{"row":{"n":"0003","slug":"nep-0003-absent-permits-zero-authority","file":"nep-0003-absent-permits-zero-authority.md","headline":"Absent permits: means zero authority (fail-closed)","title":"An absent `permits:` block declares zero authority, in every mode","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-22","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"Today a workflow with no permits: block runs bounded only by the engine\nfloor: the file carries no authority, so the constitution's first clause\n(zero ambient authority) is true only for annotated files.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Migration plan","anchor":"migration-plan"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1409,"sha256":"8f38ad4f6cdaa3336e776f43335ff2fcfa4db7de3a6912a547eeb32374d41a8a"},"prev":{"n":"0002","slug":"nep-0002-lethal-trifecta-human-gate","file":"nep-0002-lethal-trifecta-human-gate.md","headline":"Lethal-trifecta detection with a Rule-of-Two human gate","title":"Make the lethal trifecta a static check with a required human gate","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-19","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"Add a static check that fires when a workflow's declared capability boundary\ngrants all three legs of the lethal trifecta · private-data access, untrusted-\ncontent ingress, and external egress · without a human gate on the egress path.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Migration plan","anchor":"migration-plan"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1650,"sha256":"bf54b94c1aeb614c6e765e92d30ecb69158acf87589940c38e4d942da4f2c19c"},"next":{"n":"0004","slug":"nep-0004-permit-parameterization-taint","file":"nep-0004-permit-parameterization-taint.md","headline":"Permit-parameterization taint: untrusted values re-gate under permits","title":"An untrusted value never reaches a permit bound, and reaches a permitted verb's argument only through the re-gate","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-22","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"NEP-0003 made the boundary fail-closed when the block is absent.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Migration plan","anchor":"migration-plan"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1842,"sha256":"0e388b555a3ffce4c7cae697067deb944181e50163fbafd1f69d83e670f4e484"},"total":18}

