# InfoTechCanon Kernel Map

**Short Name:** `ITC-KERNEL-MAP`
**Document Status:** Draft 1
**Version:** RC1-kernel-map
**Date:** 2026-05-23
**Repository Context:** `info-tech-canon`
**Document Type:** Kernel Integration Map
**Purpose:** Consolidate the first-generation InfoTechCanon seed standards into one coherent kernel and show how the CARING standard fits into the canon.

---

# 1. Purpose

The **InfoTechCanon Kernel Map** describes how the first generation of InfoTechCanon seed standards fit together.

It provides:

- the initial canon kernel overview,
- the dependency and import graph,
- concept ownership boundaries,
- cross-standard integration points,
- the place of CARING within the canon,
- shared mechanisms that should be centralized in `InfoTechCanonCore`,
- known overlap and boundary tensions,
- first implementation profiles,
- first assimilation candidates,
- and the recommended refactoring sequence.

This document is not itself a domain standard. It is a **coordination artifact** used to stabilize the kernel before further domain expansion.

---

# 2. Kernel Overview

The current InfoTechCanon kernel consists of these seed standards:

```text
InfoTechCanonCore
InfoTechCanonInformationSpaceModel
InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel
InfoTechCanonOrganizationModel
InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel
InfoTechCanonTaskModel
InfoTechCanonTaggingStandard
InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel
InfoTechCanonSecurityModel
InfoTechCanonDataModel
InfoTechCanonDevSecOpsModel
InfoTechCanonNetworkModel
InfoTechCanonObservabilityModel
```

Together they form a coherent first-generation semantic substrate for building interoperable information-processing systems.

A compact mental model:

```text
Core              = how the canon works.
Information Space = how canon knowledge is stored, linked, retrieved, and reused.
Landscape         = what systems, services, resources, and runtime entities exist.
Organization      = who can act, belong, own, steward, operate, and be responsible.
Governance        = how action is directed, constrained, justified, reviewed, and evidenced.
Task              = what work exists and how it becomes actionable, committed, and completed.
Tagging           = how entities are lightly classified, filtered, and retrieved.
Access Control    = who/what may perform which action on which resource under which conditions.
Security          = threats, weaknesses, vulnerabilities, exposures, findings, incidents, and posture.
Data              = datasets, schemas, classification, lineage, quality, contracts, and data products.
DevSecOps         = source-to-artifact-to-release-to-deployment delivery flow and evidence.
Network           = addressing, topology, routing, policy, reachability, flow, exposure, and state.
Observability     = telemetry, signals, logs, metrics, traces, events, alerts, SLOs, and evidence.
```

---

# 3. Kernel Dependency Graph

## 3.1 Foundational Layer

```text
InfoTechCanonCore
  ├── concept ownership
  ├── mappings
  ├── assimilation
  ├── patterns
  ├── profiles
  ├── validation
  ├── conformance
  ├── versioning
  ├── provenance
  ├── agent briefs
  └── canon interface cards
```

`InfoTechCanonCore` should be imported by every other standard.

## 3.2 Knowledge Substrate Layer

```text
InfoTechCanonInformationSpaceModel
  imports:
    - InfoTechCanonCore
    - InfoTechCanonTaggingStandard
    - InfoTechCanonDataModel
    - InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel
```

The Information Space Model defines how standards and related artifacts become a retrievable, markdown-first, agent-usable infospace.

## 3.3 Actor / Rule / World Triad

```text
InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel
  owns: systems, services, resources, runtime, infrastructure context

InfoTechCanonOrganizationModel
  owns: actors, roles, memberships, responsibility, authority, accountability

InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel
  owns: policies, rules, decisions, controls, risk, exceptions, evidence
```

This is the first conceptual triad:

```text
Landscape    = what exists.
Organization = who acts.
Governance   = how action is directed and constrained.
```

## 3.4 Execution and Classification Layer

```text
InfoTechCanonTaskModel
  imports:
    - Organization
    - Governance
    - Landscape

InfoTechCanonTaggingStandard
  imports:
    - Task
    - Core
    - optionally Organization / Governance / Landscape for tag dimensions
```

Task turns systems, actors, and governance into actionable work. Tagging classifies and retrieves work and other entities.

## 3.5 Control and Protection Layer

```text
InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel
  imports:
    - Organization
    - Governance
    - Landscape
    - Task
    - Tagging

InfoTechCanonSecurityModel
  imports:
    - Governance
    - Access Control
    - Landscape
    - Task
    - Data
    - DevSecOps
    - Network
    - Observability
```

Access Control owns authorization semantics. Security owns adversarial and defensive security semantics.

