Independent

jsiyuanhe@gmail.com

ART verifier conformance evidence A verifier result reports what a check returned. It does not report whether the check could have returned anything else. A check that inspects too narrow a set of fields, and a check whose rejecting or unverifiable input has never occurred, both report the same accepting value as a check that distinguishes, and a conformance matrix does not tell them apart. This document defines requirements for reporting whether a check has been exercised into its declared rejecting and unverifiable outcomes, and requirements for results that claim completeness: that the records relied on were the whole of some stated set. Those are two separate obligations. A result must name the set it claims to have seen, and must not treat a party with an interest in the answer as the only thing looking. This document defines no wire format, encoding, token, claim vocabulary, test harness, or registry. It does require a record to identify certain facts, which is a constraint on what a record must be able to express rather than on how it is written down. A profile satisfying these requirements will need a place to put those facts.

Introduction Agent protocol work has converged on conformance matrices: a row per security-relevant claim, recording which field carries it, which party verifies it, and what the verifier returned. The value of such a matrix rests on an assumption that is rarely stated, which is that a row reporting an accepting outcome would have reported something else had the protocol misbehaved or the evidence could not settle the question. That assumption fails in two ways, and both produce the same printed result. In the first, the check compares too little. It runs, it returns an accepting outcome, and the difference it was written to detect is not expressible in what it reads. Increasing the number of observations does not help, because every observation is drawn from the same blind region. In the second, the check reads the right material but an input leading to a rejecting or unverifiable outcome has never occurred. The path is written down and may be correct, but nothing has driven the check into it, so its accepting results carry no information about what it would do with that input. Neither failure is addressed by the presence of negative test vectors. A suite can contain many and still contain checks whose rejecting or unverifiable outcome has never occurred on the record. A vector's existence is not its execution, and a matrix that records outcomes does not record which outcomes were reachable. The interoperability problem is not that checks differ between implementations. It is that two implementations can publish the same conformance row, with the same accepting outcome, where one check would have rejected a malformed input and the other could not have. A relying party comparing candidate protocols, or composing across administrative domains, cannot tell those apart from what is published, so rows that are not comparable are compared anyway. What follows is a reporting requirement aimed at that. It does not prescribe test methodology, coverage arithmetic, or the correctness of any protocol.

Conventions and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Terminology

check:

A procedure that returns one of an enumerated set of outcomes for a given input.

rejection path:

The condition, stated by the specification or profile, under which a check returns an outcome classified as rejecting. An outcome classified as neither accepting nor rejecting is not a rejection path.

neither path:

The condition, stated by the specification or profile, under which a check returns an outcome classified as neither accepting nor rejecting, including a path to an unverifiable outcome.

exercise path:

A declared rejection path or neither path for which the profile requires exercise evidence.

reachable-unexercised:

An exercise path for which the defined input domain contains a reaching input, but no identified input in the exercise record produced the path's outcome under the current check revision.

shadowed-unreachable:

An exercise path that no input in the defined input domain can reach under the current check revision because an earlier rule or structural precondition necessarily returns first.

exercised:

An input was supplied that produced the outcome in question, and both the input and the outcome are identified in the record.

discriminating pair:

Two populations supplied together with the outcome expected on each stated in advance, one expected to accept and one expected to produce the declared non-accepting outcome on the exercise path, whether that outcome is rejecting or neither. The pair is used to detect a check that cannot tell the populations apart. Which population is expected to produce each outcome depends on what the check asserts, and is stated by the profile rather than implied by the labels.

coverage domain:

The set of records over which a completeness claim is asserted.

material party:

A party whose conduct or assertion is at issue in the claim a result supports. The term is taken from , where it qualifies a claimed transition. It is applied here to the claim a verifier result supports; the test is unchanged and only the object differs.

