diff --git a/aiac/CONTEXT.md b/aiac/CONTEXT.md
index db111484..b2180fcc 100644
--- a/aiac/CONTEXT.md
+++ b/aiac/CONTEXT.md
@@ -30,6 +30,23 @@ The property that grants on a given scope come from exactly one place — the
 scope-focal pass. Door B adds only prohibitions and never grants.
 _Avoid_: owner, source of truth.
 
+**Scope-exclusivity**:
+Exclusive/restrictive language centred on a **scope** ("Only developers may read
+source") — it closes that scope to a grantee role set. Owned by the
+**scope-focal pass** (the subject gate): it grants the named roles and denies the
+complement of candidate roles. Distinct from **role-exclusivity**.
+_Avoid_: treating it as a Door B (role-focal) deny trigger.
+
+**Role-exclusivity**:
+Exclusive/restrictive language centred on a user **role** ("Testers may access
+**only** issues") — it closes that role to a scope set. Owned by **Door B** (the
+user-role-focal pass): it denies the complement of candidate scopes. Conflating
+it with **scope-exclusivity** — treating a scope-exclusive statement about a
+*different* role as grounds for a Door B deny on the focal role — is the category
+error #2511 corrects: that complement belongs to the scope-focal pass, so an
+absent Door B prohibition is correct, not a defect.
+_Avoid_: role pass exclusivity, subject exclusivity.
+
 **Contradiction**:
 An *intra-pass* grant∩deny: one focal's own proposed rule set both grants and
 prohibits the same candidate. Detected by the LLM auditor within a single pass,
diff --git a/aiac/src/aiac/agent/policy_rules_builder/prompts.py b/aiac/src/aiac/agent/policy_rules_builder/prompts.py
index 2a3d7bab..b0ec56df 100644
--- a/aiac/src/aiac/agent/policy_rules_builder/prompts.py
+++ b/aiac/src/aiac/agent/policy_rules_builder/prompts.py
@@ -129,15 +129,27 @@ def _policy_block(policy_text: str) -> str:
     + _MAPPING_RULES
     + _DENY_RULES
 )
+# The MISSING-PROHIBITION guardrail below is AUDITOR-ONLY on purpose (#2511): it governs the
+# auditor's REJECTION decision (when an absent focal deny is a defect vs. correct), not the grant/deny
+# GENERATION the two sides share. The auditor was over-reaching — demanding a focal-role deny from a
+# scope-exclusive statement that names a DIFFERENT role, then rejecting the proposer's (correct) empty
+# proposal to exhaustion (-> 422). The proposer already applies rule 4 correctly, so the shared rules
+# are left UNTOUCHED: putting this "empty is correct, don't reject" reassurance there regressed the
+# proposer (it under-emitted legitimate description-driven denies). It belongs here alone.
 _AUDITOR_SYSTEM = (
     "You audit a proposed set of grants and prohibitions. Approve only if every granted pair is "
     "policy-supported — REJECT any grant unsupported by the policy or the descriptions, any grant in "
     "a domain the candidate is not shown to act in, and any grant for a candidate the policy never "
     "mentions. Every prohibited pair must be a genuine explicit-prohibition or exclusivity deny, the "
     "exclusivity flag must be truly asserted by the SCENARIO policy, and for a purely permissive "
-    "policy both denied lists must be empty. When a candidate is named in BOTH lists (a conflict), "
-    "adjudicate it: a genuine grant-and-prohibit collision is a contradiction (report it), a mere "
-    "proposer slip is an ordinary rejection.\n" + _SAFETY + _MAPPING_RULES + _DENY_RULES
+    "policy both denied lists must be empty. Do NOT reject a proposal merely because it lists NO "
+    "prohibition on the focal entity: an absent focal prohibition is a defect ONLY when the SCENARIO "
+    "policy is exclusive/restrictive about the focal entity ITSELF (rule 6) or explicitly prohibits "
+    "it (rule 5). A restriction that names a DIFFERENT entity — e.g. 'Only <other role> may <verb> "
+    "<scope>' — is another pass's concern (rule 4); an empty prohibition list is then CORRECT and "
+    "must be approved, never rejected for a missing deny. When a candidate is named in BOTH lists (a "
+    "conflict), adjudicate it: a genuine grant-and-prohibit collision is a contradiction (report it), "
+    "a mere proposer slip is an ordinary rejection.\n" + _SAFETY + _MAPPING_RULES + _DENY_RULES
 )
 
 
diff --git a/aiac/test/agent/policy_rules_builder/test_graph_live_llm.py b/aiac/test/agent/policy_rules_builder/test_graph_live_llm.py
index 6fbc57ef..129a21c0 100644
--- a/aiac/test/agent/policy_rules_builder/test_graph_live_llm.py
+++ b/aiac/test/agent/policy_rules_builder/test_graph_live_llm.py
@@ -241,3 +241,41 @@ def test_door_b_exclusivity_complement_denies_only():
         ("source-read", DENY),
         ("source-write", DENY),
     }
+
+
+# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
+# Slice 7 — Door B must NOT raise a spurious 422 on SCOPE-exclusivity (#2511).   #
+# The policy is scope-exclusive about a DIFFERENT role ("Only developers may     #
+# read and modify source"); the focal role (rossoctl-admin) is a non-grantee    #
+# user role the policy never names, and is GRANTED nothing here. The real bug    #
+# #2511 fixes is the AUDITOR rejecting the proposer's proposal to exhaustion     #
+# (PolicyRulesBuilderError → 422) on the theory that a focal deny is "missing" — #
+# it is not: that source deny is the SUBJECT gate's job (the scope-focal pass),  #
+# never Door B's. What this slice PINS is therefore the negative property, not   #
+# an exact set: the call must NOT raise, must emit NO ALLOW (Door B is           #
+# deny-only), and any deny it does emit must stay within the exclusive scopes    #
+# ({source-read, source-write}) — never leaking onto `issues`, a scope the focal #
+# role has no relationship to. A duplicate DENY on the source scopes is harmless #
+# here (rossoctl-admin is granted nothing, so nothing collides); the 422 is the  #
+# only defect. Contrast slice 6, which pins the genuine role-exclusivity deny.   #
+# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
+def test_door_b_no_overreach_on_scope_exclusivity():
+    admin = _role("r-adm", "rossoctl-admin", "A realm administrator, not a developer.")
+    issues = _scope("s-iss", "issues", "Access the issue tracker.")
+    source_read = _scope("s-sr", "source-read", "Read source code from the repository.")
+    source_write = _scope("s-sw", "source-write", "Write and modify source code in the repository.")
+
+    # Scope-exclusive about `developers`, not about the focal role — bare prose, no enumerated
+    # exclusions, no default-effect scaffolding (the point of the #2504 minimization).
+    policy = "Only developers may read and modify source."
+
+    # Must not raise: a PolicyRulesBuilderError (→ 422) from auditing the proposal to exhaustion is
+    # exactly the #2511 defect and would fail the call outright.
+    rules = _role_denies(policy, admin, [issues, source_read, source_write])
+
+    effects = _scope_effects(rules)
+    # No ALLOW — Door B is a DENY-only pass; an ALLOW would be a real defect.
+    assert all(effect is DENY for _, effect in effects), effects
+    # Any deny stays within the exclusive scopes; `issues` (unrelated to the focal role) is never
+    # denied. A duplicate source deny is a harmless echo of the scope-focal pass, not a conflict.
+    assert {name for name, _ in effects} <= {"source-read", "source-write"}, effects