target-revenue/workplans/TREV-WP-0009-target-revenue-control-plane.md

---
id: TREV-WP-0009
type: workplan
title: "Target Revenue Control Plane"
domain: infotech
repo: target-revenue
status: active
owner: claude
topic_slug: infotech
created: "2026-07-30"
updated: "2026-07-30"
state_hub_workstream_id: "0e8dfd43-a742-4458-9e9b-514a9284821b"
---

# Target Revenue Control Plane

An interactive UI over the hosted Trust Service
(`workplans/TREV-WP-0006-trust-service-implementation.md`, finished),
usable by a human user with appropriate rights acting as the `binky`
tenant. The specific, named requirement driving this workplan: make it
possible to interactively register Phases and create Development Credit
ledger entries, rather than requiring raw API calls or the
`scripts/trf_onboard.py` CLI.

**Split from the former combined `TREV-WP-0009-control-plane-and-effort-calculator.md`
(2026-07-30)** — the Development Effort Calculator is a separate concern
with its own formula decision and implementation arc; it now lives in
`workplans/TREV-WP-0010-development-effort-calculator.md`. The two remain
related (the Control Plane's Phase-registration flow is expected to use
the Calculator's output, per T04 below) but are sequenced and reviewed
independently.

**Does not include:** declaring any real Phase for any repo, or changing
the Trust Service's core guarantees (determinism, append-only, no
discretionary conversion authority) — the Control Plane is a client of
the existing hosted service, bound by the same rules any other client is.

Concept: `specs/TargetRevenueControlPlaneConcept.md`.

## User rights model — decision (human gate)

```task
id: TREV-WP-0009-T01
status: done
priority: high
human_accept_required: true
human_accepted_by: Bernd
human_accepted_at: "2026-07-30"
state_hub_task_id: "177117e7-955b-4f12-b17b-75ee3f0357c4"
```

`specs/TargetRevenueControlPlaneConcept.md` §2 proposes a four-tier rights
model (Viewer/Contributor/Operator/Admin) and recommends option (b) for
the auth-attribution question: the Control Plane holds the one `binky`
Licensor token server-side and layers its own human-user auth/audit log
in front of it, rather than requiring a WP-0006 schema change for
per-human sub-credentials (option (a)). Confirm the rights tiers and the
(a)-vs-(b) choice, or propose a refinement. Agents may prepare a
recommendation and leave this `todo`.

**Accepted 2026-07-30 by the maintainer (Bernd):** the four rights tiers
are confirmed as proposed. **Option (a) is adopted, not (b)** — the
Control Plane will issue per-human-user sub-credentials at the Trust
Service layer, mapped to the same underlying `binky` Licensor identity,
so that the Trust Service's own signed ledger records can attest to the
specific human who acted, not merely "the `binky` Licensor did this."
This means a real, scoped extension to WP-0006's already-finished
`licensors`/token auth model is now a firm prerequisite, not a
hypothetical branch — see T02 below, added specifically for this reason.

## WP-0006 auth extension: per-human sub-credentials

```task
id: TREV-WP-0009-T02
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "52ae3a7a-6b55-4694-8bc1-cb0e32a4fe31"
```

Extend `migrations/0001_registries.sql`'s `licensors`/token model and
`src/target_revenue/registry.authenticate` so a single Licensor identity
(`binky`) can have multiple, individually-issued, individually-revocable
sub-credentials, each resolving to the same `licensor_id` for phase-
ownership checks (`registry.py`, `ledger.py`) but distinguishable in the
returned `Licensor`/signing context so a ledger entry's signature (or an
accompanying attributable field) can reflect *which* sub-credential
signed it. This is a change to WP-0006's finished, tested auth layer —
treat it with the same care as any change to already-shipped, tested
code: new tests proving existing single-token behavior is unaffected,
plus new tests for the sub-credential path. Does not change the Ledger's
append-only guarantees or the hash-chain/signature scheme itself, only
who may authenticate as `binky` and how that's distinguished.

**Result:** `migrations/0005_licensor_credentials.sql` — `licensors` can
now hold multiple rows per `licensor_id` (`credential_label`, `rights`
tier, `issued_by`, `revoked_at`). Real structural finding along the way:
`licensor_id` could not simply become non-unique, because
`phase_manifests`, `extensions`, and `breach_records` all carry a foreign
key to `licensors(licensor_id)`, which only worked because that column
used to be unique — a FK target must be unique. Introduced a new
`licensor_identities` table (one row per tenant) as the FK target for all
four tables instead, with an `ensure_licensor_identity` trigger that
auto-creates the identity row on first credential insert (so existing
code that inserts directly into `licensors` — including every earlier
test fixture — needed no changes), plus
`registry.create_licensor_identity` for callers that want tenant
onboarding as its own explicit step. `registry.py` gained
`Licensor.credential_label`/`.rights`, `RIGHTS_TIERS`/`has_right()` (an
ordinal helper — enforcing what each tier may do is Control Plane's own
job, T03/T04, not this task's), `issue_sub_credential`/
`revoke_sub_credential` (revocation via a `revoke_credential()` SECURITY
DEFINER function, matching `set_extension_status`'s existing pattern —
`trf_app` has no UPDATE grant on `licensors`). `authenticate()` now
rejects a revoked credential identically to an unrecognized one.

