Register whitehat-security and align operating boundaries

Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-5.6-sol
Assistant-Session: 01a0260c-4067-7052-9647-ad000d576e38

INTENT.md

@@ -99,8 +99,10 @@ into a liability, so the rule is structural rather than cultural.
 **No target is probed without recorded authorization from whoever is
 responsible for it. No exceptions.**
 
-- **Our own estate, build mode** — standing authorization, within the declared
-  scope. This is the current situation.
+- **Our own estate, build mode** — standing estate authorization is necessary
+  but not sufficient. Every live run still needs the dated engagement record,
+  target-owner acknowledgement and technique-specific scope required by the
+  rules of engagement. No live target is pre-authorized by this intent.
 - **Our own estate, production** — a separate recorded authorization. Build-mode
   standing consent does not carry across; the blast radius is different and so
   is the decision.
@@ -111,10 +113,9 @@ responsible for it. No exceptions.**
 Three things that do **not** constitute authorization, written down because
 each is a way teams talk themselves into it: a commercial relationship with the
 target; the target being publicly reachable; and a belief that the owner "would
-obviously be fine with it". Unauthorized probing of someone else's
-infrastructure is a criminal matter in most jurisdictions regardless of intent,
-and a white-hat facility that gets this wrong is simply an attacker with better
-paperwork.
+obviously be fine with it". Unauthorized probing may be unlawful regardless of
+intent, and a white-hat facility that gets this wrong is simply an attacker
+with better paperwork.
 
 **The authorization record is part of the finding.** A report that cannot name
 the authorization it ran under is not a finding — it is an incident, and it