the-custodian/docs/kubernetes-change-gate-decision.md

Kubernetes change gate: tiered by readiness state

Decided by: Bernd Worsch (founder), exercising GOVERN @ estate. Date: 2026-09-21. Recorded by: the-custodian.

Vocabulary: SecurityCanon Mode of Authority v0.2.0 (security-canon/infospace/vocabulary/mode-of-authority/), which is still a draft. Where that vocabulary changes, this record follows it.

This record answers gate-house's open question: which engine, if any, should own ops-mason's contact with the Kubernetes API.

The question, stated in the canon's terms

Applying manifests to a running cluster is ADMINISTER @ realm:kubernetes/railiance01. Changing the manifests is CONSTRUCT @ <manifest repository>. A GitOps controller separates the two: CONSTRUCT produces the definition, and the controller reconciles the cluster to it.

The question is what gates ADMINISTER @ realm:kubernetes, and whether that gate differs between experimental and production workloads.

Decision

1. No engine owns the contact. The gate is a quality gate on a change, not an authorization decision. railiance-master ADR-0006 already keeps readiness and permission on separate axes: production-approved "is not an authorization decision". So no PDP belongs in this path. The contact is with realm:kubernetes/railiance01. This record assigns no layer to that realm and no layer to any rail. Mapping rails onto layers is statute §20.3, which ADR-0009 Decision 4 deliberately leaves unset. The first version of this record said the contact "stays a Tooling contact, owned by rail-kubernetes". That was an unintended §20.3 mapping, and it is withdrawn.

2. The gate is tiered by ADR-0006 readiness_state, not by Environment. railiance01 is a single cluster, and every workload on it shares one Environment. The canon's Environment dimension therefore cannot separate experimental from production here. The readiness state can.

   Readiness state of the target	Path for a change	Activation
   declared, installed, verified	Direct ADMINISTER @ realm:kubernetes by ops-mason	APPROVED: founder approval of the construction plan
   production-approved	CONSTRUCT @ manifest repository, reconciled by ArgoCD (railiance-platform)	APPROVED for the change; the merge is the gate
   production-approved, emergency	Direct ADMINISTER	BREAK_GLASS, recorded, reconciled back into the repository afterwards

   Three rules settle the edges of the table (founder, 2026-09-21):

   • Unmapped targets are production-tier until mapped. The readiness contract defines states only for rails and bound rapps, and nothing yet maps a Kubernetes object or namespace to its binding. So a target without a mapping is production-tier. The friction this creates is deliberate: it is what motivates building the namespace-to-binding mapping (ops-mason MASON-WP-0006, with railiance-master).
   • An evidence lapse does not loosen the path. When a binding's evidence fails or expires, the contract returns it to its last proven state. The change path does not follow it down. Once a binding has reached production-approved, its changes stay on the git/ArgoCD path until the binding is explicitly re-scoped. A lapse weakens the readiness claim, and that is exactly when the gate must not loosen.
   • deprecated keeps the tier it had before deprecation. A deprecated production workload may still carry production traffic until it is removed.

3. Why production goes through git: the EvidenceBoundary dimension. A direct apply is target-audited: the only evidence of the change is held by the realm being changed. A change through the manifest repository adds external-audited evidence, which survives the actor and the realm. For production that is the property that matters, and it is a statement about evidence, not about trust in ops-mason.

Explicit tier placements

Some targets have no binding readiness state, but the founder has placed them in a tier explicitly. An explicit placement overrides the "unmapped is production-tier" default for that target only.

Target	Tier	Decided	Reason
namespace whitehat (whitehat-security; ops-mason bundle whitehat-foundational-plane)	non-production	founder, 2026-09-21	A security-testing workload that no other layer depends on at runtime. Placing it explicitly keeps the unmapped default strict for real platform objects, and makes whitehat a deliberate exception rather than an accidental block.

A placement is revisited if the target gains dependants, or if it gets a binding with its own readiness state. If it gets a binding, the binding's state governs from then on.

Transition for rapp-policy-nexus

rapp-policy-nexus is production-approved (reef-railiance bindings/rapps.yaml), but ArgoCD does not manage it. Its railiance-apps-root applications are external-secrets, issue-core, openbao-secretstore and target-revenue. So the production path does not yet exist for the one workload that needs it.

• Until 2026-12-21: changes to policy-nexus keep activation=APPROVED by founder plan approval. Each change additionally records that its target is production-tier, so the transition is visible and does not look like conformance.
• By 2026-12-21: policy-nexus is onboarded to ArgoCD. From then on, the production row of the table applies to it.

2026-12-21 is the same review date as the ops-mason plan-approval gate, so both come up together.

Scope of ops-mason's contact, as found

ops-mason's executor is narrower than a generic kubectl apply:

• it confines each plan to one expected namespace;
• it refuses the Pod and Secret kinds;
• it rejects any manifest carrying data or stringData.

