updated by fix-consistency on 2026-09-20:
- update .custodian-brief.md for security-canon
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Records one owning canon and one import direction per concept that appears in
both layers, as SECURITY-DEC-2026-003. Ten InfoTechCanon concepts are declared
imports and the list is closed at what imports.json pins: anything further must
be added there with a blob hash before use. Nine concepts are SecurityCanon's
own. CARING's Canonical Role, Plane, Condition, Capability and Audit Plane stay
upstream with no SecurityCanon counterpart.
Both remaining migration candidates stay in InfoTechCanon. The security model is
a posture model of the shared spine with eleven upstream imports and nothing to
gain from the move; the DevSecOps model is delivery vocabulary that is only
incidentally security-flavoured and belongs beside the repository-layout standard
and the evidence model. No artifact migrates, consistent with the cancelled T05.
The open boundary questions are answered rather than assumed: the identity model
is a shared root and SecurityCanon imports PrincipalType only; the small-saas
policy, control, evidence and incident artifacts stay whole, with any
SecurityCanon example referencing them by id across the federation interface.
Two residuals stay open and are InfoTechCanon-internal: CARING Scope against
ITC-ACCESS Scope, where ITC-ACCESS is named owner, and the unaccepted CARING
section 32 generalisation. This is an agent decision, not human sign-off, and it
records no consumer adoption or conformance claim.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Updated by fix-consistency on 2026-09-20:
- update .custodian-brief.md for security-canon
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Declares one export surface, sec-authority, carrying the Mode of Authority
vocabulary and its machine-readable catalogs, with InfoTechCanon,
InterfaceCanon, CommerceCanon and the Custodian as peers under CUST-ADR-006.
The card validates against InfoTechCanon's interface-card schema.
Imports are pinned against InfoTechCanon e1f98da0 in imports.json, recording
path and SHA-256 for each of the five sources; all five were verified to match
Git blobs at that commit with the sources unchanged in the review checkout.
Reciprocal navigation runs both ways: this repository's interfaces README links
the peer cards, and InfoTechCanon carries the SecurityCanon boundary review with
its own README link, following the InterfaceCanon precedent.
The prj-canon-federation G7 validator passes, and InfoTechCanon make check
passes with 46 tests and clean validation. The validator pins card paths for
three repositories only, so this card meets the same contract without yet being
registered there; that is prj-canon-federation's change to make and the card
says so.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Written back by fix-consistency C-32/C-33.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Updated by fix-consistency on 2026-09-20:
- update .custodian-brief.md for security-canon
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Publishes sec-authority:ModeOfAuthority v0.2.0 with machine-readable
auth-modes.yaml and dimensions.yaml, and moves the v0.1 draft verbatim to
research/ as provenance — it had been sitting in spec/, which the Repository
Layout Standard reserves for implementation guidance.
Terminology separation decided as SECURITY-DEC-2026-002 / SEC-ADR-002. The
v0.1 Subject dimension becomes AuthorityContext, because InfoTechCanon's
access-control model already owns Actor and Subject and binds them as "Subject
is the access-control view of an actor"; reusing the pair for two distinct
parties would have made one word mean two things across the canons. Operator
versus OPERATE, Build Plane versus CONSTRUCT, Policy Plane versus GOVERN, Audit
Plane versus EvidenceBoundary and Condition versus Activation are separated
rather than merged, and Scope, AccessOperations, Purpose and PrincipalType are
declared imports. Namespace sec-authority: reserved; itc-caring: and itc-access:
stay upstream and are not aliased.
Two of the draft's open questions are closed. CONSTRUCT stays distinct from
GOVERN, the test being the object of authority — the artifact versus the
constraint it must satisfy — which keeps "who may edit the policy" separable
from "who decides what it must say". Substrate authority becomes a DOMINATES
relation between Authority Realms carrying dominance_kind, observable and
evidence_boundary, which makes the relative-sovereignty principle checkable
instead of merely asserted.
Orientation surfaces published: the one-page vocabulary card, the ten-question
design heuristic promoted from the draft's appendix to section 3 of the
artifact, the role/plane/mode disambiguation page, and the cross-layer mapping
to InfoTechCanon with its deliberate blanks where one layer has no equivalent.
