51 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
51 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
# 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: closed
|
|
outcome: absorbed
|
|
promoted_to: ZONE-WP-0003
|
|
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: '2026-08-29'
|
|
closed: '2026-08-29'
|
|
resolution: >-
|
|
Assent to the proposed Engine layer, with PIP as the role the v0.7 catalog
|
|
already recorded. Declaration is in INTENT.md frontmatter (layer: Engine,
|
|
role: PIP) and prose, against security-layer-model_v0.7 and companion v0.2,
|
|
in this repository's own voice. The 2026-08-23 offline reference form is the
|
|
catalogued PIP surface, not a contest of the layer. Mechanical remainder
|
|
(layer.yaml, conformance check, §10 freeze record, claim-boundary note) is
|
|
ZONE-WP-0003. Full review:
|
|
history/2026-08-29-security-layer-model-scope-against-intent.md.
|
|
state_hub_intake_id: "01a04cf5-d503-75c5-90b7-b2ab4f96ae5a"
|
|
```
|