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
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
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