Generalising CARING section 32 beyond non-human subjects is deliberately not
bundled in; it is InfoTechCanon's to accept as a demand signal.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
The work-record type registry requires ^[A-Z]+-DEC-[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{3}$; SEC-DEC-0001
was flagged by fix-consistency C-31/C-35 as an unregistered species.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Updated by fix-consistency on 2026-09-20:
- update .custodian-brief.md for security-canon
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Owner decision of 2026-09-20 answering four of the five open questions from the
Mode of Authority assessment, recorded as SEC-DEC-0001 with the reasoning in
docs/adr-001-securitycanon-boundary.md.
CARING stays in InfoTechCanon: it is implementation-layer and imports eleven
InfoTechCanon models, and SecurityCanon should help rather than hinder keeping
InfoTechCanon practical. Identity stays a shared root, since pulling it in would
collapse too much into security and it reaches into personhood; a dedicated
identity or personhood canon is deferred, not rejected. Mode of Authority is
architecture where CARING is implementation — different layers of abstraction,
neither subsuming the other, but they must not use the same word for different
things. No service surface is duplicated: integration is uniform across
commerce-canon, interface-canon and security-canon through the canon-federation
interface card, and InfoTechCanon's service stays the only one.
Content migration is therefore no longer a goal. T02 narrows from a disposition
review to concept placement, T03 becomes a non-collision survey, and T05, the
migration workplan handoff, is cancelled. T06 gains the three-way mapping table
and T07 becomes the terminology separation decision.
The remaining open question is analysed in docs/260920-actor-subject-implications.md.
InfoTechCanon's access-control model already owns Actor and Subject and binds
them as "Subject is the access-control view of an actor", while Mode of Authority
uses the same two words for two distinct parties; and CARING already carries the
split for non-human subjects. The note recommends renaming Mode of Authority's
second party to Authority Context rather than changing a release-candidate
standard.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Written back by fix-consistency C-11.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Updated by fix-consistency on 2026-09-20:
- update .custodian-brief.md for security-canon
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Review of spec/ModeOfAuthorityCanon-v0.1.md, recorded as a timestamped
assessment in history/. Two findings change the plan.
SecurityCanon is not only a recipient of extracted InfoTechCanon material. The
Mode of Authority draft is a native contribution and is plausibly the organizing
spine of the canon, so the vocabulary has to be settled before artifacts are
migrated into it rather than after.
Mode of Authority and CARING independently invented overlapping dimensions.
Scope, Subject, Activation/Condition and Capability/Operations collide by name
while differing in meaning, and CARING's Operator role reads as a synonym for
the OPERATE auth mode without being one. Merging naively would produce a canon
that misleads.
Workplan adapted: T02 becomes a three-way reconciliation with a required
dimension-collision table, T04 must declare Mode of Authority as an export, T05
now waits on the vocabulary being settled, and two tasks are added — T06 to
promote the draft into a checkable Tier-1 artifact with its orientation
surfaces, T07 to resolve the collision as a recorded decision.
The assessment leaves five questions to the owner, including whether CARING
migrates at all and whether Mode of Authority is security terminology or
general information-systems terminology.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
fix-consistency C-35 flags shipping both INTENT.md and GOAL.md under the
project flavor. The sibling canons (CommerceCanon, InterfaceCanon) ship
INTENT.md only, and the repository owner asked for INTENT.md, so the outcome,
invariants, success gates and retirement condition move into INTENT.md and
GOAL.md is removed. References in README, AGENTS and SECURITY-WP-0001 updated.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Updated by fix-consistency on 2026-09-20:
- update .custodian-brief.md for security-canon
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
Scaffold the repository to the repo-manager standard and establish its
governance surface: INTENT declaring the Taxonomy-layer claim and boundary
against NetKingdom, flex-auth, key-cape, OpenBao and whitehat-security; GOAL
with migration invariants and success gates; SCOPE listing the extraction
candidates and the unresolved boundary questions; AGENTS repo identity; repo
classification.
Add SECURITY-WP-0001 covering registration, the disposition review of
InfoTechCanon's security material, the reference-impact survey, the federation
interface card, and the handoff to a migration workplan. No canon content is
moved yet — the migration waits on the reviewed disposition.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AUkN13CAqtXWPXuEiEtmJj
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 36656@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 66d6eece-d245-43ca-85e8-68a1b5970a67
