Warranted Crossings
Make crossings auditable. For each supported crossing, show what was preserved, what was lost or unresolved, what was held, and why.
Current state · Artifact index · Non-claims · Why HOLD
Demonstrated scope
This site examines a Crossing Graph gate verdict in one synthetic conformance fixture from the crossing-graph-design repository at commit 517ab64. No preservation across domains has been measured. The source gate’s decision cannot be independently replayed, because its policy, authority-state and invariant material are not published. A separate experimental fixture records a test-domain EXECUTE under a declared test root; it does not supply the missing historical material for this fixture.
| For this fixture | Finding |
|---|---|
| Preserved | No declared invariant is measured, so nothing is shown to be preserved across the crossing itself. What carries over is narrower: the fixture’s bytes, domain-separated hashes, Ed25519 signature and rejection behaviour reproduce in a second, TypeScript implementation. |
| Lost or unresolved | The proposed successor state is not supplied. Policy 0x1111…, authority state 0x4444… and the invariants behind mask 0x03 have no retrievable material. The signed verdict commits to inputs 0x2222…, not to this request and context. |
| Held | HOLD This site’s gate determination. |
| Why | INPUT_BINDING_FAILED (inputs hash mismatch), UNAUTHORIZED (no independent trust root for the signing key) and UNAVAILABLE (missing policy, authority-state and invariant material). Each reason traces to named checks in step 5 below. |
Definition
A warranted crossing is a proposed, typed state transition that passes a versioned policy at a specified time and preserves declared invariants within stated tolerances. It also carries enough evidence to replay and contest the determination. This is a computational framework and research programme, not a discovered law spanning physical and social systems. Whether it carries over to a new domain must be tested one crossing class at a time. No such transfer has been tested yet.
A later reassessment is a new determination that references the earlier one. It does not rewrite it. Full definitions are on Kernel.
The fixture, checked in your browser
The fixture has 83 vectors: 4 positive (one RequestBinding, two ContextSnapshots, one Ed25519-signed GateVerdict) and 79 rejection vectors. Your browser fetches the files and checks them against a SHA-256 manifest. It then runs 97 checks. 96 of them correspond to assertions in the repository’s Python verifiers, and 1 is a site extension. Only then does it evaluate the gate. The page reports three separate outputs, and none of them implies another: vector conformance, the fixture’s recorded verdict, and this site’s gate determination.
What this replay shows, and what it does not
| Claim | Status |
|---|---|
| Fixture files match the manifest. Canonical CBOR, domain-separated hashes and all 79 rejection vectors reproduce in TypeScript. | tested |
| The GateVerdict’s Ed25519 signature verifies under the public key shipped with it | tested Signature verification only |
| The signed verdict is bound to this request and context | FAIL INPUT_BINDING_FAILED: its inputs_hash is the placeholder 0x2222… |
| The signer had authority | FAIL UNAUTHORIZED: the key comes from the fixture itself. A root declared inside the demo is illustrative only. |
| Authority-state material exists for the verdict’s context | UNAVAILABLE |
| This site’s determination replays to the same digest | tested Replay of this site’s determination, not an independent replay of the source decision |
| The recorded “positive” outcome was correct under its policy | UNAVAILABLE Policy 0x1111… has no published material |
| Declared invariants held | UNMEASURABLE No invariant definitions or successor state |
| The original observations were true | Not addressed by any hash or signature check |
The source repository’s IMPLEMENTATION_STATUS.md at 517ab64 states the same limit. Structural input binding is not a correctness claim, and independent decision replay still needs retrievable policy, event-replay and authority-state material.