“Bounded + selected runtime scenarios” does not mean a refinement proof. It identifies bounded same-team formal evidence paired with selected governed runtime scenarios under an explicit projection relation. The separate 35/35 executable-evidence axis means references resolved, artifacts were hashed, and configured checks passed.
class-a-signed-decision-parityExecutable evidence · validated · 14 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Executable/operational evidence (not formally modeled)
A Class-A approval or denial is a device-signed terminal decision over the same canonical action context; the operator cannot relabel the outcome after signing or use bearer authentication to deny a Class-A request.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- approver credential key pinned from enrollment
- single-use WebAuthn challenge store and decided-once audit constraint
Assumptions
- the enrolled approver key belongs to the named approver
- the authenticator and relying-party origin are not compromised before the ceremony
- the challenge and audit stores preserve their enforced uniqueness constraints
Exclusions
- the verifier does not infer why a human denied
- a compromised authentic device can still sign a harmful outcome
- legacy lower-assurance denial events are not represented as Class-A evidence
four-outcome-resolution-preserves-meaningExecutable evidence · validated · 21 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Executable/operational evidence (not formally modeled)
A binding-moment resolution preserves approved, declined, amended, and rejected as distinct device-signed outcomes bound to the exact well-formed source envelope and action; no negative outcome authorizes the original action, and an approval authorizes only under a complete relying-party-pinned acceptance context.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- role-scoped principal key and principal identity pinned by the relying party
- exact source binding-moment envelope and action digest supplied by the relying party
- WebAuthn RP ID and exact origin allowlist pinned by the relying party
- option-to-action mapping, nonce, initiator, and evaluation time pinned by the relying party
Assumptions
- the relying party maps the selected option to the exact action correctly
- the role-pinned principal key, RP ID, origin allowlist, nonce, initiator, and evaluation time are authentic
- the consuming surface faithfully presents the envelope and action that the signed digests denote
Exclusions
- the profile does not prove the briefing was truthful or unbiased
- the profile does not prove display faithfulness without separate presentation evidence
- the profile does not provide exactly-once consumption, revocation currency, trusted time, or quorum by itself
class-a-downgrade-refusedExecutable evidence · validated · 4 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Verified formal obligations
A receipt cannot turn a relying-party-pinned Class-A approver key into a bare Class-B signature path by self-declaring a weaker key class.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- approver credential key and key class pinned from enrollment
Assumptions
- the enrolled approver key and class are authentic
- the device key is not compromised before acceptance
Exclusions
- enrollment fraud and compromised authenticators are outside this verifier claim
signed-denial-cannot-authorizeExecutable evidence · validated · 8 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
An authentic device-signed negative human decision remains verifiable decision evidence but cannot satisfy approval, separation-of-duties, quorum, assurance, authority, action-material, or reliance predicates in the Trust Receipt verifier.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- approver credential keys and relying-party policy pinned independently of the presented receipt
Assumptions
- the relying party pins the authentic approver directory and acceptance profile
- the signoff outcome remains inside the authenticated context checked by each port
Exclusions
- the verifier preserves a valid negative decision as evidence but does not infer the reason, wisdom, or legal effect of that decision
- this claim does not prevent a compromised authentic approver device from signing an approval
quorum-separation-of-dutiesExecutable evidence · validated · 5 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Verified formal obligations
A quorum cannot count the initiator as an approver or let one device key fill two approval seats.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- organization-pinned quorum policy
- enrollment-pinned approver keys
Assumptions
- the roster maps one enrolled identity to its authentic key
- distinct identities may still collude
Exclusions
- collusion between distinct enrolled humans is not prevented
scoped-authority-is-pinnedExecutable evidence · validated · 10 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
An authority proof is accepted only under a relying-party-pinned registry issuer and only within its action, role, policy, time, currency, amount, organization, and delegation scope.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- registry issuer key pinned by the relying party
- registry epoch and head freshness policy
Assumptions
- the relying party provisions the correct registry root
- registry completeness requires transparency controls outside the resolver
Exclusions
- a colluding registry quorum outside the pinned fault model remains an external trust failure
conservation-of-authority-is-bounded-and-non-amplifyingExecutable evidence · validated · 35 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
Within an accepted delegation path, action and audience selectors can only narrow, budget dimensions and expiry cannot increase, and cycles or a leaf naming itself as an ancestor are refused. Each signed capability declares direct or cascade revocation: direct revocation blocks the named capability and future child allocation from it without retracting previously registered descendants by itself; cascade revocation also blocks later descendant reservations and child allocations. Aggregate sibling-budget conservation and immediate cascade inheritance are claimed only when parent-funded child operations, allocations, reservations, revocations, and commits share one authoritative atomic state domain with complete current ancestor state; neither property is inferred from path containment or claimed across independent stores.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the relying party's pinned authority-registry view and capability issuer
- an authoritative epoch-pinned allocation ledger for aggregate branch claims
- atomic compare-and-update reservation in the shared capability store
- one authoritative atomic state domain for every authority-bearing ancestor and descendant