[{"k":"h","depth":1,"text":"NEP-0003 · Absent permits: means zero authority (fail-closed)","id":"nep-0003--absent-permits-means-zero-authority-fail-closed"},{"k":"list","ordered":false,"items":[[{"k":"strong","text":"NEP"},{"k":"text","text":": 0003 (next free integer · 0001 reserved for the v1 surface · 0002 the trifecta gate)"}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Title"},{"k":"text","text":": An absent "},{"k":"code","text":"permits:"},{"k":"text","text":" block declares zero authority, in every mode"}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Author"},{"k":"text","text":": Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)"}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Status"},{"k":"text","text":": Draft"}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Type"},{"k":"text","text":": Standards Track"}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Created"},{"k":"text","text":": 2026-07-22"}]]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Abstract","id":"abstract"},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"Today a workflow with no "},{"k":"code","text":"permits:"},{"k":"text","text":" block runs bounded only by the engine\nfloor: the file carries no authority, so the constitution's first clause\n(zero ambient authority) is true only for annotated files. This NEP gives\nthe absence one meaning everywhere: an absent "},{"k":"code","text":"permits:"},{"k":"text","text":" block IS\n"},{"k":"code","text":"permits: {}"},{"k":"text","text":" · DeclaredPermits := ∅ · every required effect is a check\nrefusal, at every profile, for every file including composed children. A\npure-compute workflow needs no block; anything that touches the world\ndeclares it."}]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Motivation","id":"motivation"},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"The engine's own comment names the hole: « no "},{"k":"code","text":"permits"},{"k":"text","text":" declared · the\nrunner floor is the only gate » (nika-runtime/src/dispatch.rs). The checker\nproves it: a parent without permits contains nothing, so a child\n"},{"k":"code","text":"exec: rm -rf"},{"k":"text","text":" passes with zero finding (test\n"},{"k":"code","text":"undeclared_parent_boundary_is_no_wall"},{"k":"text","text":"), and the reference oracle spells\nthe same reading (« absent block = today's behavior · everything granted »,\nconformance/composition_core.py). The spec prose promises default-deny\nwhile the composition test asserts no-wall: the constitution is\nstructurally empty for every non-annotated file. Census at 2026-07-22: 226\nof 409 spec-repo workflows, 31 of 73 engine workflows, 6 of 11 playground\nworkflows carry effects with no block · every one is an undeclared blast\nradius."}]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Specification","id":"specification"},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"One sentence: "},{"k":"strong","text":"an absent `permits:` block means DeclaredPermits := ∅"},{"k":"text","text":"\n(provenance: absent), in draft and published profiles alike, for top-level\nand composed workflows alike."}]},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"Definitions (normative · closed):"}]},{"k":"list","ordered":false,"items":[[{"k":"strong","text":"ABSENT"},{"k":"text","text":" · the "},{"k":"code","text":"permits:"},{"k":"text","text":" key does not appear in the envelope, or\nappears with a YAML null value. Semantics: DeclaredPermits := ∅. (A null\nspelling is refused with a prescriptive detail pointing at the explicit\nforms · one obvious way.)"}],[{"k":"strong","text":"EMPTY"},{"k":"text","text":" · "},{"k":"code","text":"permits: {}"},{"k":"text","text":" (the explicit empty mapping). Semantics:\nDeclaredPermits := ∅, provenance: declared. The legal spelling of\n« I touch nothing »."}],[{"k":"strong","text":"PARTIAL"},{"k":"text","text":" · some categories listed. Semantics unchanged: listed =\ngranted, omitted categories default-deny (01 §permits, untouched)."}]]},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"The law (MUST/SHOULD):"}]},{"k":"list","ordered":true,"items":[[{"k":"text","text":"An engine MUST judge "},{"k":"code","text":"Required ⊆ Declared"},{"k":"text","text":" with Declared := ∅ whenever\nthe block is ABSENT. Any non-empty Required is a check refusal · before\nany token."}],[{"k":"text","text":"The refusal MUST be "},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-AUTH-006"},{"k":"text","text":" (new · security_error · check-time),\ndistinct from "},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-SEC-004"},{"k":"text","text":" (escape under a PRESENT block): the repair\ndiffers (add a block vs extend one), and the diagnostic carries the\ninferred block inline, ready to paste."}],[{"k":"text","text":"At run time any effect attempted under an absent block MUST fail the\ntask ("},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-SEC-004"},{"k":"text","text":", security_error, never fed back to an agent:\nmodel) · defense in depth for the dynamic cases the static judge cannot\nsee (a host computed at run time)."