## 3.6 Information and Delivery Layer

```text
InfoTechCanonDataModel
  imports:
    - Landscape
    - Organization
    - Governance
    - Security
    - Access Control
    - Task
    - Tagging

InfoTechCanonDevSecOpsModel
  imports:
    - Landscape
    - Organization
    - Governance
    - Task
    - Security
    - Access Control
    - Data
    - Observability
```

Data owns semantic data assets. DevSecOps owns secure delivery flow and evidence.

## 3.7 Runtime Understanding Layer

```text
InfoTechCanonNetworkModel
  imports:
    - Landscape
    - Governance
    - Security
    - Access Control
    - Data
    - DevSecOps
    - Observability

InfoTechCanonObservabilityModel
  imports:
    - Landscape
    - Organization
    - Governance
    - Task
    - Security
    - Access Control
    - Data
    - DevSecOps
    - Network
```

Network owns communication and reachability. Observability owns signals and runtime understanding.

---

# 4. Concept Ownership Map

## 4.1 Core Owns Canon Machinery

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| Standard | Core |
| Concept | Core |
| RelationshipDefinition | Core |
| Pattern | Core |
| Profile | Core |
| Mapping | Core |
| Assimilation | Core |
| ValidationRule | Core |
| ConformanceLevel | Core |
| VersionRecord | Core |
| ProvenanceRecord | Core |
| AgentBrief | Core |
| CanonInterfaceCard | Core |

## 4.2 Information Space Owns Knowledge Packaging

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| InformationSpace | Information Space |
| KnowledgeArtifact | Information Space |
| MarkdownDocument | Information Space |
| ConceptPage | Information Space |
| Chunk | Information Space |
| RetrievalUnit | Information Space |
| Index | Information Space |
| Link / Backlink | Information Space |
| Citation / SourceReference | Information Space |
| EmbeddingRecord | Information Space |
| RetrievalEvaluation | Information Space |

## 4.3 Landscape Owns System Reality

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| BusinessService | Landscape |
| ApplicationService | Landscape |
| TechnicalService | Landscape |
| SoftwareSystem reference | Landscape / later Architecture |
| RuntimeResource | Landscape |
| Environment | Landscape |
| Workload | Landscape |
| Endpoint reference | Landscape / Network split |
| DeploymentRecord reference | Landscape / DevSecOps split |

## 4.4 Organization Owns Actors and Responsibility

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| Person | Organization |
| Agent as organizational actor | Organization |
| Team | Organization |
| Organization | Organization |
| OrganizationalUnit | Organization |
| Role | Organization |
| Position | Organization |
| Membership | Organization |
| Responsibility | Organization |
| Authority | Organization |
| Accountability | Organization |
| Ownership / Stewardship | Organization |

## 4.5 Governance Owns Rules and Assurance

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| Policy | Governance |
| Rule | Governance |
| Requirement | Governance |
| Obligation | Governance |
| Decision | Governance |
| Approval | Governance |
| ControlObjective | Governance |
| Control | Governance |
| Risk | Governance |
| Exception / Waiver | Governance |
| Evidence | Governance |
| Audit / Assurance | Governance |

## 4.6 Task Owns Work

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| WorkItem | Task |
| Option | Task |
| Task | Task |
| Action / NextAction | Task |
| Step / Move | Task |
| Exploration / Experiment | Task |
| Commitment | Task |
| Blocker / Dependency | Task |
| WorkflowState | Task |
| Outcome / AcceptanceCriteria / DefinitionOfDone | Task |

## 4.7 Tagging Owns Lightweight Classification

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| Tag | Tagging |
| TagDefinition | Tagging |
| TagScheme | Tagging |
| TagNamespace | Tagging |
| TagCategory | Tagging |
| TagAssignment | Tagging |
| TagProfile | Tagging |
| TagMapping | Tagging |
| TagValidationRule | Tagging |

## 4.8 Access Control Owns Authorization

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| Subject | Access Control, as access-control subject view |
| Principal | Access Control |
| Resource as protected access target | Access Control / Landscape reference |
| Action as access operation | Access Control |
| Permission | Access Control |
| Privilege | Access Control |
| Entitlement | Access Control |
| Grant | Access Control |
| AccessRole | Access Control |
| RoleBinding | Access Control |
| AuthorizationRequest | Access Control |
| AuthorizationDecision | Access Control |
| PolicyEnforcementPoint | Access Control |
| AccessReview | Access Control / Governance reference |
| BreakGlassAccess | Access Control / Governance reference |

## 4.9 Security Owns Adversarial and Defensive Semantics

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| Threat | Security |
| ThreatActor | Security |
| Weakness | Security |
| Vulnerability | Security |
| Exposure as security condition | Security / Network reference |
| SecurityFinding | Security |
| AttackPath | Security |
| Mitigation | Security |
| Detection | Security |
| SecurityIncident | Security |
| SecurityPosture | Security |

