tegwick
383e75f6b2
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 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .repo-manager | ||
| decisions | ||
| docs | ||
| history | ||
| spec | ||
| workplans | ||
| .custodian-brief.md | ||
| .repo-classification.yaml | ||
| AGENTS.md | ||
| INTENT.md | ||
| README.md | ||
| SCOPE.md | ||
| WORK-RECORDS.md | ||
security-canon
Orthogonal vocabulary and canonical model for security-related concepts.
SecurityCanon extends InfoTechCanon with a focused security domain model, in the same architectural role that CommerceCanon holds for commercial terminology and InterfaceCanon for interface terminology.
Its subject is architecture, not implementation: the relationships in which
authority is exercised, described before and independently of the mechanisms
that enforce them. Its first contribution is the Mode of Authority vocabulary
— seven auth modes (USE, OBSERVE, OPERATE, ADMINISTER, GOVERN,
CONSTRUCT, SOVEREIGN) read relative to a scope. CARING and the access-control
and identity models stay in InfoTechCanon, at the implementation layer and as
shared roots; see SEC-ADR-001.
| Flavor | project |
| Domain | infotech |
| Workplan prefix | SECURITY-WP- |
| Upstream canon | InfoTechCanon |
| Service surface | none — reuses InfoTechCanon's |
Start with INTENT.md and SCOPE.md. Agent instructions are in AGENTS.md; active work is in workplans/.
| Document | What it holds |
|---|---|
| SEC-ADR-001 | the boundary decision — what stays upstream, and why |
| Mode of Authority assessment | review of the v0.1 draft and the proposed canon structure |
| Actor/Subject implications | the one open terminology question, analysed |
Status
Bootstrap. The repository is registered and governed. Its only content is the Mode of Authority v0.1 research draft, not yet promoted into a canon artifact. See SECURITY-WP-0001.