}],[{"k":"text","text":"A workflow whose Required is ∅ (pure compute: infer without tools ·\nCEL · pure/internal builtins per the builtin classification table) with\nan absent block MUST pass check; the report SHOULD carry an\ninformational hint naming "},{"k":"code","text":"permits: {}"},{"k":"text","text":" as the explicit form."}],[{"k":"text","text":"Composition: an absent block on a PARENT means Authority(parent) := ∅;\nany child whose inferred effect boundary is non-empty violates\n"},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-COMP-002"},{"k":"text","text":" at check, "},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-SEC-004"},{"k":"text","text":" at run. The « no wall »\nreading is dead: absent IS a wall, the zero wall."}],[{"k":"text","text":"An absent block on a CHILD invoked via "},{"k":"code","text":"workflow:"},{"k":"text","text":" means the child's\nown Declared := ∅; the parent's grants never flow down implicitly\n(containment is monotone · inter = child). A child that touches the\nworld MUST declare it, in its own file."}],[{"k":"text","text":"Nothing changes syntactically: the grammar keeps "},{"k":"code","text":"permits:"},{"k":"text","text":" optional\n(LAW-AUTH-0320 · no new YAML field, no version marker). The change is\nsemantic only."}]]},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"Registry and prose touched:"}]},{"k":"list","ordered":false,"items":[[{"k":"strong","text":"LAW-AUTH-0324"},{"k":"text","text":" is added to "},{"k":"code","text":"canon/laws/authority.yaml"},{"k":"text","text":" (status\nactive) · the machine row of this law."}],[{"k":"strong","text":"LAW-AUTH-0306"},{"k":"text","text":" (draft: absent ⇒ DeclaredPermits := RequiredCapabilities\n· provenance inferred) is tombstoned (status retired · replaced_by\nLAW-AUTH-0324): the grant equaling whatever the body happens to require\nis the ambient floor wearing an inference costume."}],[{"k":"strong","text":"LAW-AUTH-0307"},{"k":"text","text":" (published: explicit block required even empty ·\n"},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-AUTH-002"},{"k":"text","text":") is untouched and stands strictly stronger than the\nfloor this NEP sets."}],[{"k":"code","text":"spec/01-envelope.md"},{"k":"text","text":" §permits « optional and non-breaking … runs\nexactly as today » is replaced by the law above."}],[{"k":"text","text":"Implementation surfaces: nika-check (the "},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-AUTH-006"},{"k":"text","text":" finding) ·\nnika-runtime (the run-time refusal) · nika-cli ("},{"k":"code","text":"--fix"},{"k":"text","text":" grows an\ninsert-permits arm) · the reference oracle (conformance/deep_static.py"},{"k":"text","text":"+ composition_core.py)."}]]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Conformance test","id":"conformance-test"},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"Seven fixture pairs ship with this NEP (NEP-0000: a Standards Track NEP\nwithout a stateable test does not leave Discussion). New suite group\n"},{"k":"code","text":"conformance/tests/core/authority/"},{"k":"text","text":" · the authority plane named by\ncanon/laws/authority.yaml · plus one runtime pair:"}]},{"k":"list","ordered":false,"items":[[{"k":"code","text":"core/authority/001-absent-permits-pure-compute-clean"},{"k":"text","text":" · positive ·\nabsent block, pure compute → valid (law 4 · the report SHOULD hint\n"},{"k":"code","text":"permits: {}"},{"k":"text","text":")."}],[{"k":"code","text":"core/authority/002-absent-permits-fetch-refused"},{"k":"text","text":" · negative ·\n"},{"k":"code","text":"nika:fetch"},{"k":"text","text":" under an absent block → "},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-AUTH-006"},{"k":"text","text":" (laws 1-2)."}],[{"k":"code","text":"core/authority/003-absent-permits-exec-refused"},{"k":"text","text":" · negative · "},{"k":"code","text":"exec:"},{"k":"text","text":"\nunder an absent block → "},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-AUTH-006"},{"k":"text","text":" (law 1)."}],[{"k":"code","text":"core/authority/004-absent-permits-fs-read-refused"},{"k":"text","text":" · negative ·\n"},{"k":"code","text":"nika:read"},{"k":"text","text":" under an absent block → "},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-AUTH-006"},{"k":"text","text":" (law 1)."}],[{"k":"code","text":"core/authority/005-empty-permits-explicit-pure-clean"},{"k":"text","text":" · positive ·\n"},{"k":"code","text":"permits: {}"},{"k":"text","text":" authored, pure compute → valid (the EMPTY definition)."}],[{"k":"code","text":"core/authority/006-child-absent-under-permitted-parent"},{"k":"text","text":" · negative ·\na child with no block (running "},{"k":"code","text":"exec:"},{"k":"text","text":") invoked by a permitted parent →\n"},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-COMP-002"},{"k":"text","text":" (law 6 · the parent's grants never flow down)."