- an explicit signed direct or cascade revocation mode and complete current ancestor state
Assumptions
- every accepted child is evaluated against its direct authenticated parent
- aggregate branch claims use the same authoritative allocation epoch for all siblings
- all workers and every authority-bearing ancestor or descendant share one authoritative linearizable atomic state domain
- the complete current registered ancestor lineage is available at each reservation and child allocation
Exclusions
- the bounded evidence is not an unbounded theorem or a refinement proof of TypeScript or SQL
- path non-amplification alone does not conserve aggregate sibling budgets
- conservation across independent stores, clouds, or offline replicas is not claimed
- revocation distribution, cross-domain cascade enforcement, and a grace or wind-down period are not claimed
- registry compromise, database isolation failure, legal authority, human intent, and physical-world truth are outside this claim
reliance-requires-pinned-profileExecutable evidence · validated · 10 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
A cryptographically valid packet still refuses reliance unless signed action material satisfies the relying party's pinned assurance, organization-bound authority, exact registry head and epoch floor, policy, revocation, issuer, and consumption profile.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- EP-RELIANCE-PROFILE-v1 pinned by the relying party
Assumptions
- the relying party's profile is authentic and correctly configured
- evidence sources satisfy their separately stated trust assumptions
Exclusions
- profile-policy correctness is not inferred from cryptographic validity
revocation-is-pinned-effective-and-terminalExecutable evidence · validated · 11 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
A terminal revocation is accepted only under a pinned revoker key, for the exact well-formed target, with a valid effective instant at or before the evaluation time; once effective, it does not age out. Fresh evidence that a target is currently not revoked is a separate status input.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- revocation authority key pinned by the relying party
- trusted evaluation time for future-effective revocations
Assumptions
- the revoker key pin is current
- the verifier's trusted clock is within the relying party's tolerance when evaluating a future-effective revocation
Exclusions
- withheld revocation publications require external transparency or availability controls
- current non-revocation requires a separately authenticated and freshness-bounded status source
outcome-binding-is-exact-and-fail-closedExecutable evidence · validated · 17 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
Outcome Binding accepts an in-bounds result only after a fully verified Trust Receipt and a pinned executor attestation bind the exact receipt identifier, complete receipt digest, action digest, and consumption nonce. The signed predicted-effects commitment is always evaluated, relying-party policy can add refusal but cannot widen it, and the result digest commits the exact inputs, checks, reasons, and outcome.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the complete Trust Receipt verifies under relying-party-pinned receipt, approver, log, policy, and consumption inputs
- the executor identifier and Ed25519 key are pinned by the relying party
- the signed Action Object carries a valid predicted-effects array and its exact digest
Assumptions
- Ed25519 signatures are unforgeable and SHA-256 collisions are infeasible
- the relying party supplies the authentic Trust Receipt verification inputs and executor-key pins
- the executor signs the observations it actually reports; observation truth is not inferred
Exclusions
- the verifier does not establish physical truth; observed effects remain signed executor claims
- the profile does not supply a trusted time source; execution-time acceptance depends on a relying-party input
- no external witness or transparency operator is modeled or evidenced by this claim
- the JavaScript, Python, and Go implementations, bounded model, checker, and vectors are same-team artifacts and are not independent implementation evidence
multi-source-outcome-binding-enforces-independent-current-evidenceExecutable evidence · validated · 17 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
Multi-source Outcome Binding credits an independent-observer role only when the observation signature verifies under a relying-party-pinned, current Ed25519 key whose canonical key identity and declared control domain differ from every non-independent source. Relying-party source requirements can require distinct-source quorum by key and control domain, and observation-window policy binds the accepted observation interval and maximum attestation delay before reconciliation can be valid.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the relying party pins each source identifier to its Ed25519 key, role, source class, control domain, status, validity interval, and any compromise time
- the relying party declares source quorum, distinctness dimensions, observation-window relation, and maximum attestation delay
- the relying party supplies an authentic evaluation time and exact receipt, action, CAID, operation, consumption, and facility bindings
- control_domain_id is a relying-party declaration and is not cryptographic proof of organizational or physical independence
Assumptions
- Ed25519 signatures are unforgeable and SHA-256 collisions are infeasible
- the relying party provisions authentic source pins, control-domain declarations, source requirements, observation windows, and evaluation time
- each source signs the observations it actually reports; observation truth and actual operational separation are not inferred
Exclusions
- the verifier does not establish physical truth or prove that a declared control domain is organizationally independent
- the profile does not supply a trusted time source for key status, observation windows, or attestation delay
- no external witness or transparency operator is required or evidenced by this same-team claim
- the JavaScript implementation, bounded model, checker, and vectors are same-team artifacts and are not independent implementation evidence
authority-document-proof-join-is-pinned-and-non-resurrectingExecutable evidence · validated · 16 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
The Authority Document-Proof join accepts only a proof issuer, not action authority, when a relying-party-anchored continuous document chain resolves the proof key from the newest document effective at the authenticated proof time, the key has the authority-proof usage and is not revoked, the proof and document identities match, and exact registry-head and minimum-epoch pins are supplied. An older document cannot resurrect an omitted key, and a revoked rotation or proof key fails closed.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the relying party pins the Authority Document head or bootstrap digest, organization identity and domain, and stable registry issuer identity
