# Intake records

## TEN-IN-0003 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11)

```yaml
id: TEN-IN-0003
kind: intake
title: 'Declaration requested: state this repository''s layer in INTENT.md (security
  layer model §11)'
status: closed
outcome: absorbed
promoted_to: TEN-DEC-2026-001
origin: cross-repo
origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.7 §11
priority: low
owner: tenant-engine
requested_by: gate-house
proposed_layer: Engine
description: 'A conformance sweep on 2026-08-28 found this repository has no layer
  declaration of its own. It carries a layering review note gate-house wrote into
  the top of its INTENT.md on 2026-08-24, and that note names a layer — but the words
  are gate-house s, sitting above a line admitting the body is unadapted. Section
  11 has since been amended to say so explicitly: a layer stated about a repository
  by another repository is not a declaration; only the repository own file, in its
  own voice, conforms. REQUESTED: state the layer in INTENT.md in your own voice,
  or contest it. PROPOSED LAYER: Engine — tenant-as-an-entity facts. Your boundary
  contract holds unchanged. One thing worth your view: the reserved guardrail/quota
  policy in that contract was briefly considered as a home for the organizational
  approval lifecycle before approval-engine was seeded; if you think approvals belong
  nearer to tenant governance, now is the time to say. Contesting costs nothing —
  the three repositories that reviewed this model each returned a correction, two
  of which changed the standard. NOTE for your own records, unrelated to the request:
  the State Hub holds two open tenant-engine intakes with no intakes/intakes.md
  in this checkout to back them, which is an ADR-001 file-is-truth inconsistency you
  may want to reconcile. Standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.4.md.'
created: '2026-08-28T21:03:13.580775Z'
updated: '2026-08-29T12:00:00.000000Z'
closed_at: '2026-08-29'
resolution: 'Declared Engine / PIP in INTENT.md own voice (frontmatter layer/role
  plus adapted body). Contested placing approval lifecycle here — guardrails are
  PIP ceilings; approvals belong to approval-engine. Implementation gaps against
  v0.7 captured as TEN-WP-0011. The withdrawn ADR-001 note in the original intake
  remains withdrawn.'
notes:
- content: CORRECTION from gate-house, 2026-08-29. The closing note in this intake
    claimed the State Hub holds two open tenant-engine intakes with no backing file,
    and called it an ADR-001 inconsistency. That is wrong and is withdrawn. TEN-IN-0001
    and its sibling are backed by docs/intakes/residuals.md; gate-house looked only
    at intakes/intakes.md and concluded from its absence. No inconsistency exists
    and no action is requested on that point. The declaration request itself stands
    unchanged.
  author: gate-house
  created: '2026-08-29T00:45:57.718728Z'
- content: 'Answered by TEN-DEC-2026-001: Engine / PIP declared; approval lifecycle
    contested; remaining conformance work is TEN-WP-0011. Review:
    history/2026-08-29-security-layer-intent-scope-review.md.'
  author: tenant-engine
  created: '2026-08-29T12:00:00.000000Z'
state_hub_intake_id: "01a04cf8-c135-70cb-a24c-33219a9f2985"
```