{
  "schemaVersion": 1,
  "contract": "kfd-agent-surface",
  "generatedAt": "2026-08-23T16:09:28.000Z",
  "publishedAt": "2026-08-23T16:09:28.000Z",
  "reproducible": true,
  "timestampPolicy": "ci-injected",
  "deterministicInputs": [
    "scripts/render-site.mjs",
    "scripts/publication-packages.cjs",
    "src/fixtures/*.json",
    "src/install/installer-catalog.json",
    "src/publication-packages.json",
    "buildchain.upstreams/paper-*.release.json",
    "src/upstream-release-evidence/**/buildchain.release.json",
    "resolved dogfood immutable snapshot URL and SHA-256",
    "pnpm-lock.yaml",
    "@kungfu-tech/buildchain package content",
    "@kungfu-tech/kfd package content",
    "@kungfu-tech/site package content",
    "declared @kungfu-tech/paper-* package content",
    "sourceRevision",
    "sourceDateEpoch",
    "package content",
    "declared Buildchain surface manifest contract"
  ],
  "sourceDateEpoch": "0",
  "sourceRevision": "f65b5e1cec2cfef38147a6cdce777262d45f0a4a",
  "timestampPolicyDetails": {
    "contract": "kungfu-buildchain-surface-timestamp-policy",
    "timestampFields": [
      "generatedAt",
      "publishedAt"
    ],
    "timestampFieldsParticipateInArtifactDigest": true,
    "artifactDigestScope": "site dist manifest JSON files",
    "note": "Human-readable timestamps are separate from reproducibility inputs; do not infer reproducibility from epoch timestamps."
  },
  "canonicalHost": "kfd.libkungfu.dev",
  "humanEntry": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/",
  "humanEntries": {
    "overview": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/",
    "conceptualCompression": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/concepts/",
    "decisions": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/decisions/",
    "agentHub": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/agent-hub/",
    "independentVerification": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/verify/",
    "selfConformance": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/verify/self-conformance/",
    "recursiveSelfConformanceCase": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/",
    "liveCases": {
      "proof-carrying-work-object": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/",
      "software-work-perspective-settlement": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/",
      "decision-admission-settlement": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/",
      "federated-work-continuity": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/federated-work-continuity/",
      "product-release-cut-transition": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/",
      "recursive-normative-self-conformance": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/",
      "durable-result-identity-availability": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/"
    }
  },
  "agentEntries": {
    "llms": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/llms.txt",
    "manifest": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/manifest.json",
    "agentHub": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/agent-hub/",
    "registry": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/registry.json",
    "candidateRegistry": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/registry.json",
    "caseRegistry": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/registry.json",
    "standards": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/standards.json",
    "terminology": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/terminology.json",
    "terminologySchema": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-terminology.schema.json",
    "activationContracts": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/activation-contracts.json",
    "activationSchemas": {
      "kfd-11-adopter-witness": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-11/adopter-witness.schema.json",
      "kfd-12-adopter-witness": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-12/adopter-witness.schema.json",
      "kfd-13-adopter-witness": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-13/adopter-witness.schema.json",
      "kfd-11-13-qualification-report": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-activation/qualification-report.schema.json",
      "kfd-11-13-activation-record": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-activation/activation-record.schema.json"
    },
    "conceptualCompression": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/concepts/",
    "independentVerification": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/verify/",
    "independentVerificationAssets": {
      "implementation-map": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/semantic-self-sufficiency/kfd-1-13.json",
      "verification-profile": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/warrant-evidence/manifest.json",
      "evidence-report": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/primitive-evidence/second-wave-report.json",
      "schema": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-semantic-self-sufficiency-matrix.schema.json"
    },
    "independentVerificationAssetsBySource": {
      "evidence/semantic-self-sufficiency/kfd-1-13.json": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/semantic-self-sufficiency/kfd-1-13.json",
      "profiles/warrant-evidence/manifest.json": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/warrant-evidence/manifest.json",
      "evidence/primitive-evidence/first-wave-report.json": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/primitive-evidence/first-wave-report.json",
      "evidence/primitive-evidence/second-wave-report.json": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/primitive-evidence/second-wave-report.json",
      "schemas/kfd-semantic-self-sufficiency-matrix.schema.json": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-semantic-self-sufficiency-matrix.schema.json"
    },
    "selfConformance": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/verify/self-conformance/",
    "selfConformanceAssets": {
      "profile-manifest": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/manifest.json",
      "lifecycle-gates": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gates.json",
      "verifier-matrix": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gate-matrix.json",
      "issue-codes": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/issue-codes.json",
      "qualification-assessment": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.assessment.json",
      "independent-verification": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.verification.json",
      "terminal-transition-report": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/transitions/recursive-normative-self-conformance-terminal.report.json",
      "historical-lineage": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/history/historical-lineage.report.json",
      "historical-manifest": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/history/manifest.json"
    },
    "recursiveSelfConformanceCase": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/",
    "liveCases": {
      "proof-carrying-work-object": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/",
      "software-work-perspective-settlement": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/",
      "decision-admission-settlement": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/",
      "federated-work-continuity": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/federated-work-continuity/",
      "product-release-cut-transition": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/",
      "recursive-normative-self-conformance": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/",
      "durable-result-identity-availability": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/"
    }
  },
  "readerContract": {
    "contract": "libkungfu-dev-reader-contract/v1",
    "owner": "site-libkungfu-dev",
    "path": {
      "id": "kfd",
      "audience": "Protocol builders",
      "question": "How can independent systems cooperate without sharing a control plane?",
      "promise": "Start with KFD's continuity question and adoption boundary, then descend into the numbered authority, schemas, and exact decision text.",
      "claimClass": "site-synthesis",
      "sourceRefs": [
        "kfd-3",
        "kfd-7",
        "kfd-agent-hub-profile"
      ],
      "authorityLabel": "Explore KFD decisions",
      "authorityHref": "/decisions/",
      "evidenceLabel": "Inspect the manifest",
      "evidenceHref": "/manifest.json"
    },
    "layers": [
      {
        "id": "first-screen",
        "label": "First-screen proposition",
        "owner": "site-libkungfu-dev",
        "purpose": "Answer why this surface matters to its intended reader before status, registry, or implementation detail."
      },
      {
        "id": "guided-synthesis",
        "label": "Guided synthesis",
        "owner": "site-libkungfu-dev",
        "purpose": "Connect facts across Kungfu, KFD, and Buildchain without turning the synthesis into a new normative source."