- the relying party supplies an independently authenticated proof time
- the relying party supplies an exact authority-registry head and minimum epoch
Assumptions
- Ed25519 signatures are unforgeable and SHA-256 collisions are infeasible
- the relying party provisions authentic document, organization, registry issuer, registry head, and epoch pins
- the authenticated proof-time input is trustworthy enough for the relying party's acceptance policy
Exclusions
- issuer acceptance does not establish action authority, grant scope, delegation validity, registry inclusion, or physical truth
- the join consumes but does not provide a trusted time source for proof issuance or document effectiveness
- no external witness, transparency operator, or registry-availability guarantee is modeled or evidenced by this claim
- the JavaScript, Python, and Go implementations, bounded model, checker, and vectors are same-team artifacts and are not independent implementation evidence
timestamp-proof-requires-pinned-tsaExecutable evidence · validated · 5 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Executable/operational evidence (not formally modeled)
A timestamp token carries weight only when its imprint binds the expected receipt digest and its signer matches a relying-party-pinned TSA key.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- TSA public key pinned by the relying party
Assumptions
- the pinned TSA key belongs to the intended timestamp authority
- the TSA's operational clock and key custody are trustworthy
Exclusions
- TSA operational compromise is not detected by token verification alone
evidence-challenge-is-durably-registered-and-consumedExecutable evidence · validated · 14 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
An AE-CHALLENGE binds the canonical action and governing policy, is exposed only after atomic durable registration of its exact body, and is consumed on the first valid evaluation attempt across workers and restarts.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- an atomic shared backend implementing insert-if-absent and compare-and-set
Assumptions
- the backend linearizes registration and compare-and-set
- the challenge-store backend is shared by all relying-party workers
Exclusions
- the legacy Set-based evaluator remains only for compatibility and is not a durable production path
durable-consumption-is-owner-fencedExecutable evidence · validated · 7 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
Across concurrent workers and process restarts, one receipt has at most one active reservation, and only its opaque owner token can commit or release it.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- an atomic shared backend implementing insert-if-absent, compare-and-set, and conditional delete
Assumptions
- the backend linearizes each conditional operation
- abandoned reservations require reconciliation and are never reopened automatically
Exclusions
- business-level exactly-once effects still require downstream idempotency or reconciliation
ambiguous-effect-is-never-auto-retriedExecutable evidence · validated · 27 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
After an external executor is invoked, an exception is treated as an indeterminate effect and the approval is consumed or frozen rather than made reusable.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the gate's durable consumption store
- the Proposal-to-Effect consequence-attempt store and relying-party-pinned provider-evidence verifier
- the consequence actuator's durable one-time envelope store, isolated provider credential, and pinned decision and observation keys
Assumptions
- the guarded effect is invoked only through gate.run, the AEC execution gate run method, the Proposal-to-Effect controller, or the separately deployed credential-owning consequence actuator
- for the managed complete-mediation profile, the decision service has no provider credential or provider API implementation and the actuator accepts only the pinned signed execution envelope
- provider reconciliation is accepted only through a relying-party-pinned verifier bound to the same tenant, operation, attempt, CAID, action digest, and effect digest
- the durable backend remains fail-closed
Exclusions
- the protocol cannot infer whether an unavailable external system applied an effect
- the managed actuator cannot prevent an independent administrator or alternate credential outside its deployment boundary from changing the provider directly
network-witness-equivocation-permanently-poisons-streamExecutable evidence · validated · 7 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
A pinned network-witness stream advances monotonically until two different signed statements claim the same sequence. That conflict permanently poisons the exact tenant, gate, witness, and capture-point stream; no later sequence can restore acceptance under that stream identity.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- relying-party-pinned witness key, capture-point identity, configuration digest, and durable sequence store
- tenant and gate scope fixed outside the presented witness statement
Assumptions
- the production store linearizes advancement for one exact binary stream identifier
- the witness signing key and capture point are provisioned independently and the signed observation body commits to the action digest
- operators replace a poisoned stream only by provisioning and pinning a new stream identity
Exclusions
- a passive witness proves observation, not authorization, enforcement, physical execution, or sensor truth
- the protocol cannot distinguish benign witness failure from malicious equivocation after a conflict
aec-execution-is-action-keyed-and-fleet-fail-closedExecutable evidence · validated · 19 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
The stateful AEC execution gate pins custom component verifiers, verifier keys, human profiles, and the requirement at construction, captures the validated store and logger methods, and refuses transaction-scoped trust configuration. It reserves one non-expiring key derived only from the executor-bound canonical action digest before effect, so presenter-controlled decoy components, alternate proof forms, or post-construction method replacement cannot mint a fresh replay key for the same action. Production construction also requires an ownership-fenced durable consumption backend and a strict atomic shared-head evidence log that continues across replicas and restarts; the gate independently rehashes and exactly matches each acknowledgment, and successful atomic append readback must equal the submitted sequence, predecessor, identifier, and content.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the executor independently constructs the exact action and includes a unique action-instance identifier whenever identical effects may recur
