From 12fd901f3266c7a431718e9a1bf07a53a5fce5eb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 20:33:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Note NetKingdom layering review in INTENT Records this repository's layer in the NetKingdom IT-security layer model (Taxonomy / Tooling / Engines / Staff) and what should change in this INTENT as a result. Links to the review that established the model: gate-house/history/2026-08-28-security-layer-model-and-gate-house-recut.md The note flags pending adaptation only; the body is unchanged. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9 --- INTENT.md | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) diff --git a/INTENT.md b/INTENT.md index f073fc1..8867e21 100644 --- a/INTENT.md +++ b/INTENT.md @@ -1,5 +1,20 @@ # INTENT +> **NetKingdom layering review — 2026-08-28.** This repository's role was reviewed +> against the NetKingdom IT-security layer model: **Taxonomy → Tooling → Engines → +> Staff**, layered by determinism and by the kind of artifact each layer produces. +> Findings and the argument behind them: +> `gate-house/history/2026-08-28-security-layer-model-and-gate-house-recut.md`. +> The model as currently stated is `gate-house/INTENT.md` § "Where Gate House Sits"; +> it is ruled to become a `net-kingdom/canon/standards/` standard, not yet written. +> +> The layer rule that binds every repository: **Staff never touches tooling +> directly. It acts only through engine APIs.** +> +> **This repository is Engine — currently retained as offline reference conformance.** No change to the 2026-08-23 disposition. Note that §5 of this file — *"flex-auth is the policy decision point. It stays the only one."* — is the precedent the whole review turned on, and it now generalizes: gate-house is Staff and is not a second decision point either. The falsifier in §7 ("it becomes a second decision point… it would arrive as a small convenience") is adopted estate-wide. References to flex-auth by name will need updating when the rename to access-engine lands. +> +> *This note records what should change. The body below is not yet adapted.* + > Why `zone-engine` exists and where it is going. > What is true today is `SCOPE.md`. Checkable gates and the retirement > condition are `GOAL.md`. This file is the argument, not the checklist. From de64ab25db6a2e183dfaa594db708a125ccffe45 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 21:21:08 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Point layering note at the published standard The layer model is now published as net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.1.md (proposed) and ratified by gate-house GH-DEC-2026-001. The note previously said the standard was not yet written. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9 --- INTENT.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/INTENT.md b/INTENT.md index 8867e21..d01df50 100644 --- a/INTENT.md +++ b/INTENT.md @@ -5,8 +5,8 @@ > Staff**, layered by determinism and by the kind of artifact each layer produces. > Findings and the argument behind them: > `gate-house/history/2026-08-28-security-layer-model-and-gate-house-recut.md`. -> The model as currently stated is `gate-house/INTENT.md` § "Where Gate House Sits"; -> it is ruled to become a `net-kingdom/canon/standards/` standard, not yet written. +> The model is `net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.1.md` (proposed), +> ratified by `gate-house/decisions/decisions.md` GH-DEC-2026-001. > > The layer rule that binds every repository: **Staff never touches tooling > directly. It acts only through engine APIs.** From 51774350608d12ecb4e5d989bafe0b1db1529e2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: repo-manager Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 23:02:14 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] 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' +```