Record the section 11 rulings and the scope defect in the custodian's own sweep.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/assessments/2026-09-21-layer-declaration-boundaries.md

@@ -148,3 +148,54 @@ against an artifact that stands in for the standard — there, a shell pipeline;
 here, another repository's validator — and published without reading §3 itself.
 A tenth question follows from the correction: whether §3's `Engines` or §4's
 `Engine` governs a declaration.
+
+## Resolution, 2026-09-21
+
+gate-house ruled all six of its questions the same day, in `GH-DEC-2026-017`
+(declaration form), `GH-DEC-2026-018` (B3) and `GH-DEC-2026-019` (the v0.8
+hold), with the canon changes drafted as gate-house amendments A9–A13 and
+circulated for assent. No net-kingdom file was edited; publication stays with
+net-kingdom.
+
+- **Precedence.** `INTENT.md` governs; a `layer.yaml` is a derived artifact that
+  must agree. Precedence alone would have made eight of the nine disagreements
+  invisible rather than settled, so a disagreement between the two forms stays
+  a reportable finding.
+- **Case.** Case-insensitive, ASCII fold, §4's column spelling canonical. No
+  repository re-spells anything; flex-auth's validator changes, as it offered.
+- **Vocabulary.** Closed at four tokens, not three. The validator's omission of
+  `Taxonomy` is the defect; `railiance-master` is conforming. `surface` is the
+  only genuine off-vocabulary value.
+- **Scope.** §11 binds §4, and both off-vocabulary repositories sit outside §4 —
+  so neither is a non-conformance, and **a conformance run must now state its
+  scope**. That rule reaches this record: the sweep below was published without
+  stating that it ranged over every repository carrying a declaration rather
+  than over §4, and two of its three findings turned on repositories §11 does
+  not bind.
+- **B2.** Discharged for gate-house in the same commit: `INTENT.md` frontmatter,
+  `layer: Staff`, no sidecar. The prose `**Layer:** Staff` line had stood since
+  v0.1 and is exactly what gate-house's own paragraph says does not count.
+- **B3.** Ruled against flex-auth: a custodian is never the source of what it
+  holds, so flex-auth is a §4 source, owes an emission guarantee, has none, and
+  is non-conforming on §11 today. audit-core's reading is upheld. The finding
+  under it: §11 says "catalogued in §4 as a source of evidence" and §4
+  catalogues no such thing, so flex-auth could not have answered from the text.
+- **B4.** No standard version in a declaration. Every sidecar in the estate
+  carries `standard_version: "0.7"` because ops-warden's reference form does —
+  one change in one repository, not seven.
+- **v0.8** stays held, with three stated conditions so the hold cannot drift.
+
+Of the ten questions this record tracked, eight are ruled or answered.
+Outstanding: `informed-decision`'s §4 membership (asked, not enrolled) and the
+`role:` vocabulary, which needs A9 first.
+
+### What the custodian got wrong, twice
+
+Both errors were the same error. The sweep was run against flex-auth's
+validator as a stand-in for §3, and published as an estate property without
+stating the scope it ranged over. `Taxonomy` was in §3 all along, and the two
+repositories named were never bound by §11. The reviewed repositories caught
+both: `railiance-master` supplied the §3 citations, `informed-decision`
+narrowed its own request rather than re-litigating, and gate-house's scope rule
+names the defect generally. The custodian's contribution that survived is the
+§3-`Engines`/§4-`Engine` disagreement, which became amendment A9.