contract(custody-schema): revision 13 — withdraw wrong §4.5 repair attribution (sol r12 F20 residual)

Sol's r12 confirm closed F18/F19 and found one MINOR residual on F20:
rev 12 assigned the terminated ordinary writer's committed-but-unpointed
content to §4.5 repair, but §4.5 enumerates pointers and repairs the
opposite state (pointer present, content absent) — unpointed content is
outside its input, so the §7.10 assertion had no conforming transition.

Per the prescribed correction: the §4.5 repair assertion is removed from
§3.7 and §7.10; the no-upsert assertion stays; the state is what §3.7
and §7.16 already define — inert unpointed content (no pointer, no read
path, no repair transition; a §4.5 cycle run against it changes
nothing), never acknowledged, converging only through the client's
retry as a fresh lock acquisition under a new token that recommits and
completes the pointer upsert. Preamble Revision 13 paragraph added.

docs/requirements/rbac-grant-model.md

@@ -1,259 +0,0 @@
-# RBAC Grant Model Contract
-
-Status: DRAFT — awaiting ratification (webui-audit S2, contract 2 of 9).
-Authority: PRD Part I §4 ("Granular RBAC: admins restrict access per company,
-estate, and project; grants are evaluated down the chain") and the
-native-kanban SOT Amendment A1 (§8.1.3 RBAC evaluation, §8.3 acceptance 2).
-This document defines the grant vocabulary, evaluation semantics, and
-revocation propagation that the hierarchy schema contract
-(`docs/requirements/hierarchy-schema.md`, contract 1) attaches to. Contract 1
-pins the `hierarchy_grants` table shape and defers the `role` vocabulary and
-the meaning of "authority" here; the identity contract
-(`docs/requirements/identity-lifecycle.md` §1.4) pins that account creation
-grants nothing.
-
-Revision 2 (independent review, GLM 5.3): §1.1 consequence analysis
-completed — the two existing platform-admin bypass code paths are named as
-non-conformant and §7.4 retires them; team grant subjects suspended pending
-a team contract (§1.4, §3.3–3.4, §7.5); no-self-escalation restated with
-its true rationale and a constructible observable (§4.2, §7.7);
-node-creation seeding scoped to the bootstrap path, resolving the §7.7/§4.3
-contradiction; A1 quotation corrected; audit-field provenance corrected;
-principal-position consequence named (§1.3); membership-row,
-fail-closed-fault, and existence-oracle observables added (§7);
-role-string namespacing rule added (§4.5); ruling request now names the
-interpretive resolution of PRD "admins".
-
-Scope: the roles that can appear in `hierarchy_grants.role`, what a grant at
-each hierarchy level confers, how grants evaluate down the chain, how
-revocation propagates, and who may manage grants. Out of scope: the hierarchy
-tables themselves (contract 1), workspace-internal membership and its
-role/capability vocabulary (native-kanban SOT REQ-ID-001 and its implementing
-schema), roll-up projection semantics (contract 8), wizard seeding
-(contract 3), the team model (suspended here; see §1.4).
-
-## 1. Three authority layers, none substitutable
-
-1. **Platform role** (`users.role`, better-auth: `member` | `admin`) governs
-   instance administration — user management, system settings, provider
-   configuration. It is not tenancy authority: holding platform `admin`
-   confers **no implicit hierarchy grant and no workspace authorization**.
-   An operator who should see tenant content holds an explicit, audited
-   grant like anyone else. This is the deny-by-default consequence of A1
-   §8.1.3 ("not a bypass of workspace authorization"). `AdminGuard`'s
-   `role === 'admin'` check on admin endpoints stays the platform role's
-   only meaning. **Two shipped code paths violate this rule today and are
-   implementation defects this contract makes non-conformant:** (a) the
-   command authorization service short-circuits every command scope to
-   allowed for platform admins
-   (`apps/gateway/src/commands/command-authorization.service.ts`,
-   `hasScope` returning true when `role === 'admin'`), and (b) the MCP
-   scope derivation maps platform `admin` to tenant-admin MCP scopes
-   including task create/update
-   (`apps/gateway/src/mcp/mcp.service.ts`,
-   `deriveMcpToolScopesForUser`). Ratifying this contract revokes both;
-   §7.4 names them as the surfaces the deny-by-default test retires.
-2. **Hierarchy grants** (`hierarchy_grants`, contract 1 §3) declare tenancy
-   authority at company, estate, or platform-project scope and evaluate down
-   the chain to workspace-scoped authorization (§3 below).
-3. **Workspace membership** (SOT REQ-ID-001) remains its own mechanism.
-   A chain grant confers command authorization over descendant workspaces;
-   it does not create membership rows, and row-level principal positions
-   (task owner, proposer, decision actor) still require ACTIVE workspace
-   membership exactly as REQ-TEN-001/REQ-ID-001 acceptance states.
-   Consequence, stated so implementing PRs do not weaken REQ-TEN-001 to
-   remove the friction: a chain-granted actor who is not a workspace member
-   may issue the write commands their role implies but cannot occupy a
-   principal position — any command taking a principal argument must name
-   an ACTIVE member of the target workspace (§7.2 enumerates this cell).
