tegwick
75df0207c3
Replace the transcribed gate-house review note with this repository's own v0.7 §11 declaration. Close WHITEHAT-IN-0001: Staff, blocked-clean, probe authorship retained here. Record DoD-Ok on WHITEHAT-WP-0001 so the finished plan is not quality-debt-open. Assistant: grok Assistant-Session: 01a05e32-c776-72a3-86ec-c490e027aca9
51 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
51 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
# Intake records
|
|
|
|
## WHITEHAT-IN-0001 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11)
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
id: WHITEHAT-IN-0001
|
|
kind: intake
|
|
title: 'Declaration requested: state this repository''s layer in INTENT.md (security
|
|
layer model §11)'
|
|
status: closed
|
|
origin: cross-repo
|
|
origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.4 §11
|
|
priority: low
|
|
owner: whitehat-security
|
|
requested_by: gate-house
|
|
proposed_layer: Staff
|
|
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. REQUESTED: state the layer in INTENT.md
|
|
in your own voice, or contest it. PROPOSED LAYER: Staff. Offensive validation. Beyond
|
|
the label, one substantive item: gate-house authors the assurance specifications
|
|
T-01 to T-10 in the Active Secrets Management Canon and you execute them, with findings
|
|
returning through the conformance loop. That division — we specify, you attack and
|
|
judge whether the control actually held — should be in your words rather than ours,
|
|
and you should push back if specifying the tests from outside your repository is
|
|
the wrong shape. 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: '2026-08-28T21:03:30.332146Z'
|
|
updated: '2026-09-01T18:50:00Z'
|
|
quality_doc: DoC-Ok
|
|
quality_doc_at: "2026-09-01"
|
|
quality_doc_by: grok
|
|
notes:
|
|
- content: 'Declared Staff in INTENT.md in this repository''s own voice (v0.7 §11
|
|
frontmatter, not the 2026-08-28 review note). Offensive validation is interactive
|
|
and non-deterministic; live E3/P1/P2 sit at zero with no Tooling client
|
|
(blocked-clean). Assent to the conformance loop with one correction: gate-house
|
|
may specify the invariant, including T-01…T-10 as targets; it does not author
|
|
our probes. A probe list written outside this repository is not our evidence.'
|
|
author: whitehat-security
|
|
created: '2026-09-01T18:50:00Z'
|
|
closed_at: '2026-09-01T18:50:00Z'
|
|
outcome: declared Staff; probe authorship retained here
|
|
```
|