}],[{"k":"code","text":"runtime/permits/003-absent-permits-runtime-refusal"},{"k":"text","text":" · negative · a\nfetch host templated "},{"k":"code","text":"\u0024{{ inputs.url }}"},{"k":"text","text":" under an absent block → task\nfailure "},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-SEC-004"},{"k":"text","text":" at run (law 3 · the dynamic case the static\njudge cannot see)."}]]},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"Engine/reference differential per LAW-AUTH-0319."}]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Compatibility impact","id":"compatibility-impact"},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"NOT additive · this is the intended flip (flag-day, ratified 2026-07-22).\nCensus (derived · lane F-O8 inventory): spec repo 226 effect-carrying\nfiles without a block (of 344 block-less, 409 total) · engine @origin/main\n31 (of 42, 73) · playground 6 (of 7, 11). Every one turns red at check\nuntil the block is added; pure-compute files (118 spec · 11 engine ·\n1 playground) stay green. Surfaces checked: examples/ · templates/ ·\nconformance/ · playground/ · the engine test corpus."}]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Migration plan","id":"migration-plan"},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"strong","text":"What changes for you."},{"k":"text","text":" A workflow that touches the world (reads or\nwrites a file, calls a host, runs a shell, invokes a tool) and carries no\n"},{"k":"code","text":"permits:"},{"k":"text","text":" block now fails "},{"k":"code","text":"nika check"},{"k":"text","text":" before a single token is spent:"}]},{"k":"code","lang":"text","text":"error[NIKA-AUTH-006]: task `load` requires fs outside the declared boundary\n  · this file has no `permits:` block · absent means zero authority (NEP-0003)\n  · add the inferred boundary (re-checks clean):\n    permits:\n      fs: { read: [\"./data/**\"] }"},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"The repair is one command · "},{"k":"code","text":"nika check --infer-permits"},{"k":"text","text":" prints exactly\nthe block your workflow needs (paste it, the check passes; the block is\nthe same object the certificate names). During the transition window,\n"},{"k":"code","text":"nika check --suggest-permits"},{"k":"text","text":" prints the suggestion without failing. A\nworkflow that touches nothing (pure compute) needs no block and stays\ngreen; "},{"k":"code","text":"permits: {}"},{"k":"text","text":" is the authored spelling of « I touch nothing ».\nNothing else changes: the grammar, the verbs, and the "},{"k":"code","text":"nika: v1"},{"k":"text","text":" marker\nare untouched."}]},{"k":"p","inline":[{"k":"text","text":"Mechanics: the error is the teacher ("},{"k":"code","text":"NIKA-AUTH-006"},{"k":"text","text":" carries the inferred\nblock inline) · "},{"k":"code","text":"nika check --infer-permits"},{"k":"text","text":" already implements the\nround-trip law · a codemod "},{"k":"code","text":"permits-explicit-v1"},{"k":"text","text":" (equivalence-or-stop ·\nprecedent: secrets-source-explicit-v1, LAW-AUTH-0321) inserts the inferred\nblock into every red file in the studio corpus BEFORE the checker flips;\nthe flip lands when the census of block-less effect-carrying files reaches\nzero."}]},{"k":"h","depth":2,"text":"Rejected alternatives","id":"rejected-alternatives"},{"k":"list","ordered":false,"items":[[{"k":"strong","text":"WARNING + zero-at-run"},{"k":"text","text":" · rejected as the default: it leaves check\ngreen on effect-carrying files (judged ≠ executed · invariant 4), and CI\nthat never runs stays blind. The soft variant survives only as the\ntransition flag above ("},{"k":"code","text":"--suggest-permits"},{"k":"text","text":")."}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Absent ⇒ inferred (LAW-AUTH-0306 draft mode)"},{"k":"text","text":" · rejected: the file\nstill carries no authored boundary; the grant equals whatever the body\nhappens to require, which is the ambient floor wearing an inference\ncostume. The constitution says the file IS the blast radius."}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Child inherits the parent's block"},{"k":"text","text":" · rejected: it breaks containment\nmonotonicity (a permit-less child would silently wield the parent's\ngrants) and makes the child's file unreadable alone."}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Reuse `NIKA-SEC-004` for the absent-block refusal"},{"k":"text","text":" · rejected: one\ncode, two repairs (add a block vs extend one); the repair-loop converges\nslower and the certificate cannot tell the two provenances apart."}],[{"k":"strong","text":"Grammar-level required `permits:`"},{"k":"text","text":" · rejected: a pure-compute\nworkflow must not be forced to annotate; the law is semantic (Declared\n:= ∅), the grammar keeps the key optional (LAW-AUTH-0320)."}]]}]