## 4.10 Data Owns Data Semantics

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| DataDomain | Data |
| Dataset | Data |
| DataProduct | Data |
| Schema | Data |
| Field | Data |
| DataElement | Data |
| DataClassification | Data |
| DataLineage | Data |
| DataQualityRule | Data |
| DataContract | Data |
| ProcessingPurpose | Data |
| RetentionRuleReference | Data / Governance reference |

## 4.11 DevSecOps Owns Delivery Flow

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| Repository as delivery source | DevSecOps / Information Space if knowledge repo |
| Commit | DevSecOps |
| PullRequest | DevSecOps |
| Pipeline | DevSecOps |
| PipelineRun | DevSecOps |
| TestRun / ScanRun | DevSecOps |
| ArtifactVersion | DevSecOps |
| SBOM | DevSecOps |
| Provenance / Attestation / Signature | DevSecOps |
| Release | DevSecOps |
| DeploymentExecution / DeploymentRecord | DevSecOps |
| DeploymentVerification | DevSecOps / Observability reference |

## 4.12 Network Owns Communication Semantics

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| NetworkDomain | Network |
| Prefix / IPAddress / DNSRecord | Network |
| NetworkDevice | Network |
| Interface / Link / Path | Network |
| NetworkSegment / VLAN / VRF | Network |
| Route / RouteTable | Network |
| Endpoint as network surface | Network / Landscape reference |
| NetworkPolicy | Network |
| NetworkIntent | Network |
| NetworkFlow / ObservedFlow | Network / Observability reference |
| ReachabilityClaim | Network |
| Exposure as reachability condition | Network / Security reference |

## 4.13 Observability Owns Signals

| Concept Family | Canonical Owner |
|---|---|
| Telemetry | Observability |
| Metric | Observability |
| LogRecord | Observability |
| Trace / Span | Observability |
| Event as observability signal | Observability |
| Profile as runtime profile | Observability |
| AlertRule / Alert | Observability |
| SLI / SLO / ErrorBudget | Observability |
| HealthState | Observability |
| ObservedIncident | Observability / Task or ITSM reference |
| ObservabilityEvidence | Observability / Governance reference |

---

# 5. CARING Fit in InfoTechCanon

## 5.1 Summary

The uploaded **CARING Standard — Canonical Access Roles for Information Needs Governance** fits well into InfoTechCanon as a **cross-domain access-governance standard**.

It should not be absorbed entirely into `InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel`, because CARING has a stronger and more specific purpose:

```text
CARING = orthogonal access-governance analysis and design standard
for information products and runtime platforms.
```

It belongs as a named standard/profile family:

```text
standards/access-control/caring/
  InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard.md
```

or:

```text
standards/caring/
  CARING.md
```

Recommended canonical name inside InfoTechCanon:

```text
InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard
```

Recommended status:

```text
external-user-originated standard candidate
or
internal specialized standard candidate
```

## 5.2 Why CARING Is Valuable

CARING contributes a mature orthogonal decomposition for access governance.

Its central insight is that a role is not enough. Effective access emerges from several independent dimensions:

```text
Subject
Organization Relation
Canonical Role
Scope
Plane
Capability
Exposure Mode
Condition
Lifecycle State
Restriction
Exposure Event
```

This directly supports InfoTechCanon’s orthogonality principle.

## 5.3 CARING as a Stress Test

CARING should become one of the first benchmark standards for testing the kernel because it crosses many domains:

```text
Organization: subject, relation, role, lifecycle responsibility.
Access Control: capability, permissions, grants, effective access.
Governance: restrictions, exposure events, lifecycle review, conditions.
Security: induced access, privilege escalation, secret exposure.
Data: exposure mode, plaintext, masked, synthetic, cross-tenant aggregate.
Network: scope, platform, cluster, namespace, runtime, reachability implications.
DevSecOps: CI/CD service accounts, build plane, release lifecycle, agents.
Observability: audit plane, logs, evidence, post-review.
Task: remediation, redesign, review work from CARING findings.
Tagging: classification of access descriptors and findings.
```

## 5.4 CARING Placement Options

### Option A: Access Control Profile

```text
InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel
└── profiles/
    └── caring-access-governance-profile.md
```

Pros:

- lightweight integration,
- easy to use as a profile over access-control entities,
- good first step.

Cons:

- CARING is richer than a normal profile,
- it owns canonical role semantics that overlap with Organization,
- it includes governance and analysis process concepts.