Problem Statement The instances below are why the author noticed the problem. They are not offered as a survey, a rate, or evidence that the failure is widespread, and no requirement in this document rests on them. Each is in a public repository so that a reader can check the characterisation against the artifact rather than take it on trust. Instances known to the author that are not public are omitted, because an unpublished instance is author testimony. A tightness check reported 4,638 of 4,638 from a computation that never constructed a second world. The quantity it reported could not have come out otherwise, and the ratio was recorded as though it were a measurement. A registered endpoint set a 95 percent recall target on a two-arm comparison in which both arms run the identical scanner. Recall is therefore equal by construction, and was measured equal to the digit on both corpora. The endpoint was retired and re-scoped to an invariant that can fail: if the arms ever stop sharing a scanner, the comparison silently stops being a comparison. A positive test case was found to be an identity. Its verdict is a function of a multiset that the transformation under test preserves, so the case cannot fail under the intended reading and its zero is not evidence about the schema. This was published as a correction to two earlier findings by the same author, and the neighbouring cases that do carry information were identified at the same time. A record-only rule accepted 642 of 642 records written over six weeks by a production job-control system. The rule is not inaccurate; it is non-falsifiable, because the condition it was written to detect is not expressible in the fields it reads. A second rule, evaluated on the same corpora, found the condition absent in 284 of 284 cases where it could be checked. These differ in mechanism and are identical on the page. None was found by reading the check. Each was found by asking what input would produce the other outcome, and then looking in the record for that input. The coverage domain of this evidence is one research programme, and the instances were selected from its records by the author of this document. CMP-1 makes that limited domain explicit; under CMP-2 the author's selection supplies no independently appraised basis for excluding omission. It establishes that these failures occur and are recognisable; it does not establish how often they occur, or that this programme is representative. Nothing below depends on the rate. A related observation, because it bears on : a scoring endpoint that counts only incorrect confirmations is optimised by a system that never confirms anything. records a measurement. The silent system scores perfectly on such an endpoint while producing no useful output.

EXR-1: Exercised Rejection and Unverifiable Paths A specification or profile claiming conformance to EXR-1 and permitting a check to be reported as implemented under its exercise-evidence requirement MUST require that the check's declared exercise paths have each been exercised by an input that produced the path's stated outcome, and that the input, the resulting outcome, and the rule or condition reached are identified in the record. A check whose outcomes have only ever held one value MUST NOT be reported as satisfying this exercise-evidence requirement, irrespective of the number of observations. The classification MUST be computable from the record alone. Two evaluators holding the same record and the same profile that reach different classifications indicate an underspecified record rather than a disagreement to be settled by judgement, and the profile MUST state the form in which an exercising input and its outcome are identified. The obligation is per check. A suite-level statement that negative vectors exist does not satisfy EXR-1 for any individual check, because the property EXR-1 requires is a property of the check. Where a check states more than one rejection path, EXR-1 applies to each separately. Exercising one path establishes nothing about the others, and a report that does not say which paths were exercised does not satisfy this requirement for any of them. Each exercise record MUST name a stable rule or condition identifier from the governing specification or profile. An outcome token alone does not identify the rule or condition that fired when more than one condition produces that outcome. Where multiple conditions are reached, the record MUST identify each and preserve the order needed to reproduce the reported result. Accepting and rejecting do not exhaust the outcomes a check may return. A check may report that the record could not settle the question, which is neither. Where a check has such an outcome the profile MUST classify each outcome as accepting, rejecting, or neither, and MUST do so before the check is exercised. Where a check specifies paths to outcomes classified as neither, including unverifiable, EXR-1 applies to each declared path in the same way: it is exercised when an input has produced that outcome and some other input has produced a different outcome. CMP-2 below returns such an outcome and is subject to this paragraph. EXR-1 does not grade an exercising input by who supplied it. An input supplied by the party reporting the result can satisfy EXR-1. For a separate completeness claim relying on that input, its party-controlled provenance does not by itself establish the independent omission-detection basis required by CMP-2. The record MUST identify who supplied each exercising input, and MUST permit a later reader to establish that the input preceded the report relying on it. Co-presence in one record does not establish that order. An exercising input establishes the property only for the revision of the check it was supplied to. Where the check changes, prior exercise MUST NOT be carried forward, and the record MUST identify the revision each exercising input was supplied to. A check whose non-accepting outcome was last observed under an earlier revision is unexercised for the current one. For each declared exercise path, the exercise record MUST identify a discriminating pair under the same check revision: one population expected to accept and one expected to produce the path's rejecting or neither outcome. The profile MUST state those expectations before the check is run, and the check MUST return the stated outcome on each. A check that returns the same outcome on both has not satisfied this requirement, whichever outcome it returned. The expected outcomes are not implied by which population is called positive: a check asserting that a defect is absent rejects where the defect is present, and a check asserting that a property holds rejects where it does not.

