coulomb/zone-engine
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

repo.work.create_intake ZONE-IN-0001

Browse source 
correlation_id: 8050104b-0bd5-42b9-adbb-f167e369509e
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
This commit is contained in:
repo-manager 2026-08-28 23:02:14 +02:00
parent de64ab25db
commit 5177435060
1 changed files with 38 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

38
intakes/intakes.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
# Intake records
## ZONE-IN-0001 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11)
```yaml
id: ZONE-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: zone-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. Zone identity and membership,
retained as offline reference conformance per your 2026-08-23 disposition — which
the catalog records rather than changes. Note that your section 5 (''flex-auth is
the policy decision point. It stays the only one.'') is the ruling this entire model
generalizes from, and your section 7 falsifier about a second decision point arriving
as a small convenience is now estate doctrine. 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: '2026-08-28T21:02:13.994597Z'
updated: '2026-08-28T21:02:13.994597Z'
```