26 — OP-B IU Owner Decision Packet (C-3 + C-4)

Path: knowledge/dev/reports/architecture/one-roof-governance-technical-addendum-and-implementation-index-2026-06-01/ Doc: 26. Track: T2 / Branch D. Builds on doc 12 (IU integration scaffold), concept canon 02 §3 (IU first-class + OP-B HELD), doc 03 §3.2/§3.3 (C-3/C-4 defaults), the IU live-audit & master roadmap (prior report). Status: DECISION PACKET ONLY. It does NOT assign any owner, write governance_registry, create any approval, bind any IU, enact law, or mutate PG/Directus/Qdrant/Nuxt. It frames the council ruling (C-3) and the adapter ruling (C-4) and shows what the ruling would unlock. Binding is a separate human/sovereign step (H-2). Why decision-only: owner assignment is authority-critical (it sets accountability for an entire first-class domain). Per the concept canon and doc 03, an agent may propose the owner model; only COUNCIL may rule it and only the sovereign (H-2) may ratify it into the live registry. No self-approval. Evidence base: doc 18 + the prior IU live-audit + re-verified read-only 2026-06-01 (§1).

1. Current IU island evidence (re-verified read-only, 2026-06-01)

Fact	Value	Meaning
`information_unit` rows	219	the IU population
`conformance_status='open'`	219 / 219 (ALL)	not one IU is conformance-closed → no accountable owner has ever signed off
`owner_ref`	free-text, NOT FK; 21 distinct values	ungoverned ownership strings
`owner_ref` values matching a `governance_registry.code`	0	none of the 21 owners is a real governed agency → IU ownership is entirely outside the roof
`GOV-IU` agency in `governance_registry`	absent (9 rows: 5 active + 4 draft mothers; no IU)	no dedicated IU owner exists
`dot_iu_command_catalog`	54 commands	a parallel IU command catalog…
IU-named rows in central `dot_tools` (309)	2	…vs 2 in the central DOT registry → the IU command surface is an island
`unit_kind` distinct	2 of 9 designed	IU model only partially populated
`iu_three_axis_envelope`	216 rows, 3 hardcoded axis families (`axis_a_`/`axis_b_`/`axis_c_*`)	the SB-3 substrate constraint

Conclusion: the IU domain is a local governance island — it has its own ungoverned owner strings (0 governed), its own 54-command catalog separate from the central dot_tools, and 219/219 conformance perpetually open. This is exactly the anti-pattern Điều 37 forbids (one roof; no second governance roof). OP-B is the decision that folds IU under the central roof.

2. The decision questions

C-3 / OP-B: Who is the accountable owner of the IU (Information Unit) family — per responsibility scope — under the One-Roof model?
C-4: Does IU's internal review_decision count as a governed approval-adapter exception (M-DEF-6), or must every IU approval route through the central Điều 32 spine?

3. Candidate owner models for IU

Model	Description	Pros	Cons
A — New dedicated `GOV-IU` agency	Mint a single new agency owning all six IU scopes.	One clear steward; simplest mental model.	Creates a new agency (more governance surface); risks re-creating an IU island under a friendlier name; concentrates unrelated scopes (render≠health≠law) in one owner; contradicts the federated, reuse-first roof.
B — Federated owner-per-scope (no new agency) ★ recommended	Assign each IU responsibility scope to an existing Mother under the one roof, via `governance_object_ownership` rows with `object_type` = IU class.	No new agency; reuses the federation already live; each scope owned by the agency that already owns that capability system-wide; dissolves the island without a parallel roof.	Requires several owner rows (one per scope); render scope needs an interim TTL delegation while GOV-MOUT is draft (C-5).
C — Hybrid (federated now, GOV-IU later if warranted)	Adopt B now; revisit a dedicated GOV-IU steward only if IU volume/complexity later justifies it (a future, separately-ruled decision).	Keeps options open; no premature agency.	Defers a possible future re-org; acceptable because B is fully sufficient today.