Outcome Vocabulary An evaluator reporting the result of a check MUST distinguish at least the following four outcomes, and MUST NOT collapse any of them into another:

verified

The check ran over the evidence it names and the condition held.

violation

The check ran over the evidence it names and the condition did not hold. This is the only outcome that condemns, and it is available only where the check actually reached an answer.

unverifiable

The check was attempted and could not reach an answer, because required evidence was unavailable, a resolver did not respond, or no resolver was configured. A claim whose source has become unreachable is not a claim that failed.

not-evaluated

The check was not reached, or the record names nothing for it to range over. No check verdict was reached. An explicit not-evaluated record identifies the unattempted check and the reason.

The separation of unverifiable from violation is the load-bearing one. Collapsing it in one direction manufactures false confidence and in the other manufactures false alarms, and the party making a claim controls which way the collapse runs: producing evidence that cannot be checked is cheap, so an evaluator that treats unreachable as refuted can be driven, and one that treats it as satisfied can be starved. A profile MAY define finer outcome values, but MUST NOT collapse these four. The evaluator MUST distinguish a known absence of a required verifier capability from a supported check that was not attempted. The record MUST identify the capability or evaluation-plan evidence supporting that diagnosis. This distinction MAY be represented by separate outcome values or by mandatory structured diagnostics; it does not require a fifth native outcome token. Where the record does not establish which condition applies, the evaluator MUST preserve that uncertainty and MUST NOT infer either condition from a broad outcome label alone. Missing resolver configuration, for example, does not by itself establish that the verifier revision lacks resolver capability. A profile mapping these results into another specification's outcome vocabulary MUST retain its required capability and attempt context rather than treating a bare unverifiable value as proof of unsupported. An outcome of unverifiable or not-evaluated MUST NOT contribute to a coverage figure as though it were verified, and MUST NOT be relabelled to improve one. This is the same prohibition places on relabelling a not-run scenario as not-applicable.

EXR-2: Reporting an Unexercised Check Where a check has not been exercised into a declared exercise-path outcome, the evaluator MUST NOT report that check as satisfying this document's implemented exercise-evidence condition. It MAY use implemented-unexercised as an EXR exercise annotation for a check with implementation evidence under another profile, identifying the exercise path for which no exercising input appears in the record. That annotation is not an upgrade to the other profile's implementation status. A record produced to satisfy EXR-1 or EXR-2 is orthogonal to any implementation-status field a profile already maintains. It MUST NOT raise such a field, and a rejection path with no exercising input MUST NOT be counted as measured coverage on the strength of the record's existence. Where a profile maintains per-scenario dispositions of its own, those dispositions and the per-input outcomes required here are separate records of separate properties and MUST NOT be merged into one figure. An explicit weaker result is required rather than silence. Without a name for it, a report can conceal the difference between a check whose rejection path was exercised and one whose rejection path remains unexercised. An absent declaration MUST NOT be treated as a statement that no rejection or neither path exists. A specification that means a check has no reachable non-accepting outcome MUST state that, because it is a strong claim about the check and is itself reviewable. implemented-unexercised does not by itself distinguish a check whose rejecting outcome is unreachable for every input the verifier can receive from one that has simply not received such an input. These are different facts: the first is a property of the check, the second of the sample. Where a profile can tell them apart it SHOULD report which, and where it cannot it MUST NOT imply either. Where the profile establishes that an input in the defined domain can reach the path, but the exercise record contains no such input, the evaluator SHOULD report reachable-unexercised. Where the specification's rule order and input-domain constraints establish that an earlier rule necessarily returns first, the evaluator SHOULD report shadowed-unreachable. Absence from a sample establishes neither classification. A shadowed-unreachable report MUST identify the shadowing rule and the rule or condition that cannot be reached. It MUST NOT count the path as exercised or as measured coverage. If the record cannot distinguish reachability from absence of an exercising input, it MUST retain the broader implemented-unexercised annotation. A report of implemented-unexercised SHOULD carry a machine-readable reason identifying the unexercised exercise path, so that two implementations can compare results without reading prose. A single token is not sufficient for cross-implementation diagnosis. implemented-unexercised is not a failure grade. It reports that the record does not establish that the check can reject, which is a different fact from a check that ran and rejected. A check whose rejecting or unverifiable condition is not expected to arise in normal operation will hold implemented-unexercised indefinitely, and that is the intended reading rather than a defect in the requirement. A safety check that has never fired has not been shown to work; saying so is the point. Where a profile can construct a synthetic input that drives such a check into its rejecting outcome, EXR-1 is satisfied by that input, and permits a synthetic input for this purpose.