NEP-0003

Absent permits: means zero authority (fail-closed)

Draft · Standards Track · opened 2026-07-22 · 1409 words

NEP-0003 · Absent permits: means zero authority (fail-closed) #

NEP: 0003 (next free integer · 0001 reserved for the v1 surface · 0002 the trifecta gate)
Title: An absent permits: block declares zero authority, in every mode
Author: Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2026-07-22

Abstract #

Today a workflow with no permits: block runs bounded only by the engine floor: the file carries no authority, so the constitution's first clause (zero ambient authority) is true only for annotated files. This NEP gives the absence one meaning everywhere: an absent permits: block IS permits: {} · DeclaredPermits := ∅ · every required effect is a check refusal, at every profile, for every file including composed children. A pure-compute workflow needs no block; anything that touches the world declares it.

Motivation #

The engine's own comment names the hole: « no permits declared · the runner floor is the only gate » (nika-runtime/src/dispatch.rs). The checker proves it: a parent without permits contains nothing, so a child exec: rm -rf passes with zero finding (test undeclared_parent_boundary_is_no_wall), and the reference oracle spells the same reading (« absent block = today's behavior · everything granted », conformance/composition_core.py). The spec prose promises default-deny while the composition test asserts no-wall: the constitution is structurally empty for every non-annotated file. Census at 2026-07-22: 226 of 409 spec-repo workflows, 31 of 73 engine workflows, 6 of 11 playground workflows carry effects with no block · every one is an undeclared blast radius.

Specification #

One sentence: an absent `permits:` block means DeclaredPermits := ∅ (provenance: absent), in draft and published profiles alike, for top-level and composed workflows alike.

Definitions (normative · closed):

ABSENT · the permits: key does not appear in the envelope, or appears with a YAML null value. Semantics: DeclaredPermits := ∅. (A null spelling is refused with a prescriptive detail pointing at the explicit forms · one obvious way.)
EMPTY · permits: {} (the explicit empty mapping). Semantics: DeclaredPermits := ∅, provenance: declared. The legal spelling of « I touch nothing ».
PARTIAL · some categories listed. Semantics unchanged: listed = granted, omitted categories default-deny (01 §permits, untouched).

The law (MUST/SHOULD):

An engine MUST judge Required ⊆ Declared with Declared := ∅ whenever the block is ABSENT. Any non-empty Required is a check refusal · before any token.
The refusal MUST be NIKA-AUTH-006 (new · security_error · check-time), distinct from NIKA-SEC-004 (escape under a PRESENT block): the repair differs (add a block vs extend one), and the diagnostic carries the inferred block inline, ready to paste.
At run time any effect attempted under an absent block MUST fail the task (NIKA-SEC-004, security_error, never fed back to an agent: model) · defense in depth for the dynamic cases the static judge cannot see (a host computed at run time).
A workflow whose Required is ∅ (pure compute: infer without tools · CEL · pure/internal builtins per the builtin classification table) with an absent block MUST pass check; the report SHOULD carry an informational hint naming permits: {} as the explicit form.
Composition: an absent block on a PARENT means Authority(parent) := ∅; any child whose inferred effect boundary is non-empty violates NIKA-COMP-002 at check, NIKA-SEC-004 at run. The « no wall » reading is dead: absent IS a wall, the zero wall.
An absent block on a CHILD invoked via workflow: means the child's own Declared := ∅; the parent's grants never flow down implicitly (containment is monotone · inter = child). A child that touches the world MUST declare it, in its own file.
Nothing changes syntactically: the grammar keeps permits: optional (LAW-AUTH-0320 · no new YAML field, no version marker). The change is semantic only.

Registry and prose touched:

LAW-AUTH-0324 is added to canon/laws/authority.yaml (status active) · the machine row of this law.
LAW-AUTH-0306 (draft: absent ⇒ DeclaredPermits := RequiredCapabilities · provenance inferred) is tombstoned (status retired · replaced_by LAW-AUTH-0324): the grant equaling whatever the body happens to require is the ambient floor wearing an inference costume.
LAW-AUTH-0307 (published: explicit block required even empty · NIKA-AUTH-002) is untouched and stands strictly stronger than the floor this NEP sets.
spec/01-envelope.md §permits « optional and non-breaking … runs exactly as today » is replaced by the law above.
Implementation surfaces: nika-check (the NIKA-AUTH-006 finding) · nika-runtime (the run-time refusal) · nika-cli (--fix grows an insert-permits arm) · the reference oracle (conformance/deep_static.py+ composition_core.py).

