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 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| concept-placement.md | ||
| federation.yaml | ||
| README.md | ||
Canon federation interface
The interface card publishes this canon's federation boundary under accepted ADR-006.
- info-tech-canon interface — shared-concept upstream
- SecurityCanon boundary review — InfoTechCanon-side acceptance of this extension boundary
- interface-canon interface
- commerce-canon interface
- the-custodian interface
SecurityCanon exports one surface, sec-authority: the architecture-layer
Mode of Authority
vocabulary. It imports shared roots from InfoTechCanon and redefines none of
them; the pinned manifest records
each source path and content hash at the declared commit.
Reciprocal navigation does not imply reciprocal semantic imports. InfoTechCanon retains the shared roots, CARING, the access-control model and the identity model; see SEC-ADR-001.
The G7 validator in prj-canon-federation currently pins card paths for
info-tech-canon, commerce-canon and the-custodian. Adding security-canon to
CARD_PATHS is that project's change to make; this card is written to satisfy
the same contract in the meantime.
Concept placement across the two canons — one owning canon and one import direction per shared concept — is recorded in concept-placement.md (SECURITY-DEC-2026-003).