### Option B: Specialized Access-Governance Standard

```text
InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard
```

Pros:

- preserves CARING as a coherent standard,
- respects its analytical and prescriptive modes,
- avoids forcing all CARING concepts into Access Control,
- allows CARING to import Access, Organization, Governance, Security, Data, DevSecOps, and Network.

Cons:

- adds another standard to the kernel,
- requires explicit ownership decisions.

### Option C: Pattern Language Only

CARING could be turned into patterns such as:

```text
Role Is Not Permission
Declared vs Effective Access
Induced Access Analysis
Exposure Event
Tenant Isolation Boundary
Agent Capability Ceiling
```

Pros:

- useful immediately.

Cons:

- loses the systematic descriptor model.

## 5.5 Recommendation

Use **Option B**.

CARING should become a specialized standard under the Access/Governance cluster:

```text
InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard
```

It should import the kernel standards rather than redefine their generic concepts.

The standard should be treated as:

```text
a specialized orthogonal access-governance analysis standard
built on top of Core, Organization, Governance, Access Control,
Security, Data, DevSecOps, Network, Observability, Task, and Tagging.
```

---

# 6. CARING Concept Ownership and Import Map

## 6.1 CARING Concepts That Should Remain Owned by CARING

These are distinctive enough to be owned by CARING:

```text
CARINGAccessDescriptor
CARINGCanonicalRole
OrganizationRelation as CARING access dimension
Plane as CARING access dimension
ExposureMode
ExposureEvent
DerivedCapability
InducedAccess
DeclaredAccessMap
EffectiveAccessMap
CapabilityProfileMap
RoleBundlingFinding
TenantBoundaryFinding
InducedAccessFinding
CARINGAnalysisFitnessTest
CARINGAnalysisProcedure
CARINGRedesignProcedure
```

## 6.2 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Organization

| CARING Term | InfoTechCanon Owner |
|---|---|
| Subject as human/group/organization/service/agent/system/device/process | Access Control / Organization split |
| Human | Organization |
| Organization | Organization |
| Group | Organization / Access Control depending on use |
| Agent | Organization |
| Authority as actor | Organization / Governance |
| Lifecycle responsibility posture | Organization / CARING specialization |
| Vendor / Customer / Community / Consultant / ServiceProvider | Organization relation profile, owned by CARING as access-governance dimension |

## 6.3 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Access Control

| CARING Term | InfoTechCanon Owner |
|---|---|
| Subject as access subject | Access Control |
| Declared Access | Access Control / CARING specialization |
| Effective Access | Access Control / CARING specialization |
| Capability | Access Control |
| Capability Profile | Access Control / CARING specialization |
| Native Policy Object | Access Control |
| Access Assignment | Access Control |
| Restriction as deny effect | Access Control / Governance |
| Default Deny | Access Control |

## 6.4 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Governance

| CARING Term | InfoTechCanon Owner |
|---|---|
| Condition | Governance / Access Control depending on enforcement |
| Lifecycle review | Governance |
| Exposure Event review | Governance |
| Legal hold | Governance |
| Authority source | Governance |
| Approval | Governance |
| Post-review | Governance |
| Policy linting | Governance / Access Control |
| Conformance tests | Core / Governance |

## 6.5 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Security

| CARING Term | InfoTechCanon Owner |
|---|---|
| PrivilegeEscalationBlocked | Security / Access Control |
| X-Adversarial | Security |
| X-Misconfiguration | Security / Governance |
| X-InducedAccess | Security / CARING |
| X-PrivilegeEscalation | Security / CARING |
| SecretMaterial exposure risk | Security / Data / Access Control |
| Induced access as security finding | Security / CARING |

## 6.6 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Data

| CARING Term | InfoTechCanon Owner |
|---|---|
| Plaintext | Data / Security context |
| Masked | Data |
| Aggregated | Data |
| Synthetic | Data |
| Pseudonymous | Data |
| Encrypted | Security / Data |
| CrossTenantAggregate | Data / Governance |
| Field | Data |
| Dataset | Data |

## 6.7 CARING Concepts That Should Import from DevSecOps

| CARING Term | InfoTechCanon Owner |
|---|---|
| Build Plane | DevSecOps / CARING access plane |
| CI/CD Service as Builder | DevSecOps / Access Control |
| PipelineBound condition | DevSecOps / Governance / Access |
| DeploymentDeployer profile | DevSecOps / CARING |
| Agentic coding system | DevSecOps / Organization / Access |

## 6.8 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Network

| CARING Term | InfoTechCanon Owner |
|---|---|
| Cluster | Network / Landscape depending on context |
| Namespace | Network / Landscape / Platform context |
| Tenant boundary network implications | Network / Security / Access |
| Runtime Plane network exposure | Network / CARING |

