diff --git a/docs/work-context.md b/docs/work-context.md
index 283586bc..1400a50c 100644
--- a/docs/work-context.md
+++ b/docs/work-context.md
@@ -117,15 +117,18 @@ because the unknown-field refusal that used to reject the whole token no longer
 fires. Until such a reader compares owners it must refuse, or grant nothing
 from, any scope with a non-empty `resource_owner_id`, and an issuer must not
 mint an owner-selected scope to its audience. The readers known to inspect
-scopes directly, read at each repository's main on 2026-10-25 (reviews r109
-and r128). It is the list known so far, not a proof that no other exists:
+scopes directly, read at each repository's main on 2026-10-25 (reviews r109,
+r128 and r142; the authority at d091cc7a). It is the list known so far, not a
+proof that no other exists. The first three rows are owner-aware at authority
+main since #18 (f688c549); a consumer pinned before that commit still has the
+owner-blind version:
 
 | Reader | Where | Owner-blind because |
 | --- | --- | --- |
-| authority hop library (Go) | `libraries/hop/go/hop.go` (`flatten`) | stamps `kind:action` for every scope without ids, so `Identity.Has` widens; authority #18 (open) skips owner-selected scopes |
-| authority client (Python) | `authority_client/work_context.py` (`Scope`, `scope_contained`) | the `Scope` tuple drops the owner and containment ignores it; authority #18 (open) keeps the owner |
-| authority hop (Python) | `codefly_hop` (`_flatten`) | same flattening as the Go hop; changed in authority #18 (open) |
-| authority gateway issuer | `modules/authority/services/gateway/code/pkg/business/issuer/issuer.go:98-118`, `state.go:1156` | a held scope with no ids sets `whole`, which returns every grant (or the human owner's) for the kind |
+| authority hop library (Go) | `libraries/hop/go/hop.go:183` (`flatten`) | owner-aware since f688c549: skips an owner-selected scope, so `Identity.Has` never reads it as the whole kind. Before it, stamped `kind:action` for every scope without ids |
+| authority client (Python) | `authority_client/work_context.py:113` (`Scope`), `:218` (`scope_contained`) | owner-aware since f688c549: `Scope` keeps `resource_owner_id` and containment compares it. Before it, the tuple dropped the owner |
+| authority hop (Python) | `codefly_hop/__init__.py:232` (`_flatten`) | owner-aware since f688c549: skips an owner-selected scope, as the Go hop does |
+| authority issuer, `ListResources` | `modules/authority/services/local/code/pkg/business/issuer/issuer.go:88-126` (`whole` at `:103-104`), `state.go:1346` (`coverageOf`, whole kind at `:1359`) | owner-blind: a held scope with no ids sets `whole`, which returns every grant (or the human owner's) for the kind. Unreachable with an owner-selected scope while the issuer mints none (below) |
 | module-annotations | `pkg/infra/workcontext/authority.go` | reads kind, actions and ids field by field |
 | module-evaluation | `identity.go` | reads kind, actions and ids field by field |
 | module-record-store | `adapters/operations.go` | reads kind, actions and ids field by field |
@@ -136,12 +139,13 @@ and r128). It is the list known so far, not a proof that no other exists:
 | cli execution recorder | `pkg/executionrecorder/work_context_authority.go` | reads kind, actions and ids field by field |
 
 The authority's `Claims.Allows` builds on `ScopeContained` and fails closed,
-but its issuers do not use it: the gateway issuer above reads scopes itself.
-Authority #18 (open, not merged when this was written) makes the local issuer
-refuse, by name, an issue request or a delegation whose scopes name a resource
-owner ("this authority issues no owner-selected scope yet"). That refusal
-covers what the local issuer is asked to mint; it does not make the gateway
-issuer's resource-grant path owner-aware.
+but its issuer does not use it. The authority has one service, `local`, and
+one `Issuer`. Since #18 (f688c549) its `Issue` (`issuer.go:205`) and
+`Delegate` (`:662`) refuse, by name, scopes that name a resource owner
+(`refuseOwners`, `:750`: "this authority issues no owner-selected scope
+yet"). Its `ListResources` still reads scopes itself and is owner-blind; it
+can meet an owner-selected scope only once the issuer mints one, so it must be
+made owner-aware before that.
 
