From f9649043dc4b814f772ec31089e378f59f7f8b25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jason Woltje Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 09:59:20 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] decisions: 107, Q104 deferred, no WebAuthn in the I1 brief (I1-3) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 --- docs/plans/2026-09-26_lead-decisions.md | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/plans/2026-09-26_lead-decisions.md b/docs/plans/2026-09-26_lead-decisions.md index 19d9058a4..9ab4cc341 100644 --- a/docs/plans/2026-09-26_lead-decisions.md +++ b/docs/plans/2026-09-26_lead-decisions.md @@ -2374,3 +2374,17 @@ which stay with him. Each item names who decided it and what happened. - `execution.backend` stays `docker`, and no allowlist change is needed. How the endpoint gets into config is the brief's design item. A config schema change goes through review like any other. +107. **Q104 deferred: no WebAuthn in the I1 brief, I1-3 (2026-10-12).** + Jason, relayed by Mos (sage-0077, recorded in jason-master-restart + DECISIONS.md): "Q104: defer". Q104 asked whether the Console should + require a passkey or security key before it accepts a decision or a + role change. + - The I1 brief carries no WebAuthn verifier, no new dependency and + no per-action key touch. The review's default for I1-3 stands. + - What stays open: under decision 105, reachability is the human + proof. A compromised Console therefore holds human authority. The + I1 brief limits that with the Console's route list and CSP, and + the docs say so. + - It reopens only as a new question to Jason, after the containers + run and the actions that need it are known. Nobody adds it to a + brief before then.