4. Recommended default — Model B (federated owner-per-scope), with Model C as the long-run posture

Adopt the doc 03 §3.3 default, expressed as governance_object_ownership rows (object_type = the IU class, e.g. information_unit / specific unit_kind), one accountable owner per scope (M-DEF-3):

IU scope	Recommended accountable owner	Rationale
policy	GOV-COUNCIL	what IU classes exist, conformance rules, the IU law posture
health / integrity	GOV-SIV (Điều 31)	the non-exemptable IU invariants — reconstruction, relation-integrity, vector-consistency, coverage
substrate / knowledge-graph	GOV-KG-SYS (`kg` domain)	the IU lives in the knowledge graph; co-owner of substrate health with SIV
execution	GOV-DOT (Điều 35)	the IU operations (cut / supersede / retire) — the 54-command catalog folds into GOV-DOT's governed DOT surface
render	GOV-MOUT (Điều 28) — interim TTL delegation from GOV-COUNCIL	MOUT is `draft` (C-5); COUNCIL delegates render under a time-boxed `delegate_authority` until MOUT activates
law	GOV-NRM-SYS (Điều 38)	the IU law family (Điều 44 draft / Điều 38)
approval / audit	central Điều 32 + GOV-SIV	IU changes route through the central approval spine + SIV audit (no IU-local approver)

This mints no new agency. Every IU scope is owned by an agency that already owns that capability system-wide. The 54-command IU catalog is reconciled into GOV-DOT's dot_tools (execution scope); the free-text owner_ref is replaced by the resolved owner via SB-2's v_object_effective_owner.

4.1 C-4 recommended default

Record IU's internal review_decision as a governed approval-adapter exception (M-DEF-6, 11 fields) with a replacement_plan to migrate IU approvals to full Điều 32 over time — rather than declaring it a permanent parallel approval path. This keeps IU's existing review flow working under a registered, time-boxed, owned exception while the migration to the central spine is planned, instead of blessing a second approval roof.

5. Why no local IU governance (no second roof)

The concept canon states it directly: "IU reuses the central roof and must NOT maintain a governance island" (doc 02 §3). The live evidence (§1) shows the island already exists (0 governed owners, 54-command island catalog, 219 perpetually-open conformance).
Model B dissolves the island by binding IU into the same substrate every other governed object uses: governance_object_ownership (SB-2) for ownership, the Điều 32 spine for approval, GOV-SIV for health, GOV-DOT for execution, event_outbox/registry_changelog for events/audit. No IU-local owner table, no IU-local approver, no IU-local event bus.
A dedicated GOV-IU (Model A) is rejected as the default precisely because it risks re-instituting the island with official sanction; the federated model keeps IU under the roof, not beside it.

6. Relation to GOV-COUNCIL / GOV-SIV / GOV-DOT / GOV-MOUT (the four Mothers)

The four Mothers are the federated owners under one roof (policy→COUNCIL, health→SIV, execution→DOT, render→MOUT). Under Model B:

GOV-COUNCIL — owns IU policy (and is the delegator for render until MOUT activates).
GOV-SIV — owns IU health/integrity and is the detector (the T6 scanner / T7 findings treat IU classes as governed objects like any other).
GOV-DOT — owns IU execution; the 54-command catalog becomes governed DOTs in dot_tools.
GOV-MOUT — owns IU render (interim COUNCIL TTL delegation; activation is end-state, C-5).

None of the four currently owns IU (that is OP-B, unassigned); none may self-mint IU ownership — it is assigned by COUNCIL (C-3) and ratified by the sovereign (H-2). GOV-KG-SYS and GOV-NRM-SYS (system agencies, already active) take the substrate and law scopes respectively.