-4. **Team grant subjects are suspended.** Contract 1 §3.1 reserves a
-   `team_id` attachment point, but no ratified contract yet defines the
-   team it would bind: the only existing `teams` table is the legacy global
-   Brain table (own authority columns, no workspace binding, not
-   repurposed per contract 1 §1.3), while the SOT's teams are
-   workspace-bound (REQ-ID-001) — and a workspace-bound team holding a
-   company-level grant would be a cross-workspace authority group nothing
-   has ratified. Until a team contract defines the subject (which table,
-   which membership rows, and its relation to D2/REQ-ID-001), creating a
-   grant with a team subject MUST be refused at the command surface (the
-   schema column remains, per contract 1). §3's evaluation semantics for
-   team-conferred grants are specified now so the team contract activates
-   them without amending this one.
-
-## 2. Role vocabulary
-
-One vocabulary at every hierarchy level, totally ordered — a higher role
-includes everything below it:
-
-1. `viewer` — read: sees the node, its subtree structure, and the roll-up
-   aggregates over descendant workspaces (within contract 8's carve-out
-   bounds); read access to descendant workspace content per the SOT's read
-   command families. No mutation of anything.
-2. `member` — work: everything `viewer` has, plus write authorization for
-   business/orchestration command families in descendant workspaces (the
-   concrete command-family mapping is implementation work under SOT
-   REQ-ID-001; this contract pins that `member` maps to the workspace write
-   families and nothing structural).
-3. `owner` — structure: everything `member` has, plus hierarchy mutations on
-   the subtree (create/rename/delete child nodes, transfers per §5), and
-   grant management on the node and its subtree (§4).
-
-No other value is valid in `hierarchy_grants.role`; the column is
-constraint-checked against exactly these three. Extending the vocabulary is a
-contract amendment, not an implementation decision.
-
-## 3. Evaluation semantics
-
-1. **Deny by default.** No grant on any ancestor → no authority. There are
-   no implicit grants: not from platform role (§1.1), not from creating a
-   node (§4.3), not from workspace membership (membership without a chain
-   grant confers exactly what the SOT's own membership rules confer inside
-   that workspace, nothing up the chain).
-2. **Down-the-chain only.** A grant on a node applies to that node and its
-   entire descendant subtree. Nothing evaluates upward or sideways: a grant
-   on an estate says nothing about the parent company or sibling estates.
-3. **Effective role = maximum.** A subject's effective role at any node is
-   the highest role among grants held directly by the subject's user on
-   that node or any ancestor — and, once the team contract activates team
-   subjects (§1.4), grants held by any team the user is a member of on that
-   node or any ancestor. Roles never subtract — there is no negative/deny
-   grant in this model; revocation is deletion (§6).
-4. **Team grants follow live membership** (specified now, active only per
-   §1.4). A team grant confers its role on the team's current members,
-   evaluated at decision time. Leaving the team is loss of the grant with
-   §6's propagation bound.
-5. **Live evaluation, fail closed.** Authorization decisions derive from the
-   live grant and team-membership rows (or from a cache that is invalidated
-   in the same transaction as any grant/membership/hierarchy mutation). A
-   decision path that cannot read grant state denies. No materialized ACL is
-   ever authoritative.
-6. **Tenant context stays derived from authenticated authority**
-   (REQ-TEN-001). The chain adds where grants can be declared; a workspace
-   request is still authorized against that workspace, with the chain
-   contributing the effective role — never letting the chain become what A1
-   §8.1.3 forbids: "a bypass of workspace authorization".
-
-## 4. Grant management
-
-1. Creating, changing, or revoking a grant on a node requires effective
-   `owner` on that node (directly or via any ancestor).
-2. **No self-escalation.** A grant manager cannot create a grant with a role
-   higher than their own effective role on the target node. Under the §2
-   vocabulary this rule is currently implied by §4.1 (managers are `owner`,
-   the top role — no constructible grant exceeds it); it is stated
-   explicitly so it survives any future amendment that decouples
-   grant-management authority from role height. Its observable is the §7.7
-   audit invariant, not a refusal test.
-3. **Bootstrap of authority is explicit; inheritance covers the rest.**
-   Creating the first company (the wizard path, contract 3) and any
-   top-level company creation MUST name the initial `owner` grant in the
-   same audited operation — a top-level node has no ancestor to inherit
-   from, so without this the node would be unownable. Creating a child node
-   (estate, platform-project, workspace) requires effective `owner` on the
-   parent (§2.3) and confers no automatic grant; the creator's authority
-   over the new node already follows from §3.2 down-the-chain evaluation.
-   The creating command MAY additionally name an explicit initial grant for
-   a child node; it is not required to.
-4. Every grant mutation is a semantic audit event under contract 1 §5.2's
-   guarantees, extended by this contract with two further fields: the event
-   carries actor, verb, target, **subject, and role** (subject and role are
-   this contract's addition; contract 1 §5.2 does not enumerate them).