## 6.9 CARING Concepts That Should Import from Observability

| CARING Term | InfoTechCanon Owner |
|---|---|
| Audit Plane evidence | Observability / Governance |
| Logged | Observability / Governance |
| Recorded | Observability / Governance |
| PostReviewRequired evidence | Governance / Observability |
| Access event evidence | Observability / Access Control |

---

# 7. CARING-Driven Refactor Suggestions

## 7.1 Access Control Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Access Control seed should explicitly include:

```text
DeclaredAccess
EffectiveAccess
DerivedCapability
InducedAccess
CapabilityProfile
NativePolicyObject
AccessDescriptor
ExposureModeReference
RestrictionPrecedence
```

Some of these should be imported or profiled from CARING rather than owned directly.

## 7.2 Organization Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Organization seed should strengthen:

```text
ExternalOrganizationRelation
Vendor
Customer
Consultant
ServiceProvider
Distributor
Community
Authority
LifecycleResponsibilityRole
```

However, the CARING canonical roles should remain in CARING unless they prove broadly useful beyond access governance.

## 7.3 Governance Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Governance seed should strengthen:

```text
ExceptionWorkflow
ExposureEventGovernance
PostEventReview
AuthoritySource
LifecycleAccessReview
AccessGovernanceControl
```

## 7.4 Security Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Security seed should strengthen:

```text
InducedAccessFinding
PrivilegeEscalationFinding
SecretExposureFinding
TenantBoundaryFinding
EffectiveAccessRisk
```

## 7.5 Data Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Data seed should strengthen:

```text
ExposureModeMapping
SecretMaterial
CrossTenantAggregate
MaskedData
SyntheticData
PseudonymousData
ExportableData
```

## 7.6 DevSecOps Model Should Add or Strengthen

The DevSecOps seed should strengthen:

```text
PipelineBoundAccess
CICDIdentity
AgenticBuildAccess
WorkloadCreationCapability
DeploymentCapabilityProfile
```

## 7.7 Network Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Network seed should strengthen:

```text
NamespaceAsScope
NamespaceNotTenantBoundary
ClusterScope
TenantBoundaryNetworkEvidence
```

## 7.8 Observability Model Should Add or Strengthen

The Observability seed should strengthen:

```text
AccessEvent
ExposureEventEvidence
AuditTrail
PostAccessReviewEvidence
SessionRecordingReference
```

---

# 8. Cross-Standard Import Matrix

Legend:

```text
O = owns concept
I = imports concept
R = references concept
P = profile / specialization
```

| Concept / Mechanism | Core | InfoSpace | Org | Gov | Task | Tag | Access | Sec | Data | DevSecOps | Net | Obs | CARING |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Concept ownership | O | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I |
| Mapping | O | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I |
| Assimilation | O | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I |
| Actor | R | R | O | R | I | R | I | R | R | R | R | R | I |
| Subject | R | R | I | R | R | R | O | R | R | R | R | R | I/P |
| Role | R | R | O | R | R | R | I | R | R | R | R | R | P |
| AccessRole | R | R | R | R | R | R | O | R | R | R | R | R | I |
| CARINGCanonicalRole | R | R | I | R | R | R | I | R | R | R | R | R | O |
| Policy | R | R | R | O | I | R | I | I | I | I | I | I | I |
| Permission | R | R | R | R | R | R | O | R | R | R | R | R | I |
| Capability | R | R | R | R | R | R | O | R | R | R | R | R | P/O |
| ExposureMode | R | R | R | I | R | R | I | I | I | R | R | I | O |
| ExposureEvent | R | R | R | I | I | R | I | I | I | I | I | I | O |
| DeclaredAccess | R | R | R | R | R | R | O/P | I | R | R | R | R | P/O |
| EffectiveAccess | R | R | R | R | R | R | O/P | I | R | R | R | R | P/O |
| DerivedCapability | R | R | R | R | R | R | P | I | R | I | R | R | O |
| InducedAccess | R | R | R | R | R | R | P | I | R | I | R | R | O |
| Tenant | R | R | I | I | R | R | I | R | I | R | I | R | P |
| Namespace | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | O | R | I |
| AuditTrail | R | R | R | I | R | R | I | I | R | R | R | O/P | I |

---

# 9. Kernel Boundary Tensions

## 9.1 Role vs AccessRole vs CARINGCanonicalRole

This is the most important boundary tension.

