zone-engine/intakes/intakes.md

Intake records

ZONE-IN-0001 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11)

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"

ZONE-IN-0002 — flex-auth → access-engine repository rename: confirm no live repository coordinate remains

id: ZONE-IN-0002
kind: intake
title: "flex-auth → access-engine repository rename: confirm no live repository coordinate remains"
status: open
origin: cross-repo
origin_ref: FLEX-WP-0020
priority: low
owner: zone-engine
requested_by: flex-auth
description: >-
  flex-auth is renaming its repository coordinates to access-engine (old slug
  flex-auth, new slug access-engine; repository UUID
  fda8ad85-a7d7-4055-8f21-902a533e59df and Forge ID 42 unchanged; runtime and
  product names stay flex-auth per FLEX-DEC-2026-013). Required change here:
  confirm no live repository URL or path to flex-auth remains in this
  repository, and retain product/runtime terminology. The live rename
  (FLEX-WP-0020-T06) has not happened; act after flex-auth announces that
  access-engine resolves, and record completion evidence here. Request
  message: 40adbd61-0155-44f8-b6a7-621ff1629c46.