      },
      {
        "id": "upstream-authority",
        "label": "Upstream authority",
        "owner": "kungfu-systems/kungfu, @kungfu-tech/kfd, and @kungfu-tech/buildchain",
        "purpose": "Supply runtime semantics, protocol decisions, schemas, commands, workflows, and release facts."
      },
      {
        "id": "machine-evidence",
        "label": "Machine evidence",
        "owner": "upstream authorities projected by site-libkungfu-dev",
        "purpose": "Expose exact sources, versions, digests, qualification, claim boundaries, and stable routes for independent inspection."
      }
    ],
    "sourceBoundary": {
      "truthOwner": "upstream-evidence-and-manifests",
      "siteRole": "reader contract, guided synthesis, visual composition, routing, and rendering",
      "rule": "The site owns first-screen framing, cross-surface synthesis, reading order, progressive disclosure, navigation, and visual composition. Every technical or release claim must bind to immutable upstream evidence or a pinned package; core specs, KFD semantics, CLI parameters, workflow inputs, release state machines, schemas, and provenance remain upstream-owned."
    }
  },
  "sourceBoundary": {
    "truthOwner": "@kungfu-tech/kfd",
    "siteRole": "reader contract, guided synthesis, visual composition, routing, and rendering",
    "rule": "KFD facts, registry entries, standards metadata, and decision text come from the pinned @kungfu-tech/kfd package. This site owns their reader framing and may expose and render them, but must not fork their meaning."
  },
  "package": {
    "name": "@kungfu-tech/kfd",
    "version": "1.0.0-alpha.67",
    "integrity": "sha512-pyxp8jh8aigSqt/cEHqSTGgHvy4vpPnfoIc2orFkxtC39AWkSFqkXVUuZND0qJ/WX+xs0a1BJ5AT6AeHKzmN3w==",
    "registryContract": "kfd-registry",
    "standardsContract": "kfd-standards-metadata"
  },
  "conceptualCompression": {
    "id": "conceptual-compression",
    "path": "/concepts/",
    "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/concepts/",
    "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/conceptual-compression.md",
    "relationship": "non-normative-reader-compression-of-numbered-decisions",
    "normative": false,
    "authorityNote": "Numbered decisions remain authoritative; terminology.json owns the canonical names and anti-misreading boundaries projected by this page.",
    "rendererContract": {
      "showCoreModelFirst": true,
      "showWorkedExampleAsOneSequence": true,
      "showFailureRecoveryAndSettlement": true,
      "showAuthorityBoundary": true,
      "note": "Render KFD-owned wording and terminology projections without replacing canonical terms with familiar stack aliases or promoting founding-adopter fields into universal semantics."
    },
    "sectionOrder": [
      "model-in-one-view",
      "one-real-software-delivery-work",
      "failure-does-not-collapse-the-model",
      "settlement-returns-to-fact",
      "software-work-composes-the-core",
      "common-misreadings",
      "ten-minute-reading-check",
      "continue-to-authority-and-evidence"
    ]
  },
  "independentImplementation": {
    "label": "Implement and verify KFD independently",
    "promise": "Implement KFD without Kungfu — scaffold an adapter in Python, Rust, Node.js, or C++, then verify it offline.",
    "release": {
      "package": "@kungfu-tech/kfd",
      "version": "1.0.0-alpha.67",
      "anchor": "kfd.release.json",
      "immutable": true
    },
    "supportedLanguages": [
      {
        "id": "python",
        "label": "Python",
        "starter": "adapter.py"
      },
      {
        "id": "rust",
        "label": "Rust",
        "starter": "target/release/kfd-agent-hub-rust-starter"
      },
      {
        "id": "node",
        "label": "Node.js",
        "starter": "adapter.mjs"
      },
      {
        "id": "cpp",
        "label": "C++",
        "starter": "build/kfd-agent-hub-cpp-starter"
      }
    ],
    "steps": [
      {
        "id": "scaffold",
        "label": "Scaffold",
        "command": "npx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67 kfd scaffold agent-hub --language python --output my-agent-hub-adapter",
        "capability": "kfd scaffold agent-hub --language <cpp|node|python|rust> --output <new-directory> [--json]"
      },
      {
        "id": "smoke",
        "label": "Run envelope smoke",
        "command": "python3 my-agent-hub-adapter/smoke.py",
        "expectedExitCode": 0
      },
      {
        "id": "implement",
        "label": "Implement Hub semantics",
        "expected": "advance behavior from 0/20 to 20/20"
      },
      {
        "id": "test",
        "label": "Test Hub 20",
        "command": "npx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67 kfd test agent-hub --adapter ./my-agent-hub-adapter/adapter.py --output agent-hub-report.json",
        "capability": "kfd test agent-hub --adapter <path> --output <report.json>",
        "starterExpectedExitCode": 1
      },
      {
        "id": "verify",
        "label": "Verify report evidence",
        "command": "npx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67 kfd verify agent-hub-report agent-hub-report.json --adapter ./my-agent-hub-adapter/adapter.py",
        "capability": "kfd verify agent-hub-report <report.json> [--adapter <path>] [--json]",
        "expectedExitCode": 0
      }
    ],
    "dimensions": {
      "behavior": {
        "question": "Does the adapter implement the fixed Hub semantics?",
        "measure": "Hub 20 passed scenarios",
        "conforming": "20/20",
        "starter": "0/20"
      },
      "evidence": {
        "question": "Can the report, package roots, capability roots, outcomes, and optional adapter bytes be recomputed offline?",
        "measure": "agent-hub-report verifier valid",
        "conforming": true,
        "starter": true
      },
      "authority": {
        "question": "Does this experimental result grant qualification or certification?",
        "measure": "qualifying and certification claims",
        "conforming": {
          "qualifying": false,
          "certification": false
        },
        "starter": {
          "qualifying": false,
          "certification": false
        }
      }
    },
    "paths": {
      "reference": {
        "purpose": "See a complete implementation succeed before writing an adapter.",
        "expected": {
          "demoExitCode": 0,
          "behavior": "20/20",
          "evidence": "valid",
          "qualifying": false,
          "certification": false
        },
        "command": "npx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67 kfd demo agent-hub --output agent-hub-demo-report.json"
      },
      "starter": {
        "purpose": "Implement product-owned Hub semantics from a fail-closed starter.",
        "expected": {
          "scaffoldExitCode": 0,
          "smokeExitCode": 0,
          "testExitCode": 1,
          "behavior": "0/20",
          "verifyExitCode": 0,
          "evidence": "valid",
          "qualifying": false,
          "certification": false
        }
      }
    },
    "nativeCli": {
      "label": "Install the native kfd CLI",
      "summary": "No coding is required. Install the Rust-native offline verifier with one command.",
      "installCommand": "brew install kungfu-systems/tap/kfd",
      "versionCommand": "kfd --version",
      "executable": "kfd",
      "platforms": [
        "macOS",
        "Linux"
      ],
      "requiresCoding": false,
      "capabilities": [
        "verify",
        "bundle"
      ],
      "capabilityBoundary": "Each KFD GitHub Release now carries Rust-native archives for Linux x86_64 and arm64, macOS x86_64 and arm64, and Windows x86_64. The executable name is permanently `kfd` (`kfd.exe` on Windows), and `kfd --version` matches the exact KFD Release version. The native CLI provides `verify` and `bundle`; use the npm workflow above when you need `scaffold` or `test` orchestration. Every target includes a SHA-256 file and source-bound provenance. See [Native CLI downloads and capability boundaries](docs/native-cli.md).",
      "docs": {