- the relying party pins custom component verifier code and verifier keys at gate construction rather than accepting them with presenter evidence
- the consumption backend truthfully asserts durable atomic conditional-write semantics and never expires committed action keys
- the evidence backend truthfully asserts durable atomic compare-and-append semantics for one shared stream head
Assumptions
- all paths to the consequential effect pass through this gate and the backend capability assertions are truthful
- the canonical action uniquely identifies one intended effect instance and the backend does not roll back, evict, or equivocate outside its contract
Exclusions
- the software cannot prove physical storage durability or prevent a privileged backend operator from violating the asserted contract
- business-level exactly-once effects still require downstream idempotency and reconciliation after indeterminate outcomes
- the gate proves authorization and recorded execution state, not the semantic correctness, legality, or physical truth of the action
rx-sidecar-minimizes-patient-dataExecutable evidence · validated · 11 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Executable/operational evidence (not formally modeled)
Rx evidence artifacts reject unknown or direct patient and clinical fields, use pairwise patient references and keyed source-record commitments, export a projection rather than recursively copying the transaction, and disclose it only under a pinned audience, purpose, policy, retention, artifact, and key-scope profile.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- a deployment-managed sector privacy key of at least 256 bits
- issuer adherence to the exact artifact schemas
- a relying-party-pinned EP-HEALTH-DISCLOSURE-PROFILE-v1
Assumptions
- the sector privacy key is isolated from signing keys and protected from disclosure
- issuers do not encode sensitive data into permitted opaque tokens
- the relying party pins the correct audience, purpose, privacy policy, and retention limit
Exclusions
- this is a data-minimization profile, not a legal-compliance or NCPDP-adoption claim
verify-package-is-byte-reproducibleExecutable evidence · validated · 7 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Executable/operational evidence (not formally modeled)
The verify SDK canonicalizes package file modes, packs twice to byte-identical tarballs, and the publish workflow attests and publishes that exact tarball before comparing the registry copy byte-for-byte.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- GitHub Actions OIDC identity
- npm trusted-publisher configuration
- pinned GitHub Actions revisions
Assumptions
- the npm trusted-publisher link is configured out of band
- tag and workflow protections prevent unauthorized release invocation
Exclusions
- a successful local reproducibility check does not prove the npm account configuration is enabled
python-release-artifacts-are-byte-reproducibleExecutable evidence · validated · 10 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Executable/operational evidence (not formally modeled)
The Python verifier builds its wheel and source distribution twice under a pinned source epoch, attests and publishes those exact bytes, and refuses a downloaded PyPI wheel or source distribution whose bytes differ.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- GitHub Actions OIDC identity
- PyPI trusted-publisher configuration
- pinned build and GitHub Action revisions
Assumptions
- the PyPI trusted-publisher link is configured out of band
- tag and workflow protections prevent unauthorized release invocation
Exclusions
- a reproducible local wheel does not prove that the PyPI project has enabled trusted publishing
npm-pypi-releases-use-verifiable-bytesExecutable evidence · validated · 17 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Executable/operational evidence (not formally modeled)
Every declared npm and PyPI release requires a version-bound owner dispatch and protected-environment approval or explicit recorded administrator bypass, tests source from an immutable tag on main, constructs reproducible package bytes, attests the exact artifact with security and conformance manifests, publishes through OIDC, and compares every registry artifact byte-for-byte after publication.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the checked-in EP-RELEASE-PACKAGE-REGISTRY-v1 inventory
- the FutureEnterprises owner identity
- the registry-publishing-approval environment
- GitHub Actions OIDC identity
- pinned GitHub Action revisions
- npm and PyPI trusted-publisher configuration
Assumptions
- each npm and PyPI project has the matching trusted publisher enabled
- GitHub enforces the required reviewer or records an explicit administrator bypass on registry-publishing-approval
- release tags are protected against update and deletion
- the release registry is updated whenever a publish workflow is added or removed
Exclusions
- static workflow coverage cannot prove registry-side trusted-publisher settings until a real owner-approved publish succeeds
- a credential acting as FutureEnterprises is operationally equivalent to the owner, so account security remains an external root
go-module-release-is-tag-and-proxy-boundExecutable evidence · validated · 15 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Executable/operational evidence (not formally modeled)
The Go verifier release preflights the exact workflow-dispatched main commit with read-only credentials and the module's declared minimum Go toolchain. After protected-environment approval, a separate API-only job creates the exact version tag at that commit. A final read-only job downloads only from proxy.golang.org with sum.golang.org verification, checks Path, Version, Sum, GoModSum, and the complete VCS origin tuple, and refuses unless the proxy source tree equals the tested module source.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the checked-in Go module release identity
- the FutureEnterprises owner identity
- the registry-publishing-approval environment
- the workflow-dispatched refs/heads/main commit
- pinned GitHub Action revisions
- an active GitHub update-and-deletion ruleset for refs/tags/packages/go-verify/v*
- GitHub tag-ref authority
- proxy.golang.org and sum.golang.org
Assumptions
- GitHub records required-reviewer approval or an explicit administrator bypass on registry-publishing-approval
- the GitHub ruleset API accurately reports active update-and-deletion protection
- the dispatched main commit is the owner-reviewed source intended for release
- proxy.golang.org and sum.golang.org remain independently available
