Version. 0.1
Date. 2026-08-21
Amends. change-requests/cr-2026-231-w6-writing-the-grant-into-the-record-v0_3.md §6. v0_3 is not edited — this is CR-2026-231's record entry for the ruling, filed beside it, in the same convention as the earlier refusal-writer amendment.
Ruled by. standing-notes/loomworks-standing-note-two-records-and-what-crosses-between-them-v0_1.md, STANDING, 2026-08-21.
§6 asked whether a separate lifecycle table competes with Memory as a second record. The standing note answers: split — keep the two records, name them, and state the relationship. Memory for knowledge about an engagement's subject; the substrate operational record for facts about what the system did.
Nothing changes. The ruling confirms Gate 2's design rather than requiring any change to it.
Migration 0115 and agent_lifecycle_events stand as built. The table's four CHECK constraints, the N+1 freeze-cascade shape, the FORAY reserved location at agents.grant_lifecycle — all of it was already the shape the standing note describes as correct: an actor, a timestamp, no engagement dependency where none exists, provenance and non-erasure honoured on the operational record's own terms rather than borrowed from Memory's.
§6's own case for the split — named in v0_3 before the ruling existed — is confirmed rather than overridden. v0_3 wrote: "this is not a second record competing with Memory — it is substrate-operational fact, the same class as credit.flows, agent_sessions and the migration event log." The standing note's §1 lists exactly that family and reaches the same conclusion by a different route — a boundary test rather than an analogy.
The join. The standing note's §4 names an obligation Gate 2 did not build and was never asked to: "an action in Memory carries its session id in provenance.wasAttributedTo, and the grant lifecycle in the operational record carries the identity and the session… the crossing must be a capability, not an act of manual assembly."
Not scoped here either. CR-2026-231 is closed as built; the join is future work with no CR yet open against it.
CR-2026-231 has no open questions. §3a was ruled in scope and discharged by CR-2026-232 (sentinel and baseline). §6 is ruled by the standing note. Nothing in this CR's design or its shipped code changes as a result.