AUTHORITY CONTEXT
MAY CROSS.
EXECUTION AUTHORITY
MUST BE ESTABLISHED LOCALLY.
AFA governs the seam between independently governed domains. It permits bounded authority context to travel while preserving a hard architectural barrier before local consequence.
LINKED ✓ → CONNECTED ✓ → EXECUTE ?
Same building object. Governed connection. One proposed consequence. The Connection Profile gets the request to the boundary. From there, the public question is simply TA-14.
What do you want to understand next?
You already know the main idea. A connection can be completely legitimate and the proposed action can still be stopped. Pick how deep you want to go.
PLAY FIRST. UNDERSTAND SECOND. INSPECT THE ARCHITECTURE THIRD.
Understand federation before you move the Passport.
AFA is about crossing between independently governed domains without pretending that context, trust, identity, or acceptance automatically becomes local permission to act.
Move the Passport. Watch where authority stops.
Domain A possesses bounded authority context. Nothing here grants Domain B permission to act.
The receiver keeps the right to refuse.
Receiver accepts only a provably narrower authority context.
EXECUTION AUTHORITY: NOT ESTABLISHED BY FEDERATIONThese objects cannot ride the Passport.
Successful transport, identity, trust, compatibility, receipt or acceptance never imply the receiving domain's protected consequence authority.
Attack the seam, not just the happy path.
Cryptographic validity does not establish present-tense freshness.
Federation does not compound authority.
If B accepts narrowed authority from A, B may re-present only a provably preserved or narrower descendant to C. C must make its own ReceivingDetermination. B's receipt is not proof that B possessed execution authority, and neither acceptance grants C permission to act.
Four ways to see what TA-14 is actually doing.
You do not need to know the acronyms to understand the architecture. Think of TA-14 like a careful gatekeeper: it needs rules, a specific handoff, tests for what can go wrong, and an honest record of what has actually been proven.
What can we honestly say works today?
This showroom demonstrates the boundary logic, receiving decisions, changed-condition behavior, failure cases, and receipts. A harness has been implemented. It does not claim completed external CNS/CP registry publication, proven live interoperability with an outside system, TA14_RECOGNIZED implementation, transfer of execution authority, or completed Node/CI runtime evidence.
WHY THIS MATTERS: A governance architecture should not claim more evidence than it has. The status card is part of the architecture, not fine print.
The connection got the request here.
Now what?
The Connection Profile tells us the connection is legitimate and what may cross it. TA-14 does not redo that work. TA-14 asks the next question: may this exact consequence become reality now?
The Connection Profile governs the relationship. TA-14 governs the consequence.
A good connection can still lead to HOLD. That does not mean the connection failed. It means TA-14 found that something required for this consequence is not established now.
“You told me the Connection Profile was the seam. I built the seam.”
Then we separated the seam from the architecture, made AFA protocol-neutral, and defined exactly why authority context can cross while execution authority must still be established locally. AFA-IP-001 v0.3 is now the bounded examination object for that proposition.