From c5b55036d3e0ece73ffdb70e0431fa45ee437b04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: repo-manager Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 23:02:12 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] repo.work.create_intake USER-IN-0001 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit correlation_id: 6fa20b48-a3c2-4a5e-807b-80660896608e reason: Request own-voice layer declaration under §11 source: repo-manager Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9 --- intakes/intakes.md | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+) create mode 100644 intakes/intakes.md diff --git a/intakes/intakes.md b/intakes/intakes.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..47a3db3 --- /dev/null +++ b/intakes/intakes.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +# Intake records + +## USER-IN-0001 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11) + +```yaml +id: USER-IN-0001 +kind: intake +title: 'Declaration requested: state this repository''s layer in INTENT.md (security + layer model §11)' +status: open +origin: cross-repo +origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.4 §11 +priority: low +owner: user-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''s own file, in + its own voice, conforms. Seven of fifteen estate-authored repositories have declared; + this is one of the eight that have not, and the standard does not claim adoption + on the basis of notes gate-house wrote. REQUESTED: state the layer in INTENT.md + in your own voice, or contest it. PROPOSED LAYER: Engine. Users, accounts, memberships. + Your boundary contract (net-kingdom/canon/standards/user-engine-boundary-contract_v0.1.md) + holds unchanged; the only addition is making explicit that subject context is an + input to the authorization decision and never a decision. Contesting is a real option + and costs nothing — the three repositories that reviewed this model each returned + a correction, two of which changed the standard. If the proposed layer is wrong + for what this repository actually does, that is more useful to us than a label added + to close a checkbox. Standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.4.md.' +created: '2026-08-28T21:02:12.760565Z' +updated: '2026-08-28T21:02:12.760565Z' +```