CMP-1: Coverage Domain A result claiming completeness over a stated coverage domain, including a claim of independent observation of that complete domain, MUST name that domain and the mechanism by which an omission within it would be revealed. Independently checking one identified artifact does not by itself claim completeness of a wider event or artifact history. A result that names neither does not support a completeness claim, whatever the number of individually valid artifacts it presents. Validity of disclosed artifacts is a property of those artifacts and carries no information about records that were not disclosed. A record may be absent for more than one reason: it was never created, it was created but not observed, it was observed but not recorded, or it was recorded and later removed. CMP-1 requires the revealing mechanism to be named; it does not require that mechanism to separate these causes. A profile whose mechanism can separate them SHOULD say which it separates, because a relying party that must act on the difference cannot infer it from the fact of absence.

CMP-2: Material-Party Detection Where the mechanism that would reveal an omission is operated by a material party, or where its inputs are selected by a material party, that mechanism alone is same-party regardless of the number of independently valid artifacts presented. Unless an independent basis has been appraised for this result as required below, the evaluator MUST NOT report the completeness claim as verified. It MUST report the completeness appraisal using the outcome vocabulary of and record why it remains unestablished. Lack of an independent omission-detection basis alone MUST NOT be reported as a violation. A violation of a separately completed predicate check remains reportable. The distinction a relying party acts on is not settled versus unsettled. A predicate reported as a violation asserts that its check ran and the condition did not hold; for example, two authenticated occurrences can refute an at-most-once predicate even if completeness of the wider record set remains unknown. A completeness appraisal reported as unverifiable asserts that the available record cannot settle whether an omission remains. These are separate checks and verdicts. CMP-2 is bounded by what counts as an independent basis. A profile with no such basis may name a domain and mechanism under CMP-1 but cannot establish completeness under CMP-2. An independent basis is a constraint on the record set that was not under the sole control of a material party when the records were produced: an append-only log whose inclusion is witnessed by parties not material to the claim; a counterparty-held record that must reconcile with the disclosed set; or a substrate that cannot produce the effect without emitting a record a material party cannot suppress. Naming one is necessary but does not establish that it constrained the record set for this result. Before reporting the completeness claim as verified, the deciding verifier MUST establish, under the named profile, the independent basis's authority, its binding to this result and coverage domain, the extent of its coverage, and the relevant time. The result MUST retain evidence of those checks. Naming a basis or describing a future check does not satisfy this condition. A basis that was authoritative for a different scope, or in force at a different time, has not been shown to bear on this result, and the completeness claim remains unestablished. The available exercise record MUST demonstrate, under the same check revision and expectations stated in advance, both a result whose completeness appraisal remains unestablished and one whose completeness is verified after the required independent appraisal. A record containing only the former does not satisfy this exercise condition; it does not by itself establish that the latter outcome is unreachable.

