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
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
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
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
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