Recommended distinction:

```text
Organization Role
  A pattern of responsibility, authority, participation, or behavior.

AccessRole
  A permission-bearing construct in an authorization model.

CARINGCanonicalRole
  A lifecycle responsibility posture used for access-governance analysis.
```

Rule:

```text
Do not collapse these three.
```

## 9.2 Subject vs Actor vs Principal

Recommended distinction:

```text
Actor
  An entity capable of action in organization or system context.

Subject
  The access-control view of an entity requesting or holding access.

Principal
  Identity-bearing subject recognized by an access-control system.
```

## 9.3 Plane vs Domain vs Layer

CARING uses **Plane** as an access surface: Build, Runtime, Execution, Data, Identity, Policy, Secret, Audit, etc.

InfoTechCanon already uses domains such as Data, Network, DevSecOps, Observability.

Recommendation:

```text
CARING Plane remains a CARING-owned access-governance dimension.
It may map to InfoTechCanon domains but should not replace them.
```

## 9.4 Exposure Mode vs Data Classification vs Security Exposure

Recommended distinction:

```text
ExposureMode
  How much information becomes visible, usable, or extractable in an access context.

DataClassification
  Classification of data based on sensitivity, policy, or business meaning.

Security Exposure
  A security-relevant condition of reachability, discoverability, or access risk.
```

## 9.5 Scope vs ResourceScope vs Landscape Scope

Recommended distinction:

```text
CARING Scope
  Access-governance boundary.

Access ResourceScope
  Authorization evaluation boundary.

Landscape Scope
  System/resource containment or operational boundary.
```

These may map, but should not be assumed identical.

## 9.6 Tenant vs Namespace

CARING’s warning that a namespace is not automatically a tenant boundary should be adopted as a kernel-wide rule.

Recommended rule:

```text
Namespace MAY support tenant isolation but MUST NOT be treated as a tenant boundary unless effective access, network, identity, secret, storage, policy, and controller behavior support that interpretation.
```

---

# 10. Shared Mechanisms to Extract into Core

These sections currently appear repeatedly in seed standards and should be centralized in Core:

```text
Mapping Model
Assimilation Hooks
Profile Format
Validation Rule Format
Conformance Levels
Repository Placement
Agent Brief Requirements
Canon Interface Card Usage
Artifact Statuses
Concept Statuses
Normative Language
Generated View Rules
Provenance Requirements
```

Domain standards should keep only domain-specific specializations.

Example after refactor:

```text
Instead of every standard defining mapping types,
Core defines mapping types.
A domain standard lists its mapping targets and domain-specific mapping examples.
```

---

# 11. First Kernel Refactoring Checklist

## 11.1 Core Refactor

- [ ] Move generic mapping type list to Core.
- [ ] Move assimilation stage model to Core.
- [ ] Move standard document profile to Core.
- [ ] Move generic conformance levels to Core.
- [ ] Move Canon Interface Card model to Core.
- [ ] Move agent brief model to Core.
- [ ] Move generic lifecycle statuses to Core.
- [ ] Create YAML schemas for core artifact types.

## 11.2 Domain Standards Refactor

For each standard:

- [ ] Declare imports from Core.
- [ ] Declare owned concepts.
- [ ] Remove duplicated generic mechanism prose.
- [ ] Keep domain-specific mapping targets.
- [ ] Keep domain-specific profiles.
- [ ] Keep domain-specific validation rules.
- [ ] Add concept ownership references.
- [ ] Add `agent-brief.md`.
- [ ] Add `concepts/` extraction candidates.
- [ ] Add `mappings/` folder.
- [ ] Add `profiles/` folder.

## 11.3 CARING Refactor

- [ ] Create `InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard.md`.
- [ ] Add namespace `itc-caring`.
- [ ] Create CARING concept ownership table.
- [ ] Map CARING dimensions to InfoTechCanon standards.
- [ ] Convert CARING examples into profiles or example artifacts.
- [ ] Add CARING benchmark corpus.
- [ ] Add CARING analysis output schema.
- [ ] Add CARING access descriptor schema.
- [ ] Add CARING conformance tests.

---

# 12. Recommended Repository Layout

```text
info-tech-canon/
  README.md
  INTENT.md
  SCOPE.md
  canon.yaml

  core/
    InfoTechCanonCore.md
    agent-brief.md
    schemas/
    validation/

  standards/
    information-space/
    landscape/
    organization/
    governance/
    task/
    tagging/
    access-control/
    caring/
    security/
    data/
    devsecops/
    network/
    observability/

  patterns/
    core/
    integration/
    access-governance/
    agentic/
    production-readiness/

  profiles/
    small-saas/
    kubernetes/
    github/
    gitlab/
    netbox/
    opentelemetry/
    caring/

  mappings/
    external/
      archimate/
      csdm/
      skos/
      prov-o/
      dcat/
      nist-csf/
      rbac/
      abac/
      kubernetes/
      github/
      netbox/
      opentelemetry/
      slsa/
      caring/

  assimilation/
    inbox/
    active/
    completed/

  views/
    by-standard.md
    by-concept.md
    by-pattern.md
    by-profile.md
    by-mapping-target.md
    by-status.md
    dependency-graph.md
    kernel-map.md

  agent/
    briefs/
    retrieval-index.md
    common-mistakes.md

  examples/
    small-saas/
    kubernetes/
    agentic-workflow/
    caring-analysis/
```

