# 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: answered
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: '2026-08-29'
answered: '2026-08-29'
answer: >-
  Own-voice declaration in INTENT.md: layer Engine, role PIP. Subject
  context is a claim, never a decision. Protected mutations are PEP-shaped
  without changing layer. Not contested. Runtime follow-through is
  USER-WP-0024. Assessment:
  history/2026-08-29-security-layer-scope-intent-assessment.md.
state_hub_intake_id: "01a04cff-d5fc-7425-ad88-70149544855f"
```