03 — GOV-COUNCIL Policy Ownership Status (Q3)

Verdict: GOV_COUNCIL_NEEDS_CAPABILITY_PATCH — Council is active and is the correct cross-system assignor/tie-break authority today (Đ37 §4.12(d) + the tier_registry→GOV-COUNCIL G1 precedent). It can own/assign classification & grouping policy now (Đ24/Đ29 exist). But threshold, phantom, and global-pin policy have no law clause, so Council cannot "own" policy objects that do not yet legally exist — those need law patches (P1/P2/P-PIN) before assignment.

Live evidence

1–2. Exists / active. governance_registry: code = GOV-COUNCIL, name = "Hội đồng Kiến trúc", gov_type = council, status = active, domain = governance, created_by_law = NRM-LAW-37 (Đ37), capability = NULL.

3. Cross-system policy / tie-break authority. Recorded relationally:

• governance_relations id 4: GOV-COUNCIL --owner--> NRM-LAW-37 (Đ37, Governance Organization). id 5: GOV-COUNCIL --approver_tbox--> NRM-LAW-39 (KG).
• law_jurisdiction: Đ37 = primary on domain governance; Đ32 (approval) = secondary on governance.
• law_dot_enforcement Đ37 = 9 DOTs (2 auditor / 7 executor) incl. the DOT-GOV-VERIFY/DISCOVERY family.
• Enacted Đ37 §4.12(d) (read from KB): "hòa → Hội đồng quyết + ghi biên bản vào governance_audit_log" — Council is the assignor of last resort for cross-cutting ownership, and the decision must be minuted to governance_audit_log. Precedent G1: tier_registry → GOV-COUNCIL (Council can hold a registry directly when no Mother fits).

4. Does Đ37 §4.12 / live capability support these policies?

Policy	Law home exists?	Council can own/assign today?
classification policy	Yes — Đ24 primary + Đ29 secondary on domain classification (both active)	Yes — assignable via §4.12(d) minute + governance_relations owner edge (approval-gated)
grouping policy	folds into classification (Đ24/Đ29)	Yes (same as above; no separate law needed)
threshold policy (ungrouped ceiling / "50")	No — no law, no threshold domain	No — needs law clause P2 (Đ24/Đ29 §new) first
phantom definition	No — LAW_DEFINITION_GAP	No — needs P1 (Đ31 §new, source_model-aware) first
global pin policy	No — no law, no pin domain	No — needs P-PIN (host law TBD) first

Council's capability JSON is NULL: it has no enumerated object-creation capability like the mothers. Its power is deliberative/assignor (Đ37 §4.12(d)), which is sufficient to assign ownership and to enact law clauses via council_review, but it does not by itself make threshold/phantom/pin into governed objects — the law clauses must exist first.

5. What patch is needed?

• Procedural (available now, no law change): a Council §4.12(d) ownership decision attaching the classification domain (and, for health, the pivot domain to GOV-SIV) to an agency, minuted to governance_audit_log (which is currently dormant — see doc 05). This is the assignor authority working as designed.
• Law clauses (council_review, doc_level 1–2): P2 (threshold ceiling, Đ24/Đ29), P1 (phantom, Đ31), P-PIN (pin/personalization). Until enacted, Council cannot own these policies — there is nothing to own.
• Note on enactment mechanics (see doc 06): the APR action types amend_law/enact_nrm are RESERVED with handler_ref = unimplemented; the live attempts to enact laws via APR (approval_requests id 204–210, "S178-Fix18 enact NRM-LAW-…") are all status = rejected. So Council law-clause enactment proceeds via council_review + manual/ADMIN-fallback enact into normative_registry, not via the APR execution handler.

Bottom line

Council's assignor authority is READY now and is the correct mechanism to end the classification/pivot agency-orphan condition. The "capability patch" it needs is not to Council itself but to the law corpus: threshold/phantom/pin must be enacted (P1/P2/P-PIN) before Council can own them. classification/grouping policy is assignable immediately.