        "label": "Native CLI downloads and capability boundaries",
        "url": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/blob/v1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/native-cli.md"
      }
    },
    "links": [
      {
        "id": "agent-hub-report-verification",
        "label": "Verify an Agent Hub report",
        "url": "/agent-hub/#report-verification"
      },
      {
        "id": "verify",
        "label": "Explore other KFD verification profiles",
        "url": "/verify/"
      }
    ],
    "starterBoundary": "The scaffold is a deterministic, fail-closed starter. Before implementation, smoke exits `0`, Hub 20 exits `1` at `0/20`, and offline evidence verification exits `0` with `valid`; qualification and certification stay `false`. Implementers then replace `evaluate()` with product decisions across negotiation, delivery, authority, conflict, knowledge, completion, recovery, and portability until Hub 20 reaches `20/20`.",
    "implementationBoundary": "The scaffold is a deterministic, fail-closed starter. Before implementation, smoke exits `0`, Hub 20 exits `1` at `0/20`, and offline evidence verification exits `0` with `valid`; qualification and certification stay `false`. Implementers then replace `evaluate()` with product decisions across negotiation, delivery, authority, conflict, knowledge, completion, recovery, and portability until Hub 20 reaches `20/20`.",
    "offlineBoundary": "Package acquisition is separate from offline verification. Network or a local package cache may be needed to obtain the immutable package bytes; after the package, report, and optional adapter bytes are present, the report verifier performs no network access.",
    "claimBoundary": "These results do not certify an implementation or prove security, production fitness, complete semantic coverage, KFD-10 activation, or adoption by an independent organization. [Verify an Agent Hub report](/agent-hub/#report-verification) · [Explore other KFD verification profiles](/verify/)"
  },
  "independentReaderModel": {
    "contract": "site.libkungfu.dev/kfd-independent-reader-model/v1",
    "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67",
    "dimensions": {
      "behavior": {
        "question": "Does the adapter implement the fixed Hub semantics?",
        "measure": "Hub 20 passed scenarios",
        "conforming": "20/20",
        "starter": "0/20"
      },
      "evidence": {
        "question": "Can the report, package roots, capability roots, outcomes, and optional adapter bytes be recomputed offline?",
        "measure": "agent-hub-report verifier valid",
        "conforming": true,
        "starter": true
      },
      "authority": {
        "question": "Does this experimental result grant qualification or certification?",
        "measure": "qualifying and certification claims",
        "conforming": {
          "qualifying": false,
          "certification": false
        },
        "starter": {
          "qualifying": false,
          "certification": false
        }
      }
    },
    "referencePath": {
      "id": "understand",
      "label": "Two-minute understanding path",
      "command": "npx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67 kfd demo agent-hub --output agent-hub-demo-report.json",
      "machineCommand": "npx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67 kfd demo agent-hub --output agent-hub-demo-report.json --json",
      "expected": {
        "demoExitCode": 0,
        "behavior": "20/20",
        "evidence": "valid",
        "qualifying": false,
        "certification": false
      },
      "boundary": "The packaged reference adapter demonstrates the contract. It is non-product code and is not adopter evidence or certification.",
      "failureExample": {
        "id": "hub-017-reject-call-success-as-completion",
        "category": "completion",
        "polarity": "negative",
        "claim": "A successful call is not evidence that the Pursuit completed.",
        "request": {
          "scenario": "reject-call-success-as-completion",
          "input": {
            "callSucceeded": true,
            "completionVerdict": "unproved"
          }
        },
        "expect": {
          "status": "rejected",
          "code": "completion-unproved",
          "verdict": "rejected"
        }
      }
    },
    "adopterPath": {
      "id": "implement",
      "label": "Implement your own adapter",
      "steps": [
        {
          "id": "scaffold",
          "label": "Scaffold",
          "detail": "Generate a deterministic fail-closed starter. No Hub semantics are implemented yet.",
          "command": "npx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67 kfd scaffold agent-hub --language python --output my-agent-hub-adapter",
          "expected": "Expected: exit 0 · new directory created"
        },
        {
          "id": "smoke",
          "label": "Run starter smoke",
          "detail": "Check only the jsonl-stdio/v1 request and response envelope.",
          "command": "python3 my-agent-hub-adapter/smoke.py",
          "expected": "Expected: exit 0 · envelope pass"
        },
        {
          "id": "understand",
          "label": "Understand the Hub model",
          "detail": "Read what the eight semantic categories protect before writing product decisions.",
          "href": "#hub-semantics"
        },
        {
          "id": "implement",
          "label": "Implement Hub semantics",
          "detail": "Replace evaluate() with product-owned behavior for the fixed scenarios. KFD cannot supply your product decisions.",
          "code": "my-agent-hub-adapter/adapter.py → evaluate()",
          "expected": "Target before claiming conformance: 20/20"
        },
        {
          "id": "test",
          "label": "Test Hub 20",
          "detail": "Run the fixed suite against your adapter bytes. The unmodified starter deliberately returns scenario-not-implemented.",
          "command": "npx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67 kfd test agent-hub --adapter ./my-agent-hub-adapter/adapter.py --output agent-hub-report.json",
          "expected": "Untouched starter: exit 1 · 0/20 · report.valid=false"
        },
        {
          "id": "verify",
          "label": "Verify report offline",
          "detail": "Recompute the retained report and root closure, optionally including adapter bytes. This does not rerun the adapter or certify production fitness.",
          "command": "npx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67 kfd verify agent-hub-report agent-hub-report.json --adapter ./my-agent-hub-adapter/adapter.py",
          "expected": "Expected: exit 0 · verification.valid=true · adapter bytes checked"
        }
      ]
    },
    "categories": [
      {
        "id": "negotiation",
        "label": "Negotiation",
        "userValue": "Both Hubs agree on the exact profile, required features, and semantic root before exchange.",
        "vectors": [
          {
            "id": "hub-001-negotiate-exact-profile",
            "claim": "Two Hubs negotiate the exact alpha profile and required capability set.",
            "polarity": "positive",
            "expected": {
              "status": "accepted",
              "code": "capability-negotiated",
              "verdict": "admitted"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-002-reject-unknown-required-feature",
            "claim": "An unknown required feature fails closed.",
            "polarity": "negative",
            "expected": {
              "status": "rejected",
              "code": "required-feature-unsupported",
              "verdict": "rejected"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-003-reject-profile-root-drift",
            "claim": "A peer cannot silently substitute another profile root.",
            "polarity": "negative",
            "expected": {
              "status": "rejected",
              "code": "profile-root-mismatch",
              "verdict": "rejected"
            }
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "delivery",
        "label": "Delivery",
