Claim + scope
Exact invariant, release/version, fixture set, route set, protected state, and explicit exclusions.
Bounded public evidence
Claims should carry an inspection path.
A proof surface does not establish universal non-bypassability. It demonstrates that a claimed invariant held across a specified scope, route set, fixture set, protected state, or test condition.
Proof structure
What a serious proof page should expose.
The public proof model is designed to keep scope, exclusions, route, state, observed result, and reproducibility visible together.
Observed result
Expected transition, actual transition, receipts, failure behavior, and any preserved negative result.
Verification
Procedure, inputs, evidence bundle, and enough information for an independent reviewer to recompute the bounded result.
Existing surfaces under review
Evidence assets need defined roles.
These prior public surfaces should be migrated or embedded only after their claims, terminology, version, and evidentiary purpose are reviewed.
WEDGE / Threat Stream
Bounded proof-surface work now linked to a first-class GPM/GDE WEDGE explanatory surface.
API Adapter / Interoperability
Candidate interoperability proof or demonstration surface. Its current architectural status and public claim boundary should be reviewed before integration.
Open inside Genesis AiX →Interop Lab
Proof can feed assurance without turning the Lab into a certification authority.
The Registry-Independent Assurance paper positions the Interop Lab as a bounded testing role. Independent reviewers inspect the resulting evidence; scoped determinations remain distinct from broad certification; registry or assurance records are created only under explicit authorization.
A prototype can demonstrate an interaction without proving the runtime invariant.
The original SIW prototype is therefore presented as historical experience evidence. Proof pages separately identify bounded claims, routes, protected state, fixtures, exclusions, results, and verification paths.
Build 12.6 proof profile
A public proof should declare the boundary that makes the result meaningful.
Independent review identified several variables that must be explicit before a bounded proof can support stronger claims.
| Field | What must be declared | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | Exact invariant and applicable build/release. | Prevents a bounded result from becoming a universal claim. |
| Executor / credential model | Whether ability is bind-derived or ambient; exact principal/credential boundary. | Separates authority enforcement from an advisory checkpoint. |
| Route inventory | Governed routes, alternate paths tested, environmental assumptions and residual paths. | Route closure is a deployment obligation, not automatic architectural property. |
| Decision-relevant attributes | Finite projection used to define the exact consequence and material changes. | Makes material-substitution logic falsifiable. |
| Bind-to-effect interval | Expected maximum interval and consequence-class irreversibility horizon. | Bounds what revalidation/refusal can still control. |
| Evidence basis | Freshness, authoritative source, scope match, receipts and observed state. | Distinguishes present standing from authorization replay. |
| Reproduction | Fixtures, hashes, procedure, expected/observed transitions and exclusions. | Allows independent recomputation. |
introduced-infirst-exercised-inindependently-reviewed-incurrent-evidence-status
These provenance labels describe evidence history. They do not convert an earlier specification, test or review into current authority.