Exclusions
- the proxy source-tree comparison proves source equivalence, not byte identity between the Git archive and the proxy's canonical module zip
- the tag must exist before the proxy can serve it, so a post-tag verification failure requires a higher corrective version or module retraction and never a moved tag
- the first live release still has to demonstrate environment and ruleset configuration
model-to-matter-clearance-is-exact-and-single-useExecutable evidence · validated · 16 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
A Model-to-Matter presentation clears at most once only when all six evidence types verify under the executor's constructor-pinned profile, bind the same exact closed action, satisfy freshness and the pinned revocation provider, and survive durable challenge and CAID-keyed action consumption. The executor recomputes the registered CAID over the same bytes as the legacy action digest, emits both identifiers in the clearance, and binds both into its signed effect statement. The production executor refuses transaction-scoped profile, store, revocation, time, and retry configuration and captures validated state methods against post-construction replacement.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the executor provisions the authentic Model-to-Matter profile and issuer keys
- the executor pins a revocation provider that supplies an explicit current view
- the challenge backend provides atomic registration and compare-and-set consumption
- the action-clearance backend is shared, atomic, ownership-fenced, and non-expiring
Assumptions
- the relying party's profile and issuer pins are authentic and correctly configured
- the supplied revocation view is current and complete for the presented artifacts
- source systems compute opaque commitments over the intended content with agreed canonicalization
- the durable challenge backend linearizes consumption
- the action-level clearance store is shared by all workers and does not TTL-reopen consumed action digests
- the relying-party revocation provider returns an authentic current view and all physical effect paths traverse the pinned executor run method
Exclusions
- the profile does not perform sequence screening or determine scientific safety
- signature acceptance does not establish issuer judgment quality or physical truth
- this version does not authenticate or prove completeness of the host's non-revocation view
- no Python or Go implementation, wet-lab deployment, or external scientific validation is claimed
aec-role-substitution-refusedExecutable evidence · validated · 21 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
EP-AEC returns satisfied=true (and an equivalent legacy allow alias) only when the relying party independently pins both its requirement and the exact executor action. Presenter labels are non-authoritative. The ep-receipt human leg requires a fresh Section 6.2 Trust Receipt with Class-A WebAuthn, a pinned approver directory, RP audience, signed WebAuthn origin allowlist, policy hash, and log key; a bare operator-signed envelope is refused. The ep-quorum leg requires a fresh exact pinned policy plus RP audience, signed WebAuthn origin allowlist, context policy, and key-to-identity-to-role directory. These predicates execute identically in JavaScript, Python, and Go.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- relying-party requirement and executor-computed expected action digest
- Class-A approver directory, RP ID, allowed WebAuthn origins, policy hash, log key, freshness time, and max age for ep-receipt
- exact quorum policy, RP ID, allowed WebAuthn origins, signed context policy, approver identity-role directory, freshness time, and max age for ep-quorum
Assumptions
- the relying-party requirement, expected action, profiles, verification time, approver directory, policy, RP ID, allowed WebAuthn origins, and log key are authentic configuration
- verifyTrustReceipt and verifyQuorum cryptographic checks are sound, and enrolled authenticators are uncompromised before acceptance
Exclusions
- misconfiguration or compromise of the relying party's own profiles and enrolled keys is outside this verifier claim
- this claim covers the AEC composition verifier, not the standalone reliance kernel
- offline AEC verification does not prove current revocation status or atomic one-time consumption; an execution gate must enforce those stateful properties separately
platform-attestation-result-is-rp-pinned-and-action-boundExecutable evidence · validated · 15 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Executable/operational evidence (not formally modeled)
An ep-platform-attestation AEC leg is satisfied only by a closed, verifier-signed EAT/JWT attestation result under the relying party's pinned Ed25519 key, profile, audience, nonce, exact action digest, accepted build measurement, verification time, and maximum age. Presenter-supplied keys and verifier overrides are refused. Acceptance does not claim that EMILIA appraised raw hardware evidence or independently established a TPM, TEE, secure-boot chain, or genuine device.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the external RATS Verifier's issuer and Ed25519 result-signing key pinned by the relying party
- the EAT profile, audience, nonce, action, reference build measurements, verification time, and maximum age pinned by the relying party
- the external Verifier's appraisal policy, endorsements, and reference values
Assumptions
- the external Verifier correctly appraises raw platform evidence and protects its result-signing key
- the relying party provisions the correct verifier key, profile, reference measurements, action, nonce, audience, clock, and freshness bound
- all consequential execution paths use the AEC result rather than bypassing the measured Gate boundary
Exclusions
- EMILIA does not verify raw TPM or TEE quotes in this profile
- an authentic attestation result does not prove that reference values or appraisal policy are complete or correct
- a measured build is not thereby vulnerability-free, physically genuine, or the only code able to affect the action
- no Python, Go, deployed hardware, independent operator, or supply-chain validation is claimed
authority-program-composition-is-root-bound-and-closedExecutable evidence · validated · 8 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
The public experimental Authority Program verifier accepts a signed series/parallel authority program only under relying-party-pinned program and per-organization stage keys, an independently recomputed root CAID and canonical-action digest, exact predecessor stage-receipt digests, closed native AEC and AOM results, capability narrowing, and authoritative parallel allocation proof. A valid result explicitly does not prove freshness, current revocation status, execution, or deployment.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the relying party pins the exact program digest and program-signing organization, key identifier, and Ed25519 public key
