[Decision] ADR-0049's declaration surface has two halves and only one is governed — platform-object row columns on security objects have no liveness ledger, and both #8894 ground-truth instances live there

[os-project-manager]

Filed by the domain:devx PM seat (#6023, session session_011RB4waLuNbdruCo6X9oobm) from the #8894 measurement. Unassigned. ⛔ No domain:* set — triage's field, and the landing package depends on which option is chosen.

This is not the question #8894 asked, which is why it is not being closed inside it. #8894 was ruled "a measurement, not a gate", the measurement was taken, and it closed on its own terms: the enumeration oracle is not mechanizable in the read-determination half (measured by ablation — the oracle stays green across sys_permission_set.active's entire inert life; 2 of 4 ground-truth instances missed, and they are the two the card was filed about). Full numbers in #8894 comment 5306337804.

What the measurement surfaced on the way is a governance gap that is bigger than the card, and it needs its own ruling.

The gap, as measured

ADR-0049's "declared = enforced" surface has two halves:

• Spec schema properties (field.type, object.enable.clone, …) — governed by check:liveness, with a ratchet, evidence-path resolution, verifiedAt, evidenceScope and authorWarn.
• Platform-object ROW columns on security objects — governed by nothing. sys_permission_set.active and sys_position.active are unenforced too — both Deactivate dialogs promise access stops, and it does not #8613's own changeset says so verbatim: "active is a ROW property of a sys_permission_set record, not a key on PermissionSetSchema".

Measured size of the ungoverned half: 10 security objects (plugin-security + plugin-sharing, off the curated PLATFORM_OBJECTS_BY_PACKAGE registry), 88 candidate security keys and 9 actions. Widening to identity takes it to 29 objects / ~240 keys.

⭐ Both of #8894's ground-truth instances live in the ungoverned half — that is not a coincidence, it is the reason the class keeps recurring. Recurrence is measured, not asserted: #8613, #8811, #8535 inside one week, and #9046 was found within an hour of simply pointing an enumerator at the surface. The class is not exhausted.

Options

• A — Nothing. Close with the measurement; the class keeps being found by hand, roughly as it has been.
• B — Extend the existing packages/spec/liveness ledger to platform-object row columns on security objects. One ledger, one vocabulary, reuses live machinery. Cost: 88 verdicts with evidence to backfill, and the boundary (10 security objects, or 29 with identity) becomes a ruling of its own.
• C — A new, narrower ledger for just the RBAC grant catalogues (sys_permission_set, sys_position, sys_user_*), ~40 keys.

Four-prism

• Platform long-term coherence — for B. Leaving one ADR's surface half-governed and half-not is exactly the drift the contract-first posture exists to prevent. ⛔ And it argues for one ledger: a second ledger over the same ADR is the divergence The ADR-0056 D10 authz conformance matrix has no row for the grant-catalogue active flag, and its completeness check cannot notice #8711 just spent a whole card narrowing, so C is dominated by B on this prism and should not be chosen for cheapness alone.
• Measured business pull — cuts both ways, honestly. Four instances in a week is real recurrence. But the consumer of a ledger is a human reading it, and the implementing dev reports this repo has a hard number for how well that goes: 10 of 13 re-verified entries in the sibling ledger were wrong (77%). ⚠️ That figure is the dev's measurement and I have not independently re-derived it — it is load-bearing enough that it should be re-checked before it decides anything.
• AI-agent error-resistance — this is the prism that stops me short of recommending B. The failure mode is an agent declaring a key the runtime never enforces. A ledger catches that only if the verdict is right, and a ledger row is a comfortable place for an agent to write a confident wrong sentence with a citation attached. The local proof is sys_capability.active: its Deactivate prose asserted an enforcement that never existed, so a row written from the declaration would have read "live" — the ledger would have certified the exact falsehood it exists to catch. Compare what did work: a bare enumeration with no verdict attached found [finding] The ADR-0091 D5 recertification columns (last_certified_at / certified_by) are declared on both grant tables and nothing writes or reads them #9046 in minutes, because "here are 88 keys, four have no reader at all" is checkable and "this key is live because X" is not.
• Startup scope discipline — for A. 88 hand-written verdicts is a real backfill, and a permanent maintenance obligation on every future card.

Recommendation: A now, and B only if you want it — ⛔ never C

The prisms do not align and I am not going to manufacture agreement between them: coherence wants B, error-resistance wants the enumerator without the ledger, business pull splits. That disagreement is the finding, not a failure to decide.

What I would do absent an instruction: keep the enumeration halves alive as an on-demand instrument (they are mechanical, they are already written, and they are the part that demonstrably works), and not build a verdict ledger over them. A gate addition is a standing obligation on every future card, which both the triage seat and the 2026-08-16 ruling placed with you.

⚠️ If you rule B, the boundary question (10 objects vs 29) needs answering in the same stroke, or it becomes a second decision six weeks from now.

Refs: #8894 (the measurement + the fork) · #9046 (the fourth instance, found by enumeration) · #8613 · #8811 · #8535 · #8711 (the ledger-divergence precedent) · ADR-0049 · ADR-0091 D5.

[os-project-manager]

Triage cross-reference: a second ground-truth instance of this class was filed and graded this round — #9046 (last_certified_at / certified_by, the ADR-0091 D5 attestation pair on both grant tables: declared, described as recording recertification reviews, and measured with no producer and no consumer in this repo). It is now pm:on-hold with its restart condition named as this card's ruling — whoever records the ruling here should re-grade #9046 in the same round.

For the decision's measured-pull prong: that makes (at least) three instances on security objects — the two #8894 ground-truth rows plus the D5 pair — all on the ungoverned half of the declaration surface.

本评论来自分诊座位(scheduled fire ~08:09Z 2026-08-16,session session_015RsmSaKJXEy45yxFRnC2KA)。

---

Generated by Claude Code

[os-zhuang]

Maintainer ruling (2026-08-16, recorded by PM session session_01NYgmGheCzM6NrHZN436Cxf). The maintainer accepted the evening decision-inbox report's recommendations in full, verbatim: 「8931 我已经处理了，其他接受你的所有建议。」 For this card:

Ruled: Option A — no ledger is built. ⛔ Option C (a second, narrower ledger) is permanently off the table.

• The enumeration halves stay alive as an on-demand instrument — they are mechanical, already written, and the part that demonstrably works (a bare enumeration found [finding] The ADR-0091 D5 recertification columns (last_certified_at / certified_by) are declared on both grant tables and nothing writes or reads them #9046 in minutes; a verdict ledger would have certified sys_capability.active's false enforcement prose).
• Standing addition for the triage seat: run the no-verdict enumeration periodically (every ~N rounds) over the security-object surface and report "keys with zero readers" as findings — enumeration without verdicts, never a red gate, never a ledger row.
• The dev-reported 77% wrong-re-verification figure for the sibling ledger remains unverified and is recorded as such; it did not decide this ruling but is consistent with it.
• [finding] The ADR-0091 D5 recertification columns (last_certified_at / certified_by) are declared on both grant tables and nothing writes or reads them #9046's named restart condition (this ruling) has now fired — the owning seat/triage re-grades it on its own merits as an enforce-or-remove instance (likely pm:queue), not as a ledger question.

This card closes with the ruling as its record: the measurement is done, nothing is to be built. Closing as not planned (the gate proposal), decision recorded.

---

Generated by Claude Code