 Runnable operations never carry an owner: not in the owner's declaration, not
 in an installation's binding, not in a composition's scope-slot selection —
@@ -152,9 +156,11 @@ through `workcontext.InheritResourceOwner(requested, parent.EffectiveScopes())`
 and mints the child with the result: a scope the parent covers as written is
 kept, one the parent covers only under an owner gets that owner, and it is
 refused — never guessed — when no owner covers it, when several do (mint one
-child per owner), when only several owners' rows together cover it (split it
-by owner; the refusal says so rather than "not covered"), or when the scope
-already names another owner. An inherited owner applies to the whole scope:
+child per owner), when only several owners' rows together cover it (the
+refusal says so rather than "not covered", and advises one invocation per
+owner only when the owners split it by resource; when they split its actions
+no child can hold the whole scope, and the parent must hold it under one
+owner), or when the scope already names another owner. An inherited owner applies to the whole scope:
 under the parent `[doc:read, doc:write@P]` the operation scope
 `doc:{read,write}` becomes `doc:{read,write}@P`, so the child reads only P's
 documents although the parent reads all of them. That is intended and fails
diff --git a/workcontext/owner_test.go b/workcontext/owner_test.go
index f9cbfc25..47d14cac 100644
--- a/workcontext/owner_test.go
+++ b/workcontext/owner_test.go
@@ -224,12 +224,19 @@ func TestInheritResourceOwner(t *testing.T) {
 		"ids covered only by two owners together": {
 			requested: rows(scope("doc", []string{"read"}, []string{"a", "b"})),
 			parent:    rows(owned("doc", []string{"read"}, []string{"a"}, "P"), owned("doc", []string{"read"}, []string{"b"}, "Q")),
-			refusal:   `owner-scoped parent: scope "doc" is covered only across resource owners ["P" "Q"] together`,
+			refusal:   `owner-scoped parent: scope "doc" is covered only across resource owners ["P" "Q"] together, never under one; each of its resources is covered under one owner, so invoke it once per owner`,
 		},
 		"actions covered only by two owners together": {
 			requested: rows(scope("doc", []string{"read", "write"}, nil)),
 			parent:    rows(owned("doc", []string{"read"}, nil, "P"), owned("doc", []string{"write"}, nil, "Q")),
-			refusal:   `covered only across resource owners ["P" "Q"] together`,
+			refusal:   `covered only across resource owners ["P" "Q"] together, never under one; they split its actions, so no child can hold the whole scope`,
+		},
+		// Ids named, but the owners split the actions on each: no per-owner
+		// invocation could hold the operation's whole scope.
+		"named ids whose actions two owners split": {
+			requested: rows(scope("doc", []string{"read", "write"}, []string{"a"})),
+			parent:    rows(owned("doc", []string{"read"}, []string{"a"}, "P"), owned("doc", []string{"write"}, []string{"a"}, "Q")),
+			refusal:   "they split its actions",
 		},
 		"an id no owner covers beside ids two owners do": {
 			requested: rows(scope("doc", []string{"read"}, []string{"a", "c"})),
diff --git a/workcontext/scope.go b/workcontext/scope.go
index ac31f09d..0d9b1c70 100644
--- a/workcontext/scope.go
+++ b/workcontext/scope.go
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ func ScopesAttenuate(child, parents []*basev0.WorkScopeV1) bool {
 // closed, with ErrInvalid naming the reason, when no owner covers the scope
 // (the parent does not hold it), when several do (the runtime must mint one
 // child per owner rather than have one chosen for it), when only several
-// owners' rows together cover it (split it by owner), and when a requested
+// owners' rows together cover it, and when a requested
 // scope already names an owner the parent does not cover it under — an owner
 // someone wrote is never replaced. The result is a fresh copy; requested and
 // parent are only read, and the result attenuates parent.
@@ -129,7 +129,10 @@ func InheritResourceOwner(requested, parent []*basev0.WorkScopeV1) ([]*basev0.Wo
 		case 0:
 			child.ResourceOwnerId = ""
 			if owners := coveringOwners(child, parent); len(owners) > 1 {
-				return nil, fmt.Errorf("%w: owner-scoped parent: scope %q is covered only across resource owners %q together, never under one; split it into one child per owner", ErrInvalid, child.GetResourceKind(), owners)
+				if splitsByResource(child, parent) {
+					return nil, fmt.Errorf("%w: owner-scoped parent: scope %q is covered only across resource owners %q together, never under one; each of its resources is covered under one owner, so invoke it once per owner on that owner's resources", ErrInvalid, child.GetResourceKind(), owners)
+				}
+				return nil, fmt.Errorf("%w: owner-scoped parent: scope %q is covered only across resource owners %q together, never under one; they split its actions, so no child can hold the whole scope and the parent must hold it under one owner", ErrInvalid, child.GetResourceKind(), owners)
 			}
 			return nil, fmt.Errorf("%w: scope %q is not covered by the parent, with or without a resource owner", ErrInvalid, child.GetResourceKind())
 		case 1:
@@ -183,3 +186,32 @@ func coveringOwners(child *basev0.WorkScopeV1, parent []*basev0.WorkScopeV1) []s
 	}
 	return owners
 }
+
+// splitsByResource reports whether a scope that only several owners cover
+// together is split between them by resource id: every one of its ids is
+// covered, with all of the scope's actions, under a single owner. Then the
+// operation can run once per owner on that owner's resources. A scope naming
+// no ids, or one whose actions are split between owners, has no such split:
+// every child would lack an action the operation's one declared scope needs.
+func splitsByResource(child *basev0.WorkScopeV1, parent []*basev0.WorkScopeV1) bool {
+	if len(child.GetResourceIds()) == 0 {
+		return false
+	}
+	for _, id := range child.GetResourceIds() {
+		point := &basev0.WorkScopeV1{ResourceKind: child.GetResourceKind(), Actions: child.GetActions(), ResourceIds: []string{id}}
+		covered := false
+		for _, row := range parent {
+			if owner := row.GetResourceOwnerId(); owner != "" && row.GetResourceKind() == child.GetResourceKind() {
+				point.ResourceOwnerId = owner
+				if ScopeContained(point, parent) {
+					covered = true
+					break
+				}
+			}
+		}
+		if !covered {
+			return false
+		}
+	}
+	return true
+}
diff --git a/workcontext/testdata/resource_owner_vectors.json b/workcontext/testdata/resource_owner_vectors.json
index 27e8e1c5..cd86f5d3 100644
--- a/workcontext/testdata/resource_owner_vectors.json
+++ b/workcontext/testdata/resource_owner_vectors.json
@@ -1,6 +1,10 @@
 {
   "_comment": "resource_owner_id vectors: every protovalidate implementation must accept the first list and refuse the second. Read by workcontext/owner_test.go.",
   "accepted": [
+    {
+      "name": "no owner",
+      "owner": ""
+    },
     {
       "name": "512 ASCII bytes",
       "owner": "u",