# CLARIFY — v1.25 kyverno-json Unified Policy Engine > **Autonomy:** full. Ambiguities are auto-resolved with assumption logging > per `config.json autonomy.level: "full"` and > `autonomy.decision_confidence_threshold: 0.6`. No human escalation. ## Ambiguities Identified ### A1 — kyverno-json install path (pip / go install / pinned binary release) **Ambiguity:** kyverno-json is a Go project, not a Python package. Three install paths exist: (a) `pip install` — not possible (no PyPI package); (b) `go install github.com/kyverno/kyverno-json/cmd/kj@latest` — requires Go toolchain in the CI image; (c) download a pinned binary release from GitHub releases — no Go toolchain needed, but release artifacts are platform-specific and must be checksummed. **Resolution (auto, confidence 0.85):** `go install` (option b). A `scripts/install-kyverno-json.sh` helper runs `go install github.com/kyverno/kyverno-json/cmd/kj@latest` and prints `kj version`. The CI image (`.github/workflows/ci.yml` + `.gitea/workflows/ci.yml`) installs Go + kj when `config.json.policy.engine == "kyverno-json"`; the install is cached via the existing Go module cache. Rationale: `go install` is the upstream- blessed path, tracks the latest stable release, avoids per-platform binary management, and the project already accepts Go-based tooling (checkov pulls Go-built transitive deps via pip). When `which kj` is absent, `KyvernoJsonEngine.is_configured()` returns false → `SKIPPED` PCR (mirrors the Wiz adapter pattern) — the platform functions without the binary. Captured in REQ-293, REQ-294. Decision ID: D-115. ### A2 — `engine` enum value: new `"kyverno-json"` vs reuse `"kyverno"` **Ambiguity:** `schemas/policy_check_result.schema.json` already lists `engine: ["checkov", "kyverno", "opa", "wiz"]`. kyverno-json is a distinct runtime from the K8s Kyverno admission controller, but both are "Kyverno." Two options: (a) add a new `"kyverno-json"` enum value — requires schema change + checkov/wiz adapter test regression check; (b) reuse `"kyverno"` and distinguish by `ruleId` prefix. **Resolution (auto, confidence 0.80):** Reuse `"kyverno"` (option b). Adding `"kyverno-json"` would force a schema change + a test sweep for no semantic gain — the `engine` field records the policy engine family, not the specific binary. kyverno-json PCR records carry `engine: "kyverno"` and `ruleId` prefixed `KJ_` (e.g. `KJ_REQUIRE_TAGGING_STANDARD`), while the K8s adapter uses `KYVERNO_` prefixes (e.g. `KYVERNO_INACTIVE_TF_STACK`). The two are distinguishable in audit/telemetry by `ruleId` prefix and `evidence` payload shape (the K8s adapter's evidence has `namespace`/`kind`; kyverno-json's has `assertion`/`jmespath`). No schema change. Captured in REQ-293. Decision ID: D-116. ### A3 — Do checkov/wiz adapters change their signatures to feed kyverno-json? **Ambiguity:** The unified-orchestrator model places kyverno-json "on top of" checkov/wiz. Two interpretations: (a) checkov/wiz now emit a "raw findings" intermediate (not PCR) that kyverno-json meta-policies consume — requires changing `adapt() -> list[PolicyCheckResult]` to `adapt() -> list[RawFinding]`; (b) checkov/wiz keep emitting PCRs as today, and the meta-policies in `adapters/kyverno-json/policies/meta/` consume the **merged** PCR list as their payload. **Resolution (auto, confidence 0.90):** Option (b). The existing `adapt() -> list[PolicyCheckResult]` signatures are unchanged. The meta-policies consume the merged PCR list (checkov + wiz + kyverno-json plan-JSON policies) as their input payload. This preserves the `PolicyCheckResult` schema as the single inter-adapter contract (ARCHITECTURE.md §12.6), avoids a new "RawFinding" type, and means the existing checkov/wiz adapter tests pass unchanged. The meta-policy `block-on-any-critical.json` iterates the merged list; the `tagging-rules-agree.json` meta-policy cross-checks the Checkov `NOVA_TAG_NAMING` result against the kyverno-json `KJ_REQUIRE_TAGGING_STANDARD` result by `resourceRef`. Captured in REQ-303, D-117. Decision ID: D-117. ### A4 — `NOVA_TAG_NAMING` Checkov rule: rewrite as kyverno-json policy, keep, or both? **Ambiguity:** The Checkov custom rule `adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/nova_tagging.py` enforces the Nova tagging standard over Terraform HCL (static scan + plan scan). The kyverno-json milestone adds `require-tagging-standard.json` over the resolved Stack IR. Three options: (a) rewrite — replace the Checkov rule with the kyverno-json policy (loses Checkov's