What These Requirements Do Not Establish These requirements separate claims. They do not make claims true. An exercised check is not a correct check. Exercising a rejection path establishes that the check can return its other outcome for some input. It does not establish that the rejection path is the right one, that its condition is correctly specified, or that the accepting outcomes were correct. An exercised path establishes nothing about paths that were not exercised. EXR-1 is a floor and is not a coverage claim. implemented-unexercised is not evidence of a defect. A check may be correct, well specified, and simply never driven into its rejecting condition. CMP-2 does not establish that an omission occurred. It establishes that the record as presented cannot exclude one. A profile that supplies an independent basis for excluding omission can establish the completeness claim only when the deciding verifier appraises that basis for this result. The disclosed artifacts need not change. These requirements apply to themselves. A check implementing EXR-1 is subject to EXR-1, and a report of CMP-2 is subject to CMP-2. The regress terminates rather than continuing without limit, because exercising a check is itself the discriminating pair the requirement asks for: a checker that classifies a discriminating check and a non-discriminating one identically has been shown unexercised by that pair, and no further level is needed. exercises the checker this way. None of these requirements reaches the correctness of an underlying protocol, the honesty of any party, or the security of any deployment.

Scope Relative to Agent Protocol and Audit Work The protocol-facing obligation in this document is conditional. Where an agent protocol, profile, or reference architecture relies on or exposes a verifier result as evidence of coverage, it can require the result to carry the exercise and completeness facts defined here. A protocol that makes no such claim need not acquire an audit data model merely because this document exists. This document does not define an audit record, corpus-commitment encoding, interaction-trace format, transport, or validation testbed. Work concerned with how evidence records cross component or administrative boundaries can define those mechanisms and use these requirements as acceptance conditions. A protocol or architecture document can state the dependency without defining the mechanism that satisfies it. This document does not assign either obligation to a working group and does not claim adoption by AgentProto, AUDIT, or any other IETF group. It states a separable requirements layer so that a group can adopt, profile, reference, or decline it without treating the present individual submission as a venue decision.

Relationship to Adjacent Work states in DET-4 that presentation of individually valid evidence must not by itself be treated as proof that all material evidence has been presented. CMP-1 and CMP-2 narrow that concern to the detecting mechanism itself. Section 14 already requires that a row not be reported implemented merely because a carrier is emitted or a positive exchange completes: the evidence must show the stated verifier decision and at least one security-relevant rejection path, and Section 11 draws the same distinction against a happy-path exchange. That floor is established there. It is not introduced here, and a row lacking such evidence is already not fully implemented under that definition. Section 33 of the same document lists as open issues which negative test cases authors should provide, whether a row may claim implemented status without a public or reviewable negative test exercising the stated rejection path, and when same-party evidence may support a row claiming independent observation. EXR-1 and EXR-2 are addressed to the first two. What they add to the existing floor is that the exercising input be pinned to a revision, that a discriminating pair be exhibited rather than a single rejecting input, and that the record name the outcome observed for each declared rejection path. A row satisfying Section 14 may still carry no such record. CMP-1 and CMP-2 address the completeness and omission subcase of the third open issue. They do not resolve that issue for every kind of row, and independently checking one scoped observation is not the same as establishing completeness over a domain. That document's rules governing coverage denominators, and its prohibition on relabelling a not-run scenario as not-applicable to improve a denominator, are complementary and are deliberately not restated here. That document's implementation-status vocabulary is a closed set of implemented, partial, none, and external. implemented-unexercised is not proposed as a fifth member of it: it reports a different property on a different axis. A row may satisfy Principal Binding's minimum rejection-evidence requirement while lacking the stronger EXR record for every declared rejection path or lacking EXR's revision-pinned discriminating-pair evidence. Those gaps remain explicit; an EXR record does not raise Principal Binding implementation status. A profile using both states them separately. distinguishes correspondence, where two records agree about what happened, from precedence, where the order of decision and effect is established. The present document addresses the same shape one level down, where a check's outcome is taken to establish a property the check was never shown able to contradict. argues that non-repudiation over a self-asserted subject lacks a testable assertion about actor identity. That is an adjacent warning about the evidentiary force of a control, not an implementation or derivation of EXR-1: this document asks whether a stated rejection path has actually been exercised. A check that could not run is also kept distinct from one that ran and established a violation in . requires, in its treatment of action scope, that the basis for a transitivity claim be classified as definition-derived, mechanically-checkable, or asserted, and states that an asserted claim is profile-author testimony rather than a demonstrated algebraic property. EXR-1 makes the same separation for a check's rejection path. That section also requires that missing components not be treated as successful comparisons, and that an undecided comparison state why the deciding verifier could not establish a result, distinguishing the case where the governing profile supplies no applicable relation from the case where the exact profile definition was unavailable to that verifier. EXR-2 and CMP-2 apply the same discipline to the two cases treated here: a result that could not be established is reported as such, and is not merged with a result that was established and negative. defines falsifiability as the design property ensuring that subversion of a system's stated claims carries a high risk of independent discovery, and specifies metadata by which an evaluator assesses that property. That is falsifiability of the claims a system makes about itself. The present document concerns a different object: whether the check an evaluator applies has been shown able to return its rejecting outcome at all. The two compose rather than overlap. A system whose claims are highly falsifiable, assessed by a check that has never rejected anything, is not thereby verified, and EXR-2 requires that to be visible in the report.