        "userValue": "Delivery stays separate from admission, while duplicates, idempotency conflicts, and delays remain explicit.",
        "vectors": [
          {
            "id": "hub-004-record-delivery-without-admission",
            "claim": "Transport delivery remains distinct from semantic admission.",
            "polarity": "positive",
            "expected": {
              "status": "accepted",
              "code": "delivery-recorded",
              "verdict": "not-applicable"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-005-preserve-identical-duplicate",
            "claim": "At-least-once duplicate delivery preserves one semantic payload root.",
            "polarity": "positive",
            "expected": {
              "status": "accepted",
              "code": "duplicate-preserved",
              "verdict": "not-applicable"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-006-reject-idempotency-conflict",
            "claim": "An idempotency key cannot name two payload roots.",
            "polarity": "negative",
            "expected": {
              "status": "rejected",
              "code": "idempotency-conflict",
              "verdict": "rejected"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-007-admit-under-local-authority",
            "claim": "Receipt plus local decision authority can produce admission.",
            "polarity": "positive",
            "expected": {
              "status": "accepted",
              "code": "admission-accepted",
              "verdict": "admitted"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-008-retain-delayed-delivery",
            "claim": "A delayed transport record does not fabricate admission.",
            "polarity": "positive",
            "expected": {
              "status": "accepted",
              "code": "delivery-recorded",
              "verdict": "not-applicable"
            }
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "authority",
        "label": "Authority",
        "userValue": "Delegation can narrow but cannot silently amplify or outlive a revoked Warrant.",
        "vectors": [
          {
            "id": "hub-009-attenuate-delegated-authority",
            "claim": "Cross-Hub delegation may narrow action and time scope.",
            "polarity": "positive",
            "expected": {
              "status": "accepted",
              "code": "authority-attenuated",
              "verdict": "admitted"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-010-reject-authority-amplification",
            "claim": "Cross-Hub delegation cannot add an action.",
            "polarity": "negative",
            "expected": {
              "status": "rejected",
              "code": "authority-amplification",
              "verdict": "rejected"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-011-reject-revoked-warrant",
            "claim": "Revocation remains effective after transport and reconnect.",
            "polarity": "negative",
            "expected": {
              "status": "rejected",
              "code": "authority-revoked",
              "verdict": "rejected"
            }
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "conflict",
        "label": "Conflict",
        "userValue": "Concurrent disagreement stays visible instead of disappearing behind last-write-wins.",
        "vectors": [
          {
            "id": "hub-012-surface-concurrent-conflict",
            "claim": "Concurrent non-dominating facts remain explicitly conflicted.",
            "polarity": "negative",
            "expected": {
              "status": "conflicted",
              "code": "conflict-visible",
              "verdict": "conflicted"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-013-reject-hidden-last-write-wins",
            "claim": "A last-write-wins collapse cannot hide unresolved concurrent facts.",
            "polarity": "negative",
            "expected": {
              "status": "rejected",
              "code": "conflict-visible",
              "verdict": "rejected"
            }
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "knowledge",
        "label": "Knowledge",
        "userValue": "Partial, intentionally withheld, and unavailable knowledge remain different states.",
        "vectors": [
          {
            "id": "hub-014-retain-partial-knowledge",
            "claim": "Partial knowledge is typed and remains distinguishable from absence.",
            "polarity": "positive",
            "expected": {
              "status": "accepted",
              "code": "partial-knowledge-retained",
              "verdict": "not-applicable"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-015-retain-intentionally-withheld",
            "claim": "Intentionally withheld information is not reported as unavailable.",
            "polarity": "positive",
            "expected": {
              "status": "accepted",
              "code": "partial-knowledge-retained",
              "verdict": "intentionally-withheld"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-016-retain-unavailable",
            "claim": "Unavailable information remains distinct from withheld information.",
            "polarity": "positive",
            "expected": {
              "status": "accepted",
              "code": "partial-knowledge-retained",
              "verdict": "unavailable"
            }
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "completion",
        "label": "Completion",
        "userValue": "A successful call cannot be promoted into proof that the Pursuit completed.",
        "vectors": [
          {
            "id": "hub-017-reject-call-success-as-completion",
            "claim": "A successful call is not evidence that the Pursuit completed.",
            "polarity": "negative",
            "expected": {
              "status": "rejected",
              "code": "completion-unproved",
              "verdict": "rejected"
            }
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "recovery",
        "label": "Recovery",
        "userValue": "Offline divergence is surfaced when Hubs reconnect instead of being overwritten.",
        "vectors": [
          {
            "id": "hub-018-surface-offline-reconnect-conflict",
            "claim": "Offline edits that diverge remain conflicted after reconnect.",
            "polarity": "negative",
            "expected": {
              "status": "conflicted",
              "code": "conflict-visible",
              "verdict": "conflicted"
            }
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "portability",
        "label": "Portability",
        "userValue": "Export and import preserve semantic roots and reject meaning-changing drift.",
        "vectors": [
          {
            "id": "hub-019-preserve-export-import-roots",
            "claim": "Export and import preserve exact profile, payload, and capability roots.",
            "polarity": "positive",
            "expected": {
              "status": "accepted",
              "code": "export-import-preserved",
              "verdict": "admitted"
            }
          },
          {
            "id": "hub-020-reject-export-import-drift",
            "claim": "Import fails closed when the profile root changes.",
            "polarity": "negative",
            "expected": {
              "status": "rejected",
              "code": "profile-root-mismatch",
              "verdict": "rejected"
            }
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "outcome": "A bounded, artifact-linked answer to whether two independently owned Hubs preserve meaning when Work crosses their boundary."
  },
  "verificationLanes": [
    {
      "id": "independent-implementation",
      "title": "Implement and verify KFD independently",
      "url": "/verify",
      "relationship": "implementation-and-independent-verification-guide",
      "claimBoundary": "Render the declared facts and links without converting package verification into certification, draft activation, independent adoption, or production fitness."
