repo.work.create_intake ZONE-IN-0001

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

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 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.**
+>
+> **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.

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'
+```