Hacktoberfest 2026: le issue che i maintainer hanno segnato per ottobre, aperte e adatte ai principianti. Sfoglia le issue Hacktoberfest

vantage_limitation: a recomputable marker for occurrence vs absence claims on irreversible-class verdicts (implementation evidence, from #279)

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#397 12 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
30/100
Tipo di issue
Funzionalità
Chiarezza
Abbastanza chiara
Stato di attività
Attiva
Stack tecnologico
python
Ambito
security

Direzione di ricerca

Start by reading the discussion in #279 and the receipt_gap_disclosed precedent in #260; this issue asks for a design decision, not a scoped implementation. The payload names decision_ref_preimage_fields and the registries data/independent_mediators.json and data/platform_operators_registry.json, but says the derivation function is in a private repo. Done means TRACE decides whether to represent claim type as a first-class marker and, if so, defines its representation and verification expectations.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

needs-review:HIGH

Opened at @imran-siddique's invitation on #279 (separate item; opening it does not mean TRACE agrees to add anything). Real implementation evidence first, then the question.

The example (live, no key needed)

POST https://api.babyblueviper.com/verify-proof {"event_id":"c6b4235aa1ee2a64d67224f175a986c6760cd43ad82f52c4da23ac60bd1b5274"} returns valid: true with vantage_limitation_recomputes: true. It is a trade-type verdict under policy_version: invinoveritas.review.v19 (artifact hash only, no artifact content). The relevant signed fields:

artifact_type:       trade
source_class:        agent_reported
vantage_limitation:  "source_class=agent_reported: nothing external confirms this /review call happened, or could not be bypassed, before the action it governs. Recomputability makes this record internally consistent (an occurrence claim) — it is not an absence/completeness claim, which needs a vantage the acting agent doesn't control. ..."

What it is

A disclosure carried on the proof that says what kind of evidence this is: the record is an occurrence claim (this check happened), not an absence/completeness claim (nothing else bypassed it). It exists only for irreversible-class artifacts (trade, onchain_action, sanctions_screening); other types carry null. It is a pure function of two fields that are already inside decision_ref:

vantage_limitation = NOTE[source_class]   if artifact_type in {trade, onchain_action, sanctions_screening}
                     else null
source_class in {agent_reported, platform_operator, independent_mediator}   # three fixed note strings

vantage_limitation itself is in the signed preimage (decision_ref_preimage_fields) since v4, so it cannot be stripped or edited without changing decision_ref.

What a checker can establish

  • The note equals the one derived from (source_class, artifact_type); a proof carrying a different string, or a note on a non-irreversible type, is inconsistent with the signed fields (a mismatch, not a claim about cause).
  • It is bound: removing or changing it changes decision_ref.
  • The recompute needs nothing from us: the function is above and the three exact strings are listed below (the implementation, _compute_vantage_limitation, is in a private repo, so they are reproduced here rather than linked).

What remains unknown

  • Whether the source_class is true. agent_reported is the default and means the calling agent chose to call; independent_mediator is decided by a hand-maintained registry of Bearer keys we curate (data/independent_mediators.json), which a verifier cannot recompute from the proof.
  • Absence: nothing here says the agent did not act without calling. That is exactly what the note says it cannot say.
  • Currency: it does not say the situation still holds now.

The question for TRACE

#260 gave receipt_gap_disclosed a name rather than a generic null. This is the same instinct one step earlier: should a verdict record carry a first-class marker for which kind of claim it is (occurrence vs absence/completeness), rather than leaving readers to infer it? If yes, this is one working shape with a recomputable derivation; if TRACE would rather express it another way (for example as part of the appraisal), I would build to that instead. If it helps, I can add a stdlib checker and negative cases (stripped note, wrong-class note, note on a reversible type) in the same style as the context-provenance example you ran.

The three exact note strings (JSON-escaped, byte-for-byte) 
{
  "agent_reported": "source_class=agent_reported: nothing external confirms this /review call happened, or could not be bypassed, before the action it governs. Recomputability makes this record internally consistent (an occurrence claim) — it is not an absence/completeness claim, which needs a vantage the acting agent doesn't control. Sufficient as standalone evidence for a reversible action; for an irreversible or privileged action, treat this proof as advisory input, not standalone authorization, until paired with an independent mediation-point integration.",
  "platform_operator": "source_class=platform_operator: this /review call was made using a Bearer key registered to the platform that operates/hosts the agent under review, not the agent's own self-report — the reviewed agent cannot bypass this call by calling us directly under its own key, the same custody-separation property independent_mediator has. It is NOT interest-separated the way a genuinely independent mediator is: the platform operator has an ongoing commercial relationship with the agent it hosts and may share its interest in a favorable outcome, unlike a mediator with no stake in the reviewed action. Treat this as stronger than agent_reported and weaker than independent_mediator — registration is a manual, human-verified trust decision on our side, not a cryptographic or on-chain guarantee. See data/platform_operators_registry.json for the registered operator and the evidence checked before registration.",
  "independent_mediator": "source_class=independent_mediator: this /review call was made using a Bearer key registered to a third party verified to be structurally separate from the agent under review (distinct infrastructure, distinct calling identity) — the reviewed agent cannot bypass this call by calling us directly under its own key. This is stronger than agent_reported (a self-report can't fake a different party's credentials), but registration is a manual, human-verified trust decision on our side, not a cryptographic or on-chain guarantee. See data/independent_mediators.json for the registered mediator and the evidence checked before registration."
}
Lingua principale
Python
Stelle
37
Fork
33
Merge medio
1g 4h
PR unite (30g)
122

Preparare l'ambiente

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di agentrust-io/trace-spec

Tutte le issue di agentrust-io/trace-spec

Issue simili

Altre issue su Python

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.