Conformance test #

Seven fixture pairs ship with this NEP (NEP-0000: a Standards Track NEP without a stateable test does not leave Discussion). New suite group conformance/tests/core/authority/ · the authority plane named by canon/laws/authority.yaml · plus one runtime pair:

core/authority/001-absent-permits-pure-compute-clean · positive · absent block, pure compute → valid (law 4 · the report SHOULD hint permits: {}).
core/authority/002-absent-permits-fetch-refused · negative · nika:fetch under an absent block → NIKA-AUTH-006 (laws 1-2).
core/authority/003-absent-permits-exec-refused · negative · exec: under an absent block → NIKA-AUTH-006 (law 1).
core/authority/004-absent-permits-fs-read-refused · negative · nika:read under an absent block → NIKA-AUTH-006 (law 1).
core/authority/005-empty-permits-explicit-pure-clean · positive · permits: {} authored, pure compute → valid (the EMPTY definition).
core/authority/006-child-absent-under-permitted-parent · negative · a child with no block (running exec:) invoked by a permitted parent → NIKA-COMP-002 (law 6 · the parent's grants never flow down).
runtime/permits/003-absent-permits-runtime-refusal · negative · a fetch host templated ${{ inputs.url }} under an absent block → task failure NIKA-SEC-004 at run (law 3 · the dynamic case the static judge cannot see).

Engine/reference differential per LAW-AUTH-0319.

Compatibility impact #

NOT additive · this is the intended flip (flag-day, ratified 2026-07-22). Census (derived · lane F-O8 inventory): spec repo 226 effect-carrying files without a block (of 344 block-less, 409 total) · engine @origin/main 31 (of 42, 73) · playground 6 (of 7, 11). Every one turns red at check until the block is added; pure-compute files (118 spec · 11 engine · 1 playground) stay green. Surfaces checked: examples/ · templates/ · conformance/ · playground/ · the engine test corpus.

Migration plan #

What changes for you. A workflow that touches the world (reads or writes a file, calls a host, runs a shell, invokes a tool) and carries no permits: block now fails nika check before a single token is spent:

text

1error[NIKA-AUTH-006]: task `load` requires fs outside the declared boundary2  · this file has no `permits:` block · absent means zero authority (NEP-0003)3  · add the inferred boundary (re-checks clean):4    ⛨permits:5      ⛨fs: { read: ["./data/**"] }

The repair is one command · nika check --infer-permits prints exactly the block your workflow needs (paste it, the check passes; the block is the same object the certificate names). During the transition window, nika check --suggest-permits prints the suggestion without failing. A workflow that touches nothing (pure compute) needs no block and stays green; permits: {} is the authored spelling of « I touch nothing ». Nothing else changes: the grammar, the verbs, and the nika: v1 marker are untouched.

Mechanics: the error is the teacher (NIKA-AUTH-006 carries the inferred block inline) · nika check --infer-permits already implements the round-trip law · a codemod permits-explicit-v1 (equivalence-or-stop · precedent: secrets-source-explicit-v1, LAW-AUTH-0321) inserts the inferred block into every red file in the studio corpus BEFORE the checker flips; the flip lands when the census of block-less effect-carrying files reaches zero.

Rejected alternatives #

WARNING + zero-at-run · rejected as the default: it leaves check green on effect-carrying files (judged ≠ executed · invariant 4), and CI that never runs stays blind. The soft variant survives only as the transition flag above (--suggest-permits).
Absent ⇒ inferred (LAW-AUTH-0306 draft mode) · rejected: the file still carries no authored boundary; the grant equals whatever the body happens to require, which is the ambient floor wearing an inference costume. The constitution says the file IS the blast radius.
Child inherits the parent's block · rejected: it breaks containment monotonicity (a permit-less child would silently wield the parent's grants) and makes the child's file unreadable alone.
Reuse `NIKA-SEC-004` for the absent-block refusal · rejected: one code, two repairs (add a block vs extend one); the repair-loop converges slower and the certificate cannot tell the two provenances apart.
Grammar-level required `permits:` · rejected: a pure-compute workflow must not be forced to annotate; the law is semantic (Declared := ∅), the grammar keeps the key optional (LAW-AUTH-0320).

This proposal in the spec repo The specification it amends