    },
    {
      "id": "governed-self-change",
      "title": "How KFD changes itself",
      "url": "/verify/self-conformance",
      "relationship": "package-owned-governed-self-change-projection",
      "claimBoundary": "This page projects the fixed KFD package. Numbered decisions, Profile contracts, exact evidence roots, and accountable human authority remain authoritative."
    }
  ],
  "selfConformance": {
    "id": "self-conformance",
    "title": "How KFD changes itself",
    "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/README.md",
    "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/verify/self-conformance/",
    "relationship": "package-owned-governed-self-change-projection",
    "normative": false,
    "status": "experimental",
    "authorityNote": "This page projects the fixed KFD package. Numbered decisions, Profile contracts, exact evidence roots, and accountable human authority remain authoritative.",
    "profile": {
      "id": "kfd-self-conformance",
      "version": "1.0.0-alpha.1",
      "status": "experimental"
    },
    "readerModel": {
      "question": "How should a reader connect KFD's live governance gate with its reconstructed history without granting either lane authority it does not have?",
      "prospective": {
        "label": "Prospective governance",
        "applicability": "Official Candidate genesis, qualification, numbering, status, Foundation Revision, and release-packaging transitions under the live Profile.",
        "gate": "The applicable live Self-Conformance gate must pass before an official lifecycle transition proceeds.",
        "ordinaryEditsBoundary": "Ordinary repository edits do not silently become lifecycle transitions."
      },
      "retrospective": {
        "label": "Retrospective structural conformance",
        "start": {
          "id": "kfd-alpha28-foundation-cut",
          "gitCommit": "04f839e8e7834c9eda3d46424de2f59f53623e8f",
          "gitTag": "v1.0.0-alpha.28",
          "packageName": "@kungfu-tech/kfd",
          "packageVersion": "1.0.0-alpha.28",
          "packageRoot": "sha256:279cf2adcfe0c5cd9d31ecf0e6317d5a5f2ff854c49c39f7e135ad4e2cc43ce1"
        },
        "convergence": {
          "liveAnchorId": "kfd-alpha-55-pre-profile",
          "compatibility": "additive",
          "historicalDoesNotReplaceLive": true
        },
        "retrospective": true,
        "profileAvailableAtEvent": false,
        "claim": "This later structural replay does not project the Profile into historical events or retroactively approve, authorize, activate, certify, or change them."
      },
      "authorityBoundary": {
        "verifierNecessary": true,
        "verifierSufficient": false,
        "humanApprovalRequired": true,
        "forbiddenInferences": [
          "semantic truth",
          "retroactive approval or authority",
          "number allocation or status change",
          "activation or certification",
          "adoption or production fitness",
          "publication or release authority"
        ]
      },
      "links": [
        {
          "label": "Live Self-Conformance Profile",
          "url": "/profiles/self-conformance/README.md"
        },
        {
          "label": "Historical lineage guide",
          "url": "/profiles/self-conformance/history/README.md"
        },
        {
          "label": "Historical lineage report",
          "url": "/profiles/self-conformance/history/historical-lineage.report.json"
        },
        {
          "label": "Live Profile manifest",
          "url": "/profiles/self-conformance/manifest.json"
        }
      ]
    },
    "governedObjects": [
      "Candidate genesis and qualification",
      "numbered-draft promotion",
      "activation and supersession",
      "foundation revision",
      "release packaging"
    ],
    "lifecycle": {
      "paths": [
        {
          "id": "candidate",
          "transitions": [
            "candidate-genesis",
            "revision-required",
            "rejection",
            "provisional-retention",
            "no-new-kfd"
          ],
          "authorityRoles": [
            "provenance-owner",
            "review-disposition"
          ],
          "decisions": [
            "record-candidate",
            "revise",
            "reject",
            "retain-provisional",
            "no-new-kfd"
          ]
        },
        {
          "id": "qualification",
          "transitions": [
            "candidate-qualification",
            "revision-required",
            "rejection",
            "provisional-retention",
            "no-new-kfd"
          ],
          "authorityRoles": [
            "evidence-review-authority",
            "review-disposition"
          ],
          "decisions": [
            "qualify",
            "revise",
            "reject",
            "retain-provisional",
            "no-new-kfd"
          ]
        },
        {
          "id": "draft-promotion",
          "transitions": [
            "numbered-draft-promotion",
            "revision-required",
            "rejection",
            "provisional-retention",
            "no-new-kfd"
          ],
          "authorityRoles": [
            "maintainer-numbering",
            "review-disposition"
          ],
          "decisions": [
            "promote",
            "revise",
            "reject",
            "retain-provisional",
            "no-new-kfd"
          ]
        },
        {
          "id": "activation",
          "transitions": [
            "activation"
          ],
          "authorityRoles": [
            "maintainer-status"
          ],
          "decisions": [
            "activate"
          ]
        },
        {
          "id": "supersession",
          "transitions": [
            "supersession"
          ],
          "authorityRoles": [
            "maintainer-status"
          ],
          "decisions": [
            "supersede"
          ]
        },
        {
          "id": "foundation-revision",
          "transitions": [
            "foundation-revision"
          ],
          "authorityRoles": [
            "maintainer-foundation-revision"
          ],
          "decisions": [
            "revise-foundation"
          ]
        },
        {
          "id": "release",
          "transitions": [
            "release-packaging"
          ],
          "authorityRoles": [
            "release-authority"
          ],
          "decisions": [
            "package"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "nonPromotionTransitions": [
        "revision-required",
        "rejection",
        "provisional-retention",
        "no-new-kfd"
      ],
      "claimBoundary": "A lifecycle gate verifies exact structural evidence and the presence, separation, and scope of supplied governance receipts. It does not allocate a number, change status, approve, merge, publish, certify, or replace accountable human authority."
