FIX7 Owner Authorization Scope Analysis (Self-Codex)

• Date: 2026-06-10 · Authority of THIS doc: provisional-non-authority self-audit. T1 analyzes the recorded owner authorization scope; T1 does NOT expand it, infer beyond it, or approve anything.

1. The authorization on record

OWNER_AUTHORIZATION_FIX7_AUTHORITY_CLOSURE_AND_SEAL_ONLY_2026_06_10 authorizes exactly six acts (owner-decision-packet §3):

1. prepare the closure packet;
2. assemble N7 inputs;
3. prepare the N8 request;
4. prepare the P7 request;
5. route to Codex/authority for a seal decision;
6. prepare the next implementation macro after a Codex/authority pass.

It explicitly does NOT permit: production mutation · REAL_RUN · QT001 · permit/activation/repoint/cutover · registries-pivot · auto-birth repair · implementation before seal · T1 self-approval · fabricated seals.

2. The three scope questions (macro §1.E)

Question	Answer	Why
Is owner authorization sufficient for Codex seal review?	YES	Act (5) authorizes routing the packet to Codex for the seal decision. Codex may receive, read, and adjudicate the packet now.
Is owner authorization sufficient for Codex to actually author N7/N8/P7?	NO	The seal needs approval-event inputs A2 (approver identity) + A5 (owner blueprint decision), which only the owner supplies, and an owner choice of option 2+ in owner-decision-packet.md. The current authorization covers prepare + route, not the seal act itself. This is exactly blocker OWN-1 (partially lifted).
Is owner authorization sufficient for implementation?	NO	Implementation requires owner option 4 (or explicit equivalent) AND a completed seal. Precondition checklist rows 1–2 are hard gates.

3. Name-vs-body reconciliation (clarity observation, NON-BLOCKING)

The authorization is named …_AND_SEAL_ONLY. Read literally, "AND SEAL" could be misread as "the seal is pre-authorized." The packet body resolves this correctly and consistently:

• "SEAL_ONLY" scopes the lane to the seal step (as opposed to implementation), it does not pre-grant the seal.
• N7 envelope §6 marks A5 (owner blueprint decision) as MISSING_AUTHORITY_INPUT.
• owner-decision-packet §4 presents the seal as a choice the owner has not yet made (Option 1 = keep do-not-approve; Option 2 = authorize the seal).
• The blocker ledger keeps OWN-1 OPEN.

Conclusion: the body is internally precise; the name is a scope label, not a pre-grant. No packet edit is required. No owner re-statement is required — the owner's current authorization is unambiguous, and the next owner decision is a well-specified open blocker (OWN-1), not a hidden ambiguity. Therefore this lane does NOT trigger NEEDS_OWNER_INPUT.

4. What remains locked (unchanged by any analysis here)

No production mutation · no PG/Directus/registry/system_issues mutation · no REAL_RUN · no QT001 apply · no permit · no activation · no repoint · no cutover · no registries-pivot · no auto-birth repair · no T1 self-approval · no fabricated N7/N8/P7 seal · no blueprint approval · no implementation before seal.

5. Owner authorization verdict

CLEAR and SUFFICIENT for the current step (Codex seal review/routing); INSUFFICIENT for sealing and for implementation, by the owner's own design. The remaining owner action is a known, fully-specified decision (pick an option in owner-decision-packet.md and, for Option 2+, supply approval-event inputs A2/A5). No ambiguity blocks Codex review.