Implementation Status This section records the status of implementations known to the author at the time of writing, per . It is intended to be removed before publication as an RFC. The outcome vocabulary of draws on, but is not a one-to-one copy of, the public implementation in at commit b4ee46924ebe8fd0bee38b4986a01229e859764b. Its dereference layer separates verified, absent, unverifiable, and no_reference. A resolver that is offline, rate-limited, or not configured has not shown a reference to be absent; only a completed negative lookup can do that. A root naming no reference produces no dereference verdict. A separate mandatory-reference presence check may establish a violation from that absence, while an optional-reference profile would not. The report and policy layers carry these facts into further dispositions; their labels are not interchangeable with either the four values in or another profile's implementation statuses. The pinned implementation does not yet establish the mandatory capability-versus-skipped diagnostic distinction specified here. Its V4 weaker supported claim is reported as downgraded in that layer, not as one of the four check outcomes. A worked case for CMP-1 and CMP-2. A verdict is sought over a set of records in a profile that requires each root to name a reference. Some references resolve, one resolver is unreachable, and one root names no reference. Reporting the resolved subset as a completeness figure would claim a domain that was never covered. The unreachable dereference is unverifiable rather than a violation. For the unreferenced root, the dereference check was not attempted and its not-evaluated record names the missing-reference reason. Separately, the mandatory-reference presence check completes and reports a violation. If references were optional, their absence would not violate that presence rule but would still provide no reference coverage or completeness assurance. CMP-1 names the domain and omission-detection mechanism; CMP-2 does not permit a verified completeness claim based solely on a material party's mechanism. An independently appraised basis would be needed for that claim. These check verdicts and the completeness appraisal remain separate; one unsettled label cannot express all of them. A discipline close to EXR-1 is in use in the public repository , where a declaration must name a contrasting population in which the declared property is absent, and the probe must report below the declared minimum on that population. A probe that cannot tell the two populations apart is refused as unfalsifiable, and that refusal is reported before any other verdict, on the stated grounds that if the probe cannot fail the other result is meaningless in both directions. A probe that reports a constant is refused on a population that genuinely has the property. That code predates this document and was not written as a conformance implementation of EXR-1; it is offered as evidence that the requirement is implementable and has been lived with, not that it has been implemented as specified here. The same repository refuses a registration that omits the declaration entirely, on the grounds stated in EXR-2 that an absent declaration is not consent. The original four vectors in are published in executable form at the pinned commit above, with a test suite of twenty-eight cases. Three of those vectors are constructed fixtures written for this document rather than observations of a deployed system; they show that the requirements have content and that a check can fail them, not that any particular check does. The fourth reads a frozen artifact from an earlier experiment and pins its digest. The two additional vectors in this revision are prose vectors; they are not part of that pinned executable suite and do not constitute implementation evidence. Songbo Bu replayed the author's source and fixtures at the pinned commit: twenty-eight verifier-evidence tests and thirty-eight related dereference, warrant, resolver, and policy tests passed. This is a bounded source replay, not a second implementation or a conformance result. No independently implemented CMP-1 or CMP-2 appraisal has been verified, and no interoperability between independent implementations is claimed for any requirement in this document. Lars Kersten Kroehl published a separately authored report reader at commit 6d8ee54b01d20a819869ceb9fcea096d59251f8c . On 165 report objects the pinned reader produced 82 accept, 28 reject, and 55 cannot-tell results. Twenty-five of its rejections agreed with the upstream expected verdict; four of those reached a different requirement line than the member name suggested. The published selection includes a corpus digest, covered-member list, and selection rule, making the boundary of that selected run inspectable. It does not establish that the named checkers ran or that the supplied report objects describe genuine underlying artifacts. The present author reproduced that pinned run and published a bounded audit at commit 635f3d57eb6f90fdf4c6945778020c34521be0a1 . The package freezes 35 mutation scenarios, including the baseline, and a separately written specification-only reader. The latter rejects 34 cases and reports 131 as cannot-tell. Ten cases rejected by that reader are cannot-tell under Kroehl's documented refusal policy; case-by-case adjudication finds eight explicit contradictions or omissions whose mandatory-rejection policy is disputed and two cases underdetermined by the source text. The audit does not promote those disagreements into reader errors. The separately written reader shares the present author's project control and is not a second external evidence root. Toshikatsu Oga applied EXR-1 and EXR-2 to the MUSUBI settle core and froze the result at horizon-shield commit dd64d0e2 , also described in . Among the original 123 vectors, every one of ten deviation codes was produced, while 18 of 28 underspecified reasons were produced and ten were not. The project added five vectors, yielding 128 vectors, drove two further paths through an in-memory exercise script, and marked four specified reasons as shadowed by earlier contract checks and therefore unreachable. The branch for more than 200000 verified headers remains unexercised. A separately written implementation reproduces all 128 vectors, run by its author; nobody outside the MUSUBI project has rerun the exercise script. The MUSUBI result is an external appraisal of whether the requirements in this document expose useful distinctions. It is not independent verification of MUSUBI: the counts are outputs of the MUSUBI reference implementation, and the added vectors and exercise script were produced and run within that project. The result supports the distinction among exercised, reachable-unexercised, and shadowed-unreachable paths without establishing the correctness or completeness of the underlying protocol. One consequence is worth stating rather than leaving to be derived. A profile with no independent omission-detection basis can identify its coverage domain but cannot demonstrate the accepting side of CMP-2 for a completeness claim. EXR-1 then forbids reporting that check as implemented on the strength of only its unestablished outcomes. The worked case above illustrates the reporting distinction; it is not a claim that CMP-1 or CMP-2 has been implemented as specified here.