    },
    "verifierBoundary": {
      "requirement": {
        "native": true,
        "wasm": true,
        "byteParity": true,
        "offline": true,
        "independent": true
      },
      "matrix": {
        "schemaVersion": 1,
        "contract": "kfd.self-conformance-lifecycle-gate-matrix/v1",
        "profile": "kfd-self-conformance@1.0.0-alpha.1",
        "positivePaths": [
          "candidate",
          "qualification",
          "draft-promotion",
          "activation",
          "supersession",
          "foundation-revision",
          "release"
        ],
        "failureCases": [
          {
            "id": "scg-f001",
            "category": "absent",
            "mutation": "remove-chain",
            "code": "scg-transition-evidence-absent"
          },
          {
            "id": "scg-f002",
            "category": "stale",
            "mutation": "stale-predecessor-report",
            "code": "scg-predecessor-stale"
          },
          {
            "id": "scg-f003",
            "category": "wrong-root",
            "mutation": "wrong-terminal-root",
            "code": "scg-terminal-root-mismatch"
          },
          {
            "id": "scg-f004",
            "category": "wrong-predecessor",
            "mutation": "wrong-predecessor-state",
            "code": "scg-predecessor-chain-invalid"
          },
          {
            "id": "scg-f005",
            "category": "wrong-authority",
            "mutation": "wrong-authority-role",
            "code": "scg-authority-role-invalid"
          },
          {
            "id": "scg-f006",
            "category": "missing-review",
            "mutation": "remove-review",
            "code": "scg-review-receipt-missing"
          },
          {
            "id": "scg-f007",
            "category": "claim-overreach",
            "mutation": "claim-overreach",
            "code": "scp-claim-overreach"
          },
          {
            "id": "scg-f008",
            "category": "package-substitution",
            "mutation": "substitute-package",
            "code": "scg-verifier-package-substitution"
          }
        ],
        "claimBoundary": "The matrix proves deterministic gate behavior over fixed fixtures only; it does not authorize any lifecycle transition."
      },
      "issueCodes": {
        "schemaVersion": 1,
        "contract": "kfd.self-conformance-issue-codes/v1",
        "profile": "kfd-self-conformance@1.0.0-alpha.1",
        "codes": [
          "scg-authority-coordinate-mismatch",
          "scg-authority-role-invalid",
          "scg-authority-root-mismatch",
          "scg-counterevidence-order-invalid",
          "scg-entry-report-root-mismatch",
          "scg-entry-root-mismatch",
          "scg-path-transition-mismatch",
          "scg-path-unsupported",
          "scg-predecessor-chain-invalid",
          "scg-predecessor-stale",
          "scg-request-invalid",
          "scg-review-coordinate-mismatch",
          "scg-review-not-independent",
          "scg-review-receipt-missing",
          "scg-review-root-mismatch",
          "scg-terminal-root-mismatch",
          "scg-transition-evidence-absent",
          "scg-verifier-execution-failed",
          "scg-verifier-package-substitution",
          "scg-verifier-root-mismatch",
          "scp-authority-receipt-missing",
          "scp-bootstrap-anchor-invalid",
          "scp-claim-boundary-missing",
          "scp-claim-overreach",
          "scp-contract-invalid",
          "scp-evidence-roots-missing",
          "scp-expected-result-mismatch",
          "scp-immutable-coordinate-missing",
          "scp-known-gaps-missing",
          "scp-predecessor-root-mismatch",
          "scp-profile-version-unsupported",
          "scp-proposed-root-mismatch",
          "scp-review-receipt-missing",
          "scp-root-conflict",
          "scp-root-substitution",
          "scp-schema-set-root-mismatch",
          "scp-self-containing-package",
          "scp-self-containing-report",
          "scp-set-order-invalid",
          "scp-transition-state-invalid",
          "scp-transition-unsupported",
          "scp-verifier-root-missing"
        ],
        "ordering": [
          "code",
          "path",
          "message"
        ],
        "unknownFailureCode": "scp-contract-invalid",
        "claimBoundary": "Issue codes identify transition or lifecycle-gate structural failures only; they do not express semantic truth, approval, certification, adoption, numbering, status, or release authority."
      },
      "claimBoundary": "The fixed package proves only the published Self-Conformance contract closure and vectors. It does not prove semantic truth, approval, certification, adoption, product fitness, lifecycle authority, or release authorization."
    },
    "commands": [
      {
        "id": "gate-lifecycle",
        "label": "Evaluate a lifecycle gate",
        "command": "kfd gate self-conformance-lifecycle <request> --output <report> --json"
      },
      {
        "id": "verify-transition",
        "label": "Verify a transition report",
        "command": "kfd verify self-conformance-transition <report> --json"
      },
      {
        "id": "verify-history",
        "label": "Replay immutable historical lineage",
        "command": "node bin/kfd-history.mjs verify profiles/self-conformance/history/historical-lineage.report.json --json"
      }
    ],
    "historicalLineage": {
      "reportId": "kfd-history-alpha28-to-live-alpha55",
      "retrospective": true,
      "profileAvailableAtEvent": false,
      "bootstrapBoundary": {
        "id": "kfd-alpha28-foundation-cut",
        "gitCommit": "04f839e8e7834c9eda3d46424de2f59f53623e8f",
        "gitTag": "v1.0.0-alpha.28",
        "packageName": "@kungfu-tech/kfd",
        "packageVersion": "1.0.0-alpha.28",
        "packageRoot": "sha256:279cf2adcfe0c5cd9d31ecf0e6317d5a5f2ff854c49c39f7e135ad4e2cc43ce1",
        "active": [
          "KFD-1",
          "KFD-2",
          "KFD-3",
          "KFD-4",
          "KFD-5"
        ],
        "draft": [
          "KFD-6"
        ],
        "absent": [
          "KFD-7"
        ],
        "note": "This alpha.28 cut is a retrospective foundation. It is not the live Profile bootstrap and does not claim contemporaneous Profile execution."