- the relying party owns the root canonical action, CAID registry and profile, stage-key directory, and native AEC, AOM, capability, and parallel-allocation verifiers
- every presented stage receipt is immutable and signed by the exact organization and key assigned by the program
Assumptions
- Ed25519 signatures are unforgeable, SHA-256 collisions are infeasible, and the relying party protects every pinned trust input
- the root-action callback obtains the relying-party-owned action and recomputes CAID plus canonical digest rather than echoing presenter values
- the injected native verifiers correctly verify AEC, AOM, capability narrowing, and aggregate parallel allocation under their own pinned policies
Exclusions
- the verifier is a pure public experimental reference implementation, not a scheduler, state store, deployment, adopted standard, or independent implementation
- a valid composition does not prove freshness, current non-revocation, one-time consumption, execution, outcome truth, legal authority, safety, or commercial correctness
- series/parallel programs are supported; arbitrary DAGs are deliberately unrepresentable
mobile-ceremony-exact-binding-and-consumptionExecutable evidence · validated · 15 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Executable/operational evidence (not formally modeled)
A native mobile approval or denial is accepted only when exact relying-party-created action, presentation, decision, profile, app, enrollment, origin, and validity bytes pass the pinned Class-A WebAuthn path, independently verified platform evidence is bound to the same request, and the exact registered challenge body is consumed atomically and recorded durably.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- relying-party-pinned mobile reliance profile, WebAuthn RP ID, origin allowlist, app allowlist, enrollment key, and platform-attestation policy
- agency-authenticated caller and mandatory authorization policy bound to the action reference, approver, profile, app, and enrolled device
- durable body-bound challenge store, authenticator counter store, and strict durable evidence log
- government system of record computes the protected action and presentation
Assumptions
- the enrollment directory correctly binds the approver, credential, app, and attestation key
- the agency identity provider authenticates the caller and the configured authorization hook implements the relying party's intended personnel policy
- the configured App Attest or Play Integrity verifier validates provider evidence and applies the relying party's pins
- all protected execution paths require the consumed ceremony and clocks and durable stores meet their deployment assumptions
Exclusions
- the ceremony does not prove civil identity, comprehension, legality, wisdom, safety, execution, or physical outcome
- App Attest and Play Integrity verification are online dependencies at ceremony time and are not silently claimed as offline-verifiable evidence
- Swift and Kotlin canonical-byte agreement is same-team cross-platform consistency, not an independent implementation
mobile-action-continuity-is-tenant-and-executor-boundExecutable evidence · validated · 9 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
A CAID-bound mobile action becomes executable only after its approval threshold is met; consequence authority is consumed once under a tenant-scoped operation identifier, server-random nonce, and frozen executor key. A provider timeout becomes durable INDETERMINATE and is not retry-safe. A terminal outcome is accepted only from an exact signed provider statement bound to the same operation, CAID, action digest, nonce, executor, and still-active frozen key; the database rechecks that key in the commit transaction and retains the signed statement while bounded mobile exports expose only its digest.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the relying party computes the exact action CAID and immutable revision from its system of record
- distinct authenticated approver decisions project one threshold under the active action revision
- the protected executor key is registered by an organization administrator and remains uncompromised
- PostgreSQL serializes action consumption, executor-key rotation, timeout, and reconciliation transitions
Assumptions
- all consequential provider calls are mediated by the consumption endpoint and no bypass can mutate the protected system
- the executor's Ed25519 private key and the organization's administrative key-registration path remain protected
- the provider's signed statement is truthful about the bound provider-side effect
- the production database preserves transaction isolation, row locking, constraints, RLS, and function grants
Exclusions
- a verified provider statement authenticates the pinned executor's assertion but is not an independent physical-world sensor
- INDETERMINATE does not claim success or failure and may require provider-specific investigation
- same-team Swift, Kotlin, and JavaScript behavior is conformance evidence, not an independent implementation
- the guarantee does not cover any protected-system path that bypasses the integrated executor
mobile-regulatory-export-separates-proof-from-runtime-assertionExecutable evidence · validated · 12 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Executable/operational evidence (not formally modeled)
A regulatory mobile evidence package is accepted only when its CAID, exact action, Class-A WebAuthn signoff, presentation, policy, enrollment, receipt-log proof, signed operator execution record, and atomic audit record join under a separately provisioned relying-party trust bundle. The offline report distinguishes directly recomputed cryptographic facts from the operator's signed statements about online platform verification, one-time challenge consumption, and durable audit append.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- a relying-party-provisioned trust bundle containing the allowed action family, exact mobile reliance profile, Class-A approver directory, log key, policy hash, and operator execution-record key
- a mobile ceremony result that the stateful service consumed and appended to its strict atomic audit log
- the Class-A receipt verifier, CAID verifier, mobile execution-record verifier, and atomic evidence-record verifier
Assumptions
- the relying party provisions its trust bundle out of band and correctly vets the reviewer directory, policy, mobile profile, log key, and operator execution-record key
- the operator execution-record signer is protected and accountable for its statements about platform verification, challenge consumption, and audit persistence