7. What the owner decision UNLOCKS

IU owner-binding into governance_object_ownership (once C-3 ruled and H-2 ratifies): each IU scope gets an accountable owner row; information_unit.owner_ref free-text is superseded by the resolved owner via SB-2.
T5 (SB-3 generic IU axis substrate design) — OP-B is its explicit prerequisite (doc 04). With the owner decided, SB-3 can be designed.
T10 (IU integration design) — binds IU coverage/owner/axis under the decided owner-per-scope.
Conformance closure path — closing conformance_status on the 219 IUs requires an accountable owner to sign off; OP-B provides that owner (still gated on production review_decision + C-4).
Axis ownership of the 3 existing IU axes — via assign_axis_owner (SB-1) + governance_object_ownership rows with object_type='axis' (SB-2). This is decoupled from SB-3 (owning an axis ≠ generalizing the axis-value store).

8. What remains BLOCKED by SB-3 (even after the owner is decided)

Open-axis at the IU substrate. iu_three_axis_envelope hardcodes exactly 3 axes (216 rows). Owning the 3 existing IU axes does not need SB-3, but adding a 4th+ IU axis as data (not DDL) still requires SB-3: the Axis Registry as ground truth, a generic iu_axis_value(unit_id, axis_code, value, …) store, and the envelope demoted to a hot-cache projection. Concept-true now; IU-substrate-true only after SB-3.
IU axis-value storage generalization (T5) — design-allowed only after OP-B; build NO-GO.
So OP-B unlocks IU ownership + ownership of existing axes; SB-3 still gates IU open-axis substrate.

Also still blocked after C-3 alone: live binding (needs H-2 sovereign ratification; os_proposal_approvals=0 ⇒ COMMIT_FORBIDDEN), IU surface/owner-binding build (needs C-4 too), and the SB-1/SB-2 substrate itself (the rows land in governance_object_ownership, which needs C-1+C-2 built first).

9. Exact decision wording (copy-paste minutes)

C-3 / OP-B — to RULE (recommended Model B):

"COUNCIL ruling C-3 / OP-B (date ____): The IU (Information Unit) family is governed under the One-Roof model by FEDERATED owner-per-scope, with NO new GOV-IU agency: policy→GOV-COUNCIL; health/integrity→GOV-SIV; substrate/knowledge-graph→GOV-KG-SYS; execution→GOV-DOT; render→GOV-MOUT under an interim time-boxed delegation from GOV-COUNCIL (C-5); law→GOV-NRM-SYS; approval/audit via central Điều 32 + GOV-SIV. The 54-command IU catalog reconciles into GOV-DOT's governed DOT surface. This ruling is a council position; it does NOT bind ownership into governance_registry/governance_object_ownership (that requires the SB-1/SB-2 substrate built and sovereign ratification H-2), creates no approval, and assigns no live owner."

C-4 — to RULE (recommended adapter):

"COUNCIL ruling C-4 (date ____): IU's internal review_decision is recorded as a governed approval-adapter EXCEPTION (M-DEF-6, 11 fields, with a replacement_plan to migrate IU approvals to full Điều 32). It is NOT a permanent parallel approval path. This is a council position; it binds nothing and creates no approval."

To REJECT / AMEND (either):

"COUNCIL ruling C-3/C-4 (date ____): [REJECTED / AMENDED: ____]. Reason: ____. OP-B remains OPEN; IU owner-binding, T5 (SB-3), and T10 stay blocked."

No binding statement: this packet records no owner and creates no approval. A ruling exists only when minuted by COUNCIL; live binding exists only when the sovereign ratifies it (H-2) through the proper enact/approval path and the SB-1/SB-2 substrate is live. No agent may self-approve.

10. Verdict

OP-B IU owner decision packet: COMPLETE (Branch D). It presents the IU island evidence (re-verified: 0 governed owners, 54-command island, 219/219 open), three candidate owner models, a recommended default (federated owner-per-scope, no new agency, with adapter C-4), the no-local-island rationale, the relation to the four Mothers, the unlock map, what SB-3 still blocks, and copy-paste council/adapter wording. No owner assigned, no approval created, no mutation. Unblocks (when ruled + H-2): T5 (SB-3 design) and T10 (IU integration). Next: doc 27 (auto-approve hardening), doc 28 (readiness).