Security Considerations The failure mode these requirements address is a system that appears verified. An unexercised check is worse for a relying party than an absent one, because it occupies the position in a matrix where a reviewer would otherwise notice that nothing is checking the claim. An adversary who knows which checks are unexercised knows where a conformance matrix will not look. Because the property is visible from a published matrix and published vectors, and because a check that compares too little is often evident to an implementer, this information may be more available to an adversary than to a reviewer. Reporting implemented-unexercised discloses that an exercise path is untested, and profiles should weigh that. The alternative is that the same fact remains true and is not written down, which does not reduce the exposure and removes the relying party's ability to account for it.

Privacy Considerations These requirements concern verifier results and test inputs. Where an exercising input is drawn from production data, publishing it to satisfy EXR-1 may disclose personal data. A profile SHOULD permit a synthetic exercising input where the rejecting outcome does not depend on the provenance of the input.

IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions.

Normative References Informative References Silentpartnercoding

Negative Vectors These vectors are stated so that a reader can construct them independently. They are illustrative and are not a normative test suite. An executable form, with a deterministic machine-readable result and its source pinned by digest, is published at under research/verifier-evidence. Each vector there supplies a positive population and its contrasting population and runs both a check that cannot distinguish them and one that can; the pair is the evidence, not either half.

Check Comparing Too Little Construct a check whose accepting condition is evaluated over a proper subset of the fields in which the defect can appear. Supply a discriminating pair: one population containing the defect, for which the rejecting outcome is expected, and one without it, for which the accepting outcome is expected. Expected under EXR-1: the check returns the accepting outcome on both populations, so no exercising input for the rejection path exists and the check reports implemented-unexercised. A check reading the full field set returns the expected outcome on each and is exercised.

