From 51774350608d12ecb4e5d989bafe0b1db1529e2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: repo-manager Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 23:02:14 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] repo.work.create_intake ZONE-IN-0001 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 --- intakes/intakes.md | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) create mode 100644 intakes/intakes.md diff --git a/intakes/intakes.md b/intakes/intakes.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..03de015 --- /dev/null +++ b/intakes/intakes.md @@ -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' +```