-5. **Role strings are namespaced.** `viewer`/`member` exist at hierarchy
-   level, `member`/`admin` on `users.role`, and the current command layer
-   uses a third `viewer|member|admin` vocabulary — same strings, different
-   meanings. Any serialized role string (audit events per §4.4, API
-   responses, logs) MUST identify its layer (e.g. `hierarchy:owner`,
-   `platform:admin`); a bare role string in a serialized artifact is
-   non-conformant.
-
-## 5. Transfer authority (completes contract 1 §4.2)
-
-"Authority over BOTH the source and the destination parent" means: effective
-`owner` on the current parent node (or an ancestor) AND effective `owner` on
-the destination parent node (or an ancestor), evaluated at transfer time in
-the transfer's own transaction. One subject must hold both; two cooperating
-half-authorized subjects are not a transfer protocol this contract defines.
-
-## 6. Revocation propagation
-
-1. Revoking a grant (deleting the row), removing a user from a team that
-   carries a grant (once team subjects activate, §1.4), or the cascade
-   deletion of a node's grants during node deletion (contract 1 §3.3) all
-   propagate identically: the authority derived from that grant is gone for
-   every descendant workspace.
-2. **Bound:** the next authorization decision on any affected transport
-   decides against the revoked grant. Concretely: no new HTTP/MCP command
-   authorized by the revoked grant after the revoking transaction commits;
-   an open Socket.IO connection whose subscriptions depend on the revoked
-   grant is re-evaluated within 30 seconds or at its next inbound message,
-   whichever comes first (same bound as the identity contract's §7.1
-   deactivation rule; same mechanism may serve both).
-3. Revocation is subtractive only in effect, not in representation: the
-   evaluator never needs tombstones; deletion of the row is the revocation.
-
-## 7. Verification requirements
-
-Binding on the implementing PRs (extends A1 §8.3 acceptance 2–3 and
-contract 1 §6):
-
-1. Vocabulary: the role CHECK constraint rejects any value outside
-   `viewer|member|owner` (real-PostgreSQL witness, `ci-postgres` service in
-   the `test` CI step).
-2. Per-level conferral: for each of the three levels × three roles, a grant
-   yields exactly the implied workspace authorization in a descendant
-   workspace and nothing in a non-descendant workspace (the A1 §8.3
-   "exactly the permissions the chain implies" matrix, enumerated). The
-   matrix includes: a chain grant creates zero workspace-membership rows
-   (assert row counts); a chain-granted non-member is refused as the
-   principal argument of any principal-taking command while their
-   non-principal writes succeed (§1.3); structure reads leak no existence
-   of nodes the reader holds no grant on (no cross-tenant existence
-   oracle, A1 §8.3 acceptance 3).
-3. Ordering: `owner` ⊇ `member` ⊇ `viewer` behaviorally — each higher role
-   passes every lower role's positive cases.
-4. Deny-by-default: platform `admin` with no grant reaches no tenant
-   content — asserted against the two §1.1 non-conformant surfaces after
-   their retirement: the command-authorization admin short-circuit and the
-   MCP tenant-admin scope derivation both gone (a platform admin with no
-   grant is refused workspace commands and receives no tenant MCP scopes);
-   workspace member with no chain grant gains nothing outside SOT
-   membership semantics; fresh account reaches nothing (identity contract
-   §1.4 cross-check).
-5. Team subjects: while suspended (§1.4), creating a team-subject grant is
-   refused at the command surface. On activation by the team contract:
-   user-direct and team-conferred grants combine to the maximum; team-leave
-   drops authority within the §6.2 bound; decision-time evaluation
-   witnessed (grant added → next decision allows; no restart or re-login
-   required).
-6. Revocation: each revocation path in §6.1 denies the next command on
-   every transport; the socket bound is measured; a cached-authorization
-   implementation proves transactional invalidation (grant revoked and
-   decision made on two distinct physical connections). Fail-closed fault
-   witness for §3.5: with grant state unreadable (fault injection), the
-   decision denies.
-7. Grant management: non-`owner` cannot mutate grants; top-level company
-   creation without the named initial `owner` grant is refused, while child
-   node creation under ancestor authority succeeds without one (§4.3 both
-   directions); every mutation produces its audit event with the §4.4
-   fields. Self-escalation observable: over the audit event stream, every
-   grant-create/change event's role is ≤ the acting user's effective role
-   on the target at event time (reconstructable invariant, not a refusal
-   test — see §4.2).
-8. Transfer: both-sides `owner` accepted, each single-side case refused
-   (completing contract 1 §6.5).
-
-## Ruling request
-
-Ratify sections 1–7 as written, with one decision embedded and one
-interpretive resolution named:
-
-- Decision: platform `admin` confers no implicit tenant access — operators
-  see tenant content only through explicit, audited grants (§1.1), which
-  retires the two existing admin bypass paths named there. Say "agreed" or
-  name the implicit access you want platform admins to keep.
-- Interpretive resolution (for visibility, not a separate question): PRD
-  Part I §4 says "admins restrict access per company, estate, and project";
-  this contract resolves "admins" as hierarchy `owner`s (§4.1), not
-  platform admins. A1 §8.1.3 does not attribute grant declaration to
-  platform admins, and the §1.1 decision above is what makes this reading
-  binding.