HCL-level coverage and the `--external-checks-dir` integration); (b) keep Checkov only — don't add a kyverno-json policy (the Stack IR is already the input to terraform, so the Checkov rule catches it); (c) both — keep the Checkov rule as the source of truth for HCL-level scanning AND add the kyverno-json policy for IR-level coverage, with a meta-policy that asserts the two agree. **Resolution (auto, confidence 0.82):** Option (c) — both, with a cross-check meta-policy. The Checkov rule stays the source of truth for `terraform_plan` scanning (it reads HCL resource blocks directly); the kyverno-json policy covers the Stack IR dict (which is the input *before* terraform, so it catches IR-level violations that the terraform adapter might mask via defaults). The P3 meta-policy `tagging-rules-agree.json` asserts the two engines agree on every resource; divergence emits an `error` PCR (defense-in-depth against rule drift — if the two engines disagree, the operator must investigate before proceeding). This is the only case in v1.25 where two engines evaluate the same concern; it is intentional — the tagging standard is the highest-impact rule (v1.8 D-tagging-standard, v1.10 re-verification) and merits redundancy. Captured in REQ-297, REQ-303, REQ-299. Decision ID: D-118. ### A5 — Critical-override: delegate to declarative meta-policy or keep hard-override? **Ambiguity:** `core/confidence_signal.py` lines 144-157 hardcode `PENALTY["critical"]: None` — a critical-severity `fail` PCR forces `score = 0, band = block` regardless of the weighted-sum inputs. The v1.25 meta-policy `block-on-any-critical.json` makes this declarative (asserts no PCR in the merged list has `severity: critical` + `result: fail`). Two options: (a) fully delegate — remove the hard-override, rely on the meta-policy to emit a critical `fail` PCR that the existing penalty logic then blocks; (b) keep both — the meta-policy is the declarative source of truth, the hard-override is defense-in-depth. **Resolution (auto, confidence 0.88):** Option (b) — keep both. The meta-policy is the *declarative* statement ("Nova blocks on any critical finding from any engine"); the hard-override is the *imperative* safety net that ensures a critical PCR can never slip through even if the meta-policy is misconfigured or the `PolicyEngineRegistry` returns a `NullEngine`. This is defense-in-depth, not redundancy-for-its-own-sake: the meta-policy runs *before* the confidence signal (it produces PCRs that flow in), the hard-override runs *inside* the confidence signal (it is the last gate). Removing the hard-override would make the platform's "critical = block" guarantee depend on a single declarative policy file — a regression in the provable-trust posture (Strategic Objective #2). Captured in REQ-303, PROJECT.md hard-constraints. Decision ID: D-119. ### A6 — Does kyverno-json break the "platform functions without AI" tenet? **Ambiguity:** NORTH_STAR.md Strategic Objective #2: "the platform functions without AI — 'AI decisions' are really automated decisions." kyverno-json is a deterministic policy engine (no ML), but it is a new runtime dependency. Does adding it violate the tenet? **Resolution (auto, confidence 0.95):** No — kyverno-json is deterministic, not AI. The tenet distinguishes "AI decisions" (LLM- driven, non-reproducible) from "automated decisions" (rule-driven, reproducible). kyverno-json is the latter — the same policy + payload produces the same result on every run. It is *more* aligned with the tenet than the current imperative Python in `core/env_transition.py` and `core/regression_verify.py`, because the policy is declarative (visible, auditable, version-controlled) rather than imperative (logic hidden in function bodies). The `is_configured()` guard ensures the platform functions without the binary (graceful skip), so the tenet holds even in environments where kyverno-json is not installed. Captured in PROJECT.md hard-constraints + RESEARCH.md G-Q1. Decision ID: D-120. ## Summary 6 ambiguities identified; 6 auto-resolved at full autonomy (no human escalation). All resolutions are binding and recorded as D-115..D-120. The resolutions are captured in PROJECT.md hard-constraints, REQUIREMENTS.md v1.25 sections, and will be referenced in RESEARCH.md + PLAN.md. No PROJECT.md or REQUIREMENTS.md structural changes beyond the v1.25 sections added in SPECIFY — the resolutions are already embedded in the requirement text (REQ-293, REQ-297, REQ-303, etc.) via the "Decision" annotations.