This decision relies on those limits. Widening them is a new decision.

Verified 2026-09-21: ArgoCD is not on railiance01

A read-only check, run by the custodian over SSH with the founder's approval, established:

• The node is 92.205.62.239, the single k3s control-plane node.
• The argocd namespace does not exist.
• The applications.argoproj.io CRD does not exist.
• The resource type applications is unknown to the API server.

Only get was used; nothing was applied, patched or synced.

So the production row has no working path on railiance01. Until one exists, the transition rule applies to every production-tier target there. Installing ArgoCD on railiance01 is a cluster-layer change and needs its own founder go-ahead. It is not part of this decision.

What the records said before the check

Whether ArgoCD runs on railiance01 at all is unverified, and railiance-platform's own records point the other way:

• Its later records name the controller "coulombcore ArgoCD".
• Its only health record, "healthy on railiance01", predates the 2026-07-02 correction, before which "railiance01" often meant coulombcore.
• No evidence records railiance-apps-root syncing on 92.205.62.239.

If ArgoCD is not on railiance01, the production row has no working path there yet. Until one exists, production-tier changes on railiance01 fall under the transition rule in the next paragraph, and installing ArgoCD on railiance01 is a cluster-layer change needing its own go-ahead. railiance-platform RPF-WP-0043-T01 holds the read-only check.

Until the production row has a working path, the policy-nexus transition rule applies to every production-tier target on railiance01, not only to policy-nexus: activation=APPROVED, with each change recorded as production-tier.

Owners

• gate-house: the open question is answered. No engine owns the contact, and the gate is quality, not authorization.
• ops-mason: phase 4 checks the target's readiness state and refuses a direct apply to a production-tier target, except under BREAK_GLASS or the policy-nexus transition.
• railiance-platform: the ArgoCD lane is the production path, and policy-nexus onboarding is due by 2026-12-21.
• railiance-master: ADR-0006 gains a deploy-path consequence for production-approved.
• rapp-policy-nexus: the transition and its date.

ArgoCD installed on railiance01 (phase A), 2026-09-21

Decided by: Bernd Worsch (founder), exercising GOVERN @ estate. This settles railiance-platform ArchitectureBlueprint §5.6 as option 1, adopt properly: ArgoCD runs on railiance01, and the live workloads are brought under GitOps one application at a time.

What was installed: upstream Argo CD Core (headless: no API server, UI or Dex), v3.5.3.

• Manifest: core-install.yaml at tag v3.5.3, sha256 1a87025d8eb2eae621653fd312fb9ca51df1b4b3b6992a030e3a9ef38e45c448.
• Images: quay.io/argoproj/argocd:v3.5.3 and public.ecr.aws/docker/library/redis:8.2.3-alpine.
• Namespace argocd, created 2026-09-21T13:55:29Z.
• 34 objects server-side applied after a clean server-side dry run.

Verified after the install:

• all four pods are Ready with 0 restarts;
• there are 0 Applications and 0 AppProjects;
• 0 namespaces carry an ArgoCD instance label, so nothing is adopted;
• no Service is of type LoadBalancer or NodePort, so there is no new listener (ADR-0008).

The mode it was done in: ADMINISTER @ realm:kubernetes/railiance01, activation=APPROVED by the founder, performed by the custodian session over SSH. By this record's own table the ArgoCD install is a platform object with no readiness state, so it is production-tier. It was done by direct apply under the transition rule, because the production row did not yet exist: this install is what creates it. Its declared state now has to be captured in its owning repository, so the install is not itself a hand-deployed object that nothing declares.

Rollback: delete namespace argocd and the three argoproj.io CRDs. With no Applications, nothing else is affected.

Resource hygiene, open: upstream core sets no resource requests or limits, so the ArgoCD pods are BestEffort. That makes them the first evicted under pressure, and unbounded. Set requests and limits when the install is captured in its owning repository.

Phase B, adopting each application, and phase C, retiring coulombcore's ArgoCD, each need their own founder go-ahead. Phase B starts with the AppProjects and the root app with automated sync off. Then, per application, a diff, then a manual sync with prune off, and prune and self-heal only after that application is proven.

Found during phase A: the node's CPU requests are exhausted

Before the install, railiance01 already had 100% of its allocatable CPU requested (4 of 4 cores); limits are at 828%. Short scheduled jobs cannot be placed, and have been failing with Insufficient cpu for days:

Pod	Pending since
user-engine database backup	2026-09-16
authelia backup	2026-09-20
lldap backup	2026-09-20
privacyidea backup	2026-09-20
audit-core attest-chain	2026-09-20
activity-core cert-manager ACME solver	2026-09-19

ArgoCD did not cause this: it requests no CPU. It is an existing capacity defect with a direct consequence: identity and user-engine backups have not run. The custodian has not changed anything; it is reported to the founder.