---

# 13. First Implementation Profiles

## 13.1 Small SaaS Kernel Profile

Purpose:

```text
Minimal profile for a small SaaS platform moving toward production readiness.
```

Included standards:

```text
Core
Information Space
Landscape
Organization
Governance
Task
Tagging
Access Control
CARING
Security
Data
DevSecOps
Network
Observability
```

Primary use cases:

```text
service catalog
repository inventory
runtime inventory
basic governance
task tracking
access governance
security findings
data classification
delivery traceability
observability evidence
```

## 13.2 Kubernetes Production Readiness Profile

Purpose:

```text
Canonical profile for modeling Kubernetes-based production readiness.
```

Included standards:

```text
Landscape
Organization
Governance
Access Control
CARING
Security
Data
DevSecOps
Network
Observability
```

Critical CARING test cases:

```text
namespace not automatically tenant
workload creation induces service-account access
cluster-admin is compound maximum-authority profile
secret access is separate plane/exposure
CI/CD deployer is service/automation subject
```

## 13.3 Agentic Operations Profile

Purpose:

```text
Canonical profile for humans and agents collaborating in operational environments.
```

Included standards:

```text
Organization
Task
Access Control
CARING
Security
DevSecOps
Observability
Governance
```

Critical CARING test cases:

```text
agent capability ceiling
delegated vs induced access
agent output attribution
human supervision reference
tool access boundary
post-action review
```

## 13.4 Markdown Infospace Profile

Purpose:

```text
Canonical profile for the InfoTechCanon repository and related markdown-based infospaces.
```

Included standards:

```text
Core
Information Space
Tagging
Governance
Task
DevSecOps
Observability
```

---

# 14. First Formal Assimilation Candidates

The first formal assimilation candidates should be chosen to test different kernel mechanics.

## 14.1 CARING Assimilation

Reason:

```text
Tests orthogonality, cross-standard import boundaries, specialized standard placement,
access governance, agent access, induced access, and benchmark-driven evolution.
```

Outputs:

```text
CARING concept extraction
CARING-to-InfoTechCanon mapping
CARING access descriptor schema
CARING profile placement
CARING benchmark corpus
Access Control refactor proposals
Governance refactor proposals
Security refactor proposals
```

## 14.2 ServiceNow CSDM Assimilation

Reason:

```text
Tests Landscape, service, operational ownership, CMDB mapping, and external product model mapping.
```

## 14.3 Kubernetes Assimilation

Reason:

```text
Tests Landscape, Access Control, CARING, Security, DevSecOps, Network, Observability.
```

## 14.4 OpenTelemetry Assimilation

Reason:

```text
Tests Observability, Information Space retrieval, resource identity, and evidence mapping.
```

## 14.5 DCAT / PROV-O Assimilation

Reason:

```text
Tests Data, Information Space, provenance, catalog, and retrieval compatibility.
```

---

# 15. CARING as First Benchmark Corpus

CARING explicitly proposes that standards evolve through concrete analysis challenges. This aligns strongly with InfoTechCanon assimilation.

Recommended CARING benchmark folder:

```text
standards/caring/benchmarks/
  lotus-domino-acl/
  kubernetes-rbac/
  github-repository-access/
  aws-iam/
  keycloak/
  linux-sudo/
  cicd-platform-permissions/
  agentic-workflow-permissions/
```

Each benchmark should contain:

```text
native-model-summary.md
native-concepts.yaml
caring-mapping.yaml
access-descriptors.yaml
declared-access-map.md
effective-access-map.md
derived-capabilities.md
induced-access-findings.md
restrictions.md
exposure-events.md
redesign-recommendations.md
open-questions.md
```

---

# 16. Kernel Validation Rules

## 16.1 General

```text
VAL-KERNEL-001: Every standard must declare owned concepts.

VAL-KERNEL-002: Every cross-standard concept use should be either owned, imported, referenced, or mapped.

VAL-KERNEL-003: Every profile must name the standards it implements.

VAL-KERNEL-004: Every mapping must declare target body, target concept, mapping type, scope, confidence, and rationale.

VAL-KERNEL-005: Every standard should have an agent brief.

VAL-KERNEL-006: Every domain standard should import Core.

VAL-KERNEL-007: Generated views must be marked as generated.

VAL-KERNEL-008: Concepts with multiple apparent owners must create a boundary review item.
```

