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
tegwick
383e75f6b2