- all consequential execution paths are mediated by the same stateful service and system of record
Exclusions
- the operator execution-record signature authenticates the operator's assertion but does not independently replay Apple or Google verification, storage durability, one-time consumption, or physical effect
- the deterministic runnable fixture uses synthetic records, a cryptographic platform-attestation test double, and in-memory backends; it is not evidence of a live-device or government deployment
- the package does not establish clinical correctness, reviewer licensure, comprehension, legal compliance, non-bypassability, or real-world outcome
mobile-enrollment-requires-two-verified-rowsExecutable evidence · validated · 8 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
A mobile enrollment becomes active only after the agency authorizes the authenticated caller for the named approver at issuance and completion, a WebAuthn registration adapter returns an ES256 P-256 credential under the exact RP, origin, challenge, and user-verification requirements, a platform adapter independently verifies integrity evidence over the exact enrollment binding, the challenge is consumed once, and the directory plus audit event commit atomically.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- authenticated approver enrollment request and relying-party-owned RP, origin, and app configuration
- cryptographic WebAuthn registration and platform-enrollment verification adapters
- durable body-bound challenge store and atomic enrollment-directory audit commit
Assumptions
- the injected WebAuthn adapter performs full registration attestation verification and returns the authentic P-256 SPKI
- the injected platform adapter verifies the provider chain or service response under relying-party pins
- the authenticated enrollment requester is permitted to enroll the named approver and the directory operation is atomic
Exclusions
- the package does not infer civil identity from a passkey or platform attestation
- enrollment authorization, personnel vetting, device management, and recovery policy remain relying-party responsibilities
- the simulated adapters in unit tests are test doubles and not production token verifiers
grace-curtailment-is-authorized-measured-and-single-useExecutable evidence · validated · 14 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
A GRACE curtailment reaches dispatch only while one canonical action is active, inside the pinned envelope, and approved by the required distinct Class-A mobile roster; post-dispatch compliance is computed only from a separately keyed meter statement, a confirmed Action State record requires that meter digest, and a compliant settlement entitlement is consumed at most once.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- relying-party-pinned curtailment envelope, mobile profile, approver roster, RP ID, origins, and Class-A credential keys
- deployment-pinned actuator, meter, Action State, and settlement trust configuration
- owner-fenced durable execution and settlement stores
Assumptions
- every protected curtailment path is completely mediated by the execution store and configured actuator
- the deployed actuator and meter adapters verify under correctly provisioned, independently governed keys and the meter reports truthful physical readings
- the execution and settlement stores preserve owner fencing and atomic reserve or commit behavior under deployment faults
- the grid program selects the correct baseline methodology and settlement policy
Exclusions
- the shipped COSA actuator and meter are reference simulations and are not evidence of a physical grid event, utility integration, adoption, or partner endorsement
- cryptographic meter integrity does not prove sensor truth, baseline economic correctness, grid safety, or absence of an out-of-band bypass
- the Action State output is an unregistered signed statement and is not claimed as a SCITT transparency-service anchor
- the upstream Action State parser check is time-pinned interoperability evidence, not an independent implementation of GRACE
action-escrow-releases-one-exact-milestone-onceExecutable evidence · validated · 45 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
Inside a completely mediated licensed-custodian integration, Action Escrow reserves and requests at most one release for the exact DAB-bound milestone action only after a relying-party-pinned document mapping, distinct party agreement acceptances, exact committed completion evidence, distinct party release approvals that remain fresh at admission and immediately before the effect, authenticated funding state, and durable compare-and-swap reservation all join. When a project-system source is supplied, its complete stable snapshot digest binds the provider origin, company, project, record type and identifier, normalized payload, observation time, and non-authoritative claim boundary as a signed typed material term inside that exact action. The portable package keeps project source, document execution, agreement acceptance, release approval, and custodian effect as separate independently reverified rows.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- relying-party-pinned document-mapping issuer, Action Escrow profile, party keys, operator state key, and custodian adapter configuration
- the exact final PDF bytes and signed Document Action Binding whose closed material-term profile commits the payment action and evidence requirements
- when configured, an authenticated complete project-system snapshot whose digest is independently mapped into the signed release action
- a licensed external custodian that exclusively mediates funding and release for the configured transaction and honors idempotency
Assumptions
- every release path is completely mediated by the configured licensed custodian and the custodian honors the exact provider transaction, beneficiary, amount, and idempotency contract
- the relying party provisions and maintains the mapping issuer, party, operator, and provider trust roots out of band
- the durable store runs under a separately provisioned non-owner role with no DELETE or TRUNCATE privilege on state and no UPDATE, DELETE, or TRUNCATE privilege on history; database-owner compromise remains outside this claim
- the deployment supplies a durable fail-closed effect-reference binding store to the external custodian adapter
- the configured project-system API and OAuth credentials resolve the intended company, project, and change-order namespace
- the external evidence verifier truthfully checks completion evidence under the requirements committed by the signed action
Exclusions
- EMILIA does not hold funds, act as an escrow agent, determine licensure, or establish legal enforceability
- cryptographic evidence does not prove workmanship, physical completion, identity, comprehension, voluntariness, fairness, or absence of fraud by an authentic trusted key