## 16.2 CARING-Specific

```text
VAL-KERNEL-CARING-001: CARINGCanonicalRole must not be treated as Organization Role or AccessRole without mapping.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-002: CARING Plane must not be treated as identical to InfoTechCanon domain.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-003: CARING Scope must map to ResourceScope, Landscape scope, Data scope, or Governance scope explicitly.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-004: CARING ExposureMode must map to Data, Security, Access Control, or Governance semantics where relevant.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-005: CARING DerivedCapability and InducedAccess findings must map to Security and Access Control concepts.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-006: CARING ExposureEvents must map to Governance exception/review and Security/Observability evidence where relevant.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-007: CARING tenant-boundary claims must be checked against Access Control, Network, Security, Data, and Landscape models.

VAL-KERNEL-CARING-008: CARING native role mappings must not assume that native role names mean canonical roles.
```

---

# 17. Known Open Questions

## 17.1 Core

```text
Should Core own Relationship as runtime graph edge, or only RelationshipDefinition?
Should generic Evidence remain in Governance or move to Core?
Should ProvenanceRecord stay in Core while Evidence stays in Governance?
Should CanonInterfaceCard be Core or Information Space?
```

Recommendation:

```text
Core owns ProvenanceRecord and CanonInterfaceCard.
Governance owns Evidence as support for claims, controls, decisions, and assurance.
Information Space owns SourceReference and Citation as knowledge artifacts.
```

## 17.2 Access / CARING

```text
Should DerivedCapability be owned by CARING or Access Control?
Should ExposureMode be CARING-owned or Data/Security-owned?
Should OrganizationRelation be CARING-owned or Organization-owned?
Should Plane be CARING-owned or Core-owned?
```

Recommendation:

```text
CARING owns them as access-governance dimensions.
Other standards map/import as needed.
```

## 17.3 Architecture Gap

A future `InfoTechCanonArchitectureModel` is likely needed.

It should own:

```text
ArchitectureView
ArchitectureDecision
ArchitectureConcern
Viewpoint
Component
Connector
ArchitecturePattern
SystemBoundary
RuntimeView
DeploymentView
```

But some of these are already partially represented in Landscape and Governance. This should wait until after the kernel map is stable.

## 17.4 Pattern Language Gap

A future `InfoTechCanonPatternLanguage` is needed.

It should own the structure and evolution of pattern languages beyond the generic Pattern artifact in Core.

---

# 18. Next Recommended Actions

## 18.1 Immediate

```text
1. Accept this Kernel Map as the first integration artifact.
2. Create the `standards/caring/` folder.
3. Convert uploaded CARING into `InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard.md`.
4. Add `itc-caring` namespace.
5. Create `caring-mapping-to-kernel.md`.
6. Create `kernel-concept-ownership.yaml`.
```

## 18.2 Refactor Pass

```text
1. Refactor InfoTechCanonLandscapeModel to import Core.
2. Refactor InfoTechCanonAccessControlModel to import CARING concepts where appropriate.
3. Refactor InfoTechCanonGovernanceModel to include exposure-event governance hooks.
4. Refactor InfoTechCanonSecurityModel to include induced-access findings.
5. Refactor InfoTechCanonDataModel to include exposure-mode mappings.
```

## 18.3 First Implementation

```text
1. Create Small SaaS Kernel Profile.
2. Create Kubernetes Production Readiness Profile.
3. Create Agentic Operations Profile.
4. Use CARING to analyze Kubernetes RBAC as first benchmark.
```

---

# 19. Summary

The first-generation InfoTechCanon kernel is now broad enough to support consolidation.

The current standards cover:

```text
canon machinery
knowledge space
landscape
organization
governance
work
tagging
access control
security
data
delivery
network
observability
```

The uploaded CARING standard fits best as a specialized access-governance standard:

```text
InfoTechCanonCaringAccessGovernanceStandard
```

It should not be flattened into Access Control, because its orthogonal descriptor model crosses Organization, Governance, Access Control, Security, Data, DevSecOps, Network, Observability, Task, and Tagging.

CARING is especially valuable because it provides:

```text
orthogonal access dimensions
canonical lifecycle roles
declared vs effective access distinction
derived capability analysis
induced access analysis
tenant-boundary analysis
exposure modes
exposure events
analysis and redesign procedures
benchmark-driven evolution
```

This makes CARING an excellent first formal assimilation and benchmark corpus for testing whether InfoTechCanon can integrate a rich, user-originated standard without losing orthogonality.