      },
      "kfd7Walkthrough": [
        {
          "sequence": 1,
          "id": "kfd7-candidate-pr159",
          "transition": "candidate-genesis",
          "before": "absent",
          "after": "candidate",
          "sourceIds": [
            "kfd7-candidate-registry",
            "pr-159-authority",
            "pr-159-review"
          ]
        },
        {
          "sequence": 2,
          "id": "kfd7-refinement-pr176",
          "transition": "candidate-refinement",
          "before": "candidate",
          "after": "candidate",
          "sourceIds": [
            "kfd7-refined-candidates",
            "pr-176-authority",
            "pr-176-review"
          ]
        },
        {
          "sequence": 3,
          "id": "kfd7-numbered-draft-pr180",
          "transition": "numbered-draft-promotion",
          "before": "candidate",
          "after": "numbered-draft",
          "sourceIds": [
            "kfd7-numbered-registry",
            "pr-180-authority",
            "pr-180-review"
          ]
        },
        {
          "sequence": 4,
          "id": "kfd7-qualification-pr186",
          "transition": "qualification",
          "before": "numbered-draft",
          "after": "qualified-numbered-draft",
          "sourceIds": [
            "kfd7-qualified-decision",
            "pr-186-authority",
            "pr-186-review"
          ]
        },
        {
          "sequence": 5,
          "id": "kfd7-activation-pr190",
          "transition": "activation",
          "before": "qualified-numbered-draft",
          "after": "active",
          "sourceIds": [
            "kfd7-activation-record",
            "kfd7-active-registry",
            "pr-190-authority",
            "pr-190-review"
          ]
        },
        {
          "sequence": 6,
          "id": "kfd7-alpha36-packaging",
          "transition": "release-packaging",
          "before": "active",
          "after": "active-packaged",
          "sourceIds": [
            "alpha36-package",
            "pr-190-authority",
            "pr-190-review"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "transitionRecipes": [
        {
          "transition": "candidate-genesis",
          "before": "absent",
          "after": "candidate"
        },
        {
          "transition": "candidate-refinement",
          "before": "candidate",
          "after": "candidate"
        },
        {
          "transition": "numbered-draft-promotion",
          "before": "candidate",
          "after": "numbered-draft"
        },
        {
          "transition": "qualification",
          "before": "numbered-draft",
          "after": "qualified-numbered-draft"
        },
        {
          "transition": "activation",
          "before": "qualified-numbered-draft",
          "after": "active"
        },
        {
          "transition": "release-packaging",
          "before": "active",
          "after": "active-packaged"
        },
        {
          "transition": "no-new-kfd",
          "before": "candidate",
          "after": "no-new-kfd"
        }
      ],
      "coverage": [
        {
          "subjectId": "KFD-10",
          "terminalState": "numbered-draft",
          "normativePromotionClaimed": false
        },
        {
          "subjectId": "KFD-11",
          "terminalState": "numbered-draft",
          "normativePromotionClaimed": false
        },
        {
          "subjectId": "KFD-7",
          "terminalState": "active-packaged",
          "normativePromotionClaimed": false
        },
        {
          "subjectId": "KFD-8",
          "terminalState": "numbered-draft",
          "normativePromotionClaimed": false
        },
        {
          "subjectId": "KFD-9",
          "terminalState": "numbered-draft",
          "normativePromotionClaimed": false
        },
        {
          "subjectId": "kfd-self-conformance-pressure",
          "terminalState": "no-new-kfd",
          "normativePromotionClaimed": false
        },
        {
          "subjectId": "project-settlement",
          "terminalState": "foundation-revised-draft",
          "normativePromotionClaimed": false
        },
        {
          "subjectId": "software-responsibility-transition",
          "terminalState": "foundation-revised-draft",
          "normativePromotionClaimed": false
        }
      ],
      "numberingMappings": [
        {
          "from": null,
          "to": "KFD-11@pre-2026-07-21",
          "relation": "historical-number"
        },
        {
          "from": null,
          "to": "KFD-12@pre-2026-07-21",
          "relation": "historical-number"
        },
        {
          "from": null,
          "to": "KFD-11",
          "relation": "allocated-by-foundation-revision"
        },
        {
          "from": "KFD-11@pre-2026-07-21",
          "to": "KFD-12",
          "relation": "renumbered"
        },
        {
          "from": "KFD-12@pre-2026-07-21",
          "to": "KFD-13",
          "relation": "renumbered"
        }
      ],
      "convergence": {
        "historicalTerminalSourceId": "no-new-kfd-report",
        "liveAnchorSourceId": "self-conformance-live-alpha55-anchor",
        "liveAnchorId": "kfd-alpha-55-pre-profile",
        "liveAnchorRoot": "sha256:26961922619d090faf9c76f8bf0e25947100a5d13be6831366f1a0933c7ced59",
        "livePackageRoot": "sha256:114c195fea83c65ec84e52def6c2afced8a4ca9d2c9abe813f5c9c5d3b50260a",
        "compatibility": "additive",
        "historicalDoesNotReplaceLive": true
      },
      "nextAction": "Choose a current lifecycle action from the actual terminal state; preserve partial, draft, revised, rejected, provisional, or no-new-kfd outcomes instead of manufacturing promotion.",
      "limits": "This report is a later, structural replay over immutable public coordinates. It does not assert that the Profile existed or ran at an event, prove semantic truth, activate a draft, certify an implementation, authorize a release, or replace the alpha.55 live anchor.",
      "markdown": "# KFD historical Self-Conformance\n\nThis additive history profile provides **retrospective structural conformance**\nby replaying immutable KFD events without changing the live\n`kfd-self-conformance@1.0.0-alpha.1` contract. The live contract, its alpha.55\nbootstrap, retained reports, issue inventory, manifest, and verifier bytes\nremain unchanged.\n\n## Bootstrap boundary\n\nThe retrospective Foundation Cut is commit\n`04f839e8e7834c9eda3d46424de2f59f53623e8f`, tag\n`v1.0.0-alpha.28`, package `@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.28`, and tarball root\n`sha256:279cf2adcfe0c5cd9d31ecf0e6317d5a5f2ff854c49c39f7e135ad4e2cc43ce1`.\nAt that cut KFD-1 through KFD-5 were active, KFD-6 was draft, and KFD-7 was\nabsent. PR #146 and its exact-head `kungfu-origin` approval are separate source\npayloads.\n\nEvery history report and episode declares `retrospective: true` and\n`profileAvailableAtEvent: false`. This is a later reconstruction, not a claim\nthat historical actors ran a Profile that did not exist. It cannot\nretroactively approve, authorize, activate, certify, or change an event.\n\n## KFD-7 walkthrough\n\nKFD-7 moves through PR #159 Candidate genesis, PR #176 Candidate refinement,\nPR #180 numbered draft, PR #186 qualification, PR #190 activation with the\nBuildchain and Kungfu product-profile evidence, and alpha.36 packaging. Each\nstep retains its actual terminal state; later activation is never projected\nbackward.\n\n## Coverage\n\nKFD-8 through KFD-10 stop at numbered draft. The Foundation Revision retains\nold KFD-11 as present KFD-12 and old KFD-12 as present KFD-13, while allocating\nthe present KFD-11; all remain draft. The recursive `no-new-kfd` result remains\na valid non-promotion outcome.\n\n## Convergence and limits\n\nThe history report converges additively with `kfd-alpha-55-pre-profile`; it does\nnot replace that anchor. A pass proves only structural closure of the embedded\nimmutable source payloads, time boundary, generic transition recipes,\nauthority/review separation, and declared terminal outcomes. It does not prove\nsemantic truth, activation, adoption, certification, fitness, or release\nauthority.",
      "implementerGuideMarkdown": "# Historical Self-Conformance clean-room guide\n\nThis command evaluates retrospective structural conformance only. It must\nretain `retrospective: true` and `profileAvailableAtEvent: false`; a successful\nreplay never implies contemporaneous Profile execution or retroactive approval,\nauthority, activation, certification, or status change.\n\nFrom the extracted package, run:\n\n```bash\nnode bin/kfd-history.mjs verify \\\n  profiles/self-conformance/history/historical-lineage.report.json --json\n```\n\nThe CLI uses the package's current WebAssembly build of the same Rust verifier\ncore as the native CLI. Verification is offline and recomputes every embedded\nsource payload root.\n\nApply the generic recipes literally: Candidate genesis is `absent ->\ncandidate`; refinement is `candidate -> candidate`; numbered draft is\n`candidate -> numbered-draft` or an explicitly bounded historical observation;\nqualification is `numbered-draft -> qualified-numbered-draft`; activation is\n`qualified-numbered-draft -> active`; packaging is `active ->\nactive-packaged`; Foundation allocation/revision requires explicit numbering\nmaps; and non-promotion may end at `no-new-kfd`.\n\nChoose the next action from the actual terminal state. Preserve missing\nevidence, draft, revision, rejection, provisional, or non-promotion outcomes;\nnever select a stronger transition merely to complete a chain. A passing replay\ndoes not mutate `registry.json` or authorize a current lifecycle action."