**Attribution, scoped honestly:** `ledger_entry.schema.json` was
deliberately left unmodified (frozen Stage 0 normative surface,
`additionalProperties: false`) — per-entry human attribution is instead a
hosting-layer-only column, `ledger_entries.submitted_by_token`, recorded
alongside but never inside the signed entry payload
(`ledger.get_ledger_attribution`). This means the claim is narrower than
"the signature itself names the human": the cryptographic signature is
unchanged and still only attests to the entry content and chain; the
*database* additionally knows which credential submitted each entry,
queryable but not portable/exported with the entry itself. Exactly the
"(or an accompanying attributable field)" alternative this task's own
description anticipated.

All four Docker-gated test files that append Ledger entries needed
migration `0005` added to their setup (`ledger.append_entry`'s INSERT now
references the new column) — done for
`test_registry_hosting.py`/`test_ledger_hosting.py`/
`test_hosted_conformance.py`/`test_onboarding_hosted.py`. New
`tests/test_licensor_credentials.py` (8 tests): multi-credential
resolution to the same `licensor_id`, duplicate-active-label rejection,
revocation and its idempotence, invalid-rights rejection, the `has_right`
ordinal helper, per-entry attribution recorded and *not* leaking into the
exported ledger JSON, and DB-level UPDATE rejection on `licensors`. Full
suite: 84 passing offline (unchanged), 41 passing with Docker (up from
30); no stray containers left running.

## Control Plane backend: auth layer and audit log

```task
id: TREV-WP-0009-T03
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "86a58e61-dccd-4678-b694-22a9eaea2b3c"
```

Using T02's sub-credential extension, implement the Control Plane's own
human-user authentication/authorization layer (issuing and managing
sub-credentials per the four rights tiers) and its own audit log
(concept §5) — which human user took which action, timestamped, alongside
the Trust Service's own signed record id for that action. This is the
piece that must exist before any write-capable UI flow (T04) can be built
responsibly.

**Result:** `migrations/0006_control_plane.sql` adds
`control_plane_audit_log` (append-only, no UPDATE/DELETE grant for
`trf_app`) and `control_plane_proposed_entries` (the Contributor tier's
"propose, don't append" workflow from concept §2 — review decisions go
through a `review_proposed_entry()` SECURITY DEFINER function, same
governance-action pattern as `set_extension_status`/`revoke_credential`,
not a direct UPDATE). `src/target_revenue/control_plane.py` is the
enforcement layer concept §2 called for: `register_phase`/
`append_development_credit` require Operator+; `propose_ledger_entry`
requires Contributor+ and stores a pending proposal rather than touching
the real Ledger; `approve_proposed_entry` (Operator+) appends it — under
the *reviewer's own* credential/attribution, not the original proposer's,
since the reviewer is the one authorizing it into the real Ledger, while
the proposer stays on record in the proposal row and audit log;
`reject_proposed_entry` (Operator+) discards it with nothing appended.
`issue_user_credential`/`revoke_user_credential` (Admin+) wrap
`registry.py`'s T02 functions with the same rights check and audit
logging. Every action funnels through `record_audit_event` — actor
credential label, action, Phase, and (where applicable) the resulting
Trust Service record id, independent of the Trust Service's own signed
records.

`tests/test_control_plane.py` (12 tests): rights enforcement at each
tier boundary (Viewer can't register, Contributor can't append directly
or review, non-Admin can't issue credentials), the full propose → approve
→ appended-under-reviewer's-credential flow, propose → reject → nothing
appended, double-review rejection, audit log content and attribution, and
DB-level UPDATE rejection on both new tables. Full suite: 84 passing
offline (unchanged), 53 passing with Docker (up from 41); no stray
containers left running.

## Control Plane interactive UI: Phase registration and Development Credit entry

```task
id: TREV-WP-0009-T04
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "01b295f2-8f97-4fc4-a14e-6f68aa85458d"
```

Implement the interactive flows themselves, using T03's auth/audit layer
and the existing hosted Trust Service API (`service/app.py`) plus T02's
sub-credential extension as the backend:

- Phase registration, informed by
  `workplans/TREV-WP-0010-development-effort-calculator.md`'s output
  once available (not blocking — a manual `target_basis` entry path must
  work standalone too, since the Calculator may not be ready first);
- the priority flow: interactively creating a `development-credit` ledger
  entry against a selected, already-registered Phase (concept §3's
  step-by-step description) — select Phase, fill amount/currency/
  recognized-date/evidence-reference/Monetization-Extension, submit,
  immediately show the updated `GET /phases/{id}/metrics` result;
- read-only views (Phase status, Ledger, Attestation, Breach/Compliance
  Record history) — already public/unauthenticated at the Trust Service
  layer, so these need no new backend work, only UI.