- the guarantee does not cover payment routes or custodian operations that bypass the integrated mediation boundary
- a project-system record is source evidence only and does not prove party acceptance, human approval, legal enforceability, or physical completion
- cancellation and amendment fail closed once a funding request enters the custodian boundary, pending an authenticated no-funds result or separately specified custodian unwind or rebind protocol; opening a dispute freezes policy state but does not move or refund money
- the runnable scenario uses fictional parties and deterministic local provider simulations and is not evidence of a live deployment
receipt-program-is-caid-bound-budgeted-and-terminalExecutable evidence · validated · 39 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded + selected runtime scenarios
A receipt program executes only through an already configured Gate after the relying-party-pinned CAID resolver binds the exact executor-owned action and stable operation identifier to an issuer-signed bounded capability. Gate reserves budget before provider entry and commits the operation as executed or indeterminate; a real provider deadline, response loss, invalid output, replay, action substitution, operation relabeling, transaction-scoped trust configuration, and provider mutation of Gate-owned inputs cannot reopen or bypass the consequence boundary. Only after Gate terminal evidence exists, the pinned KMS/HSM signer succeeds, and the complete certificate is appended to the atomic evidence log does the kernel return durable proof over the exact program, context, bounded result projection, step sequence, and linked Gate evidence references. Signer, certificate-log, and post-commit evidence failures preserve the durable Gate outcome without issuing contradictory proof.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- a production Gate configured with relying-party-owned receipt, capability-issuer, policy, and CAID trust
- a strict fork-aware atomic durable evidence log and durable bounded-capability store
- an executor-owned observed action containing the stable provider operation identifier
- an external KMS/HSM Ed25519 signer and an exact verifier-pinned key-id-to-public-key mapping
- constructor-pinned issuer, tenant, environment, audience, signer key identifier, disclosure projection, and provider deadline
- a relying-party-owned inclusion verifier for any claim that a certificate record is persisted in the pinned evidence stream
Assumptions
- every protected effect path is completely mediated by the configured Gate and provider adapter
- the capability issuer, Gate trust roots, CAID registry, certificate signer, certificate context, clocks, and durable stores remain correctly provisioned and protected
- the provider honors the stable idempotency key; the constructor-pinned projector limits disclosure but cannot make provider statements truthful
- a verifier obtains referenced authorization, capability, and evidence-log records when full independent re-performance is required
- the relying party inclusion verifier authenticates the intended evidence-stream scope and does not treat a caller-rehashed record as proof of persistence
Exclusions
- the certificate is not a Bulletproof, zk-SNARK, consensus result, provider attestation, or independent proof of physical outcome
- the operator signature proves certificate integrity under the pinned key and context but does not establish signer independence, provider truth, action wisdom, legality, safety, or commercial correctness
- the runnable demo uses deterministic process-local stores, synthetic keys, and a simulated provider and is not production deployment evidence
- the guarantee does not cover any effect path that bypasses Gate or a provider that violates the configured idempotency contract
- the reference certificate append is not cross-store atomic with the capability commit; deployments requiring proof publication through every crash window need a transactional outbox or equivalent recovery design
- a pre-execution failure while registering a newly delegated child capability still requires reconciliation of that delegation operation
reliance-risk-plane-bounds-open-exposure-and-preserves-uncertaintyExecutable evidence · validated · 16 cited evidence referencesFormal coverage · Bounded formal evidence
For an exact Reliance Program and separately admitted action, the reference reliance risk plane verifies a separately signed loss-allocation schedule without treating it as authorization, reserves aggregate open exposure before provider invocation, preserves that exposure through invoking and indeterminate outcomes, refuses blind retry, and permits terminal closeout only through the configured independent reconciliation authority. Exact-action refusal statements, period coverage reconciliations, governed-taxonomy receipt censuses with coarse primary suppression, and signed loss-experience feeds with trusted current-head correction lineage remain non-authorizing evidence artifacts with explicit claim boundaries.
Acceptance roots, assumptions, exclusions, and exact evidence
Acceptance roots
- the relying party provisions the exact Reliance Program, loss-schedule issuer roots and current status, exposure ceilings, tenant principal mapping, and distinct origin, executor, and reconciliation authorities
- every protected provider path reserves through the durable Open Exposure Ledger before provider invocation
- the supplied system-of-record, receipt, census, and loss inventories are authentic and complete enough for the relying party's stated use
Assumptions
- the deployment completely mediates protected provider paths through one authoritative exposure reservation before invocation
- the PostgreSQL deployment applies the checked migration under a non-owner runtime role and preserves transaction isolation, clocks, and durable history
- trusted issuers, relying-party keys, current-status sources, timestamp evidence, inventories, and reconciliation evidence remain correctly provisioned and truthful
Exclusions
- EMILIA does not bear or allocate loss, adjudicate disputes, establish legal enforceability, verify insurance coverage, causation or solvency, or move money
- coverage reconciliation signs only supplied population roots and conserving counts and does not prove population completeness
- receipt census primary suppression does not establish differential privacy or prevent differencing across overlapping releases
- loss-experience records are externally reported observations, not verified or adjudicated losses
- the in-memory exposure ledger is test-only and non-durable; production custody requires the PostgreSQL contract or an equivalent independently assessed implementation
- no independent implementation, external deployment, insurer adoption, premium credit, or loss-data network is claimed