Constant Probe Supply a probe that reports a fixed value satisfying the declared minimum, and evaluate it against a contrasting population in which the declared property is absent. Expected: the probe reports the same value on both populations and is refused as unfalsifiable before any other verdict is reported.

A Silent System Under a One-Sided Endpoint Score three systems against one frozen fixture on an endpoint counting only incorrect confirmations, then on a two-sided endpoint adding a cost for indefinite non-confirmation. Lower is better.

system	one-sided	delay cost	two-sided
silent, never confirms	0.000	1.000	1.000
count-based, confirms on 3 or more reports	1.000	0.033	1.033
origin-aware, 2 or more independent origins	0.000	0.533	0.533

The silent system attains the best available one-sided score, tying with the origin-aware system, so a one-sided endpoint cannot distinguish a system that never confirms from one that confirms correctly. Under the two-sided score the silent system no longer ties for best and is beaten by the origin-aware system. It is not last: the count-based system scores worse, having confirmed every false event. The point of the second term is that it removes silence from the winning set, not that it makes silence the worst available strategy.

Withheld Record Under a Completeness Claim Where a claim asserts that an event occurred at most once, withhold one of two occurrences from disclosure while leaving every disclosed signature and inclusion proof valid. Expected under CMP-1 and CMP-2: unless the deciding verifier appraises an independent basis for excluding the omission in this result, the evaluator reports the completeness claim as unestablished. Reporting it as satisfied is the defect. From the evaluator's disclosed record, reporting it as failed is also incorrect, because that record does not establish the omission. This vector is due to Iman Schrock.

One Outcome Token, Two Rules Construct two inputs that produce the same non-accepting outcome token through two different rules. Publish an exercise record containing only the input identifiers and shared outcome token. Expected under EXR-1: the record does not establish which rule or condition fired for either input. A conforming record identifies the governing rule or condition for each result even though the outcome token is unchanged.

Path Shadowed by an Earlier Rule Define a later rule that is evaluated only after an earlier rule accepts, while making the later rule's stated condition imply that the earlier rule rejects. Supply inputs satisfying the later condition. Expected under EXR-2: every such input returns at the earlier rule. The later path is reported shadowed-unreachable, with both rules identified. It is not counted as exercised, and absence of its outcome is not reported merely as reachable-unexercised.

Changes from -00

• Expanded exercise accounting from rejecting outcomes to declared paths producing rejecting or neither outcomes, including unverifiable.
• Required the exercise record to identify the rule or condition reached rather than relying on an outcome token alone.
• Distinguished reachable-but-unexercised paths from paths made unreachable by an earlier rule or structural precondition.
• Stated the conditional protocol-facing requirement separately from audit-record formats, corpus commitments, transports, and testbeds.
• Added bounded MolTrust and MUSUBI implementation evidence and its limitations.

Acknowledgments Bradley B drew attention to keeping a check that could not run distinct from a check that ran and failed. His published IA-9 analysis is cited for the separate problem of an unauthenticated subject in a control's evidence. Iman Schrock contributed the withheld-record vector in and reviewed its attribution and outcome wording. The coverage requirements were developed separately. Songbo Bu raised the related questions in Principal Binding Section 33, reviewed this document's outcome and evidence boundaries, and replayed the author's pinned source and fixtures as described in . Henri Sirkkavaara stated the reproduction bar under which a candidate counts as demonstrated only when a party controlling neither end reaches the same verdict using an implementation sharing no code with the proposer. Lars Kersten Kroehl supplied the frozen report-reader case, identified the need to retain the rule that fired, and published the corpus digest, covered-member list, and selection rule used in the run. Toshikatsu Oga applied the EXR requirements to MUSUBI, published the resulting vectors and exercise record at an immutable commit, and stated the remaining unexercised and rerun limits. Orie Steele asked that the draft state how its protocol-facing requirement differs from the mechanisms and records considered in audit work. is the author's answer; it does not imply Orie's agreement with that boundary. Acknowledgment does not imply endorsement of this document.