    },
    "releaseSeparation": {
      "verifierNecessary": true,
      "verifierSufficient": false,
      "humanApprovalRequired": true,
      "releaseAuthoritySeparate": true,
      "note": "A valid verifier report is necessary structural evidence. It cannot approve, merge, publish, certify, allocate a number, change status, or authorize a release."
    },
    "recursiveCase": {
      "id": "recursive-normative-self-conformance",
      "candidate": {
        "url": "/drafts/recursive-normative-self-conformance",
        "status": "merged",
        "normative": false,
        "claimBoundary": "This pre-number Candidate was merged into the explicit composition of KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-5, KFD-11, and the fixed Self-Conformance Profile under a no-new-kfd disposition. It has no slot hint, number, active status, self-certification, merge authority, or release authority."
      },
      "liveCase": {
        "url": "/cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance",
        "status": "closed",
        "outcome": "no-new-primitive",
        "claimBoundary": "This closed case retains the no-new-kfd result and its reopening conditions. It does not infer historical Profile conformance, allocate a number, activate a KFD, certify the Profile, or authorize release."
      },
      "terminal": {
        "outcome": "non-promotion",
        "valid": true,
        "verifierNecessary": true,
        "verifierSufficient": false,
        "humanApproved": false,
        "releaseAuthorized": false,
        "numberAllocated": false,
        "statusChanged": false,
        "requestRoot": "sha256:6de7f6436870f4ac5d0e608e631b787371eb318ff680a15b90db7e5b4aac8dc6",
        "fixedPackageRoot": "sha256:596a1e4b0d57e93fefcb4f32ff2df5be35a56cf86fb8864f5d0ab09b12cd8770",
        "terminalBundleRoot": "sha256:1dda7286370c7221d87539d4749fb07017f94238040e324c02fc633c19b797e9",
        "terminalReportRoot": "sha256:0fb85f2dbd11dba10648bbc85a7f8a563674d4b18c6d6dfe452c6db80b40d9bb"
      },
      "assessment": {
        "schemaVersion": 1,
        "contract": "kfd.recursive-normative-self-conformance-assessment/v1",
        "assessmentId": "recursive-normative-self-conformance-no-new-kfd-proposal",
        "candidateId": "recursive-normative-self-conformance",
        "purpose": "Determine whether the reviewed pre-number Candidate adds an irreducible KFD responsibility or names a derivable composition of existing responsibilities.",
        "evaluatedCut": {
          "repository": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd",
          "commit": "09cd4a5c86ba12af8cc603f97e5c2f8a74315973",
          "pullRequest": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/326"
        },
        "fixedEvidence": [
          {
            "id": "genesis",
            "path": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.genesis.json",
            "root": "sha256:682ce14c22e7d26c699a19b9a33565454280d0e933d61effa989d7318cfa2926",
            "rootKind": "exact-bytes"
          },
          {
            "id": "redundancy",
            "path": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.redundancy.json",
            "root": "sha256:39e0144b696b0a43ddfee044affe942b039e8b31c0d8f098c6b318e73ca9f9c7",
            "rootKind": "exact-bytes"
          },
          {
            "id": "historical-replay",
            "path": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.replay.json",
            "root": "sha256:7034905c714777bc9c6c018f3a21595e4d4e8aeb5ce7bfb250bb19a88590b32f",
            "rootKind": "exact-bytes"
          },
          {
            "id": "genesis-review",
            "path": "evidence/self-conformance/reviews/recursive-normative-self-conformance.genesis.json",
            "root": "sha256:b5f1e6b7abc94ef9749f39ed90112c4379d8ebfa4dfd323b2bf6207ea29c6795",
            "rootKind": "semantic-json"
          },
          {
            "id": "candidate-lifecycle-request",
            "path": "evidence/self-conformance/transitions/recursive-normative-self-conformance-genesis.request.json",
            "root": "sha256:4d00f631267f5cab971cf8dd3a035cb20955e333d6eddedf626ab2ade86e30f5",
            "rootKind": "semantic-json"
          },
          {
            "id": "candidate-lifecycle-report",
            "path": "evidence/self-conformance/transitions/recursive-normative-self-conformance-genesis.report.json",
            "root": "sha256:7071efef09ef04846dc4e6c2cc4eb2b38fe715032bc1b0f36ffc51e1b71533e2",
            "rootKind": "semantic-json"
          }
        ],
        "replayAssessment": {
          "requiredCases": [
            "kfd-1-through-kfd-3-bootstrap",
            "kfd-7-positive-activation",
            "kfd-11-through-kfd-13-foundation-revision",
            "kfd-6-partial-autonomous-discovery",
            "profile-counterfactual-over-history"
          ],
          "classificationCounts": {
            "historical-fact": 3,
            "retrospective-reconstruction": 1,
            "counterfactual-replay": 1
          },
          "nonRetroactivity": "pass",
          "finding": "The replay distinguishes retained historical facts from later reconstruction and counterfactual Profile application; it does not infer original conformance."
        },
        "redundancyAssessment": {
          "minimumClosure": "derivable",
          "deletion": "derivable",
          "fuse": "derivable",
          "crossDomainTransfer": "no-independent-object-observed",
          "profileAlone": "insufficient-and-non-authoritative",
          "finding": "KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-5, and KFD-11 supply the normative responsibilities, while the fixed Profile supplies non-authoritative structural machinery."
        },
        "falsifierAssessment": [
          {
            "id": "deletion-changes-decision-observation",
            "result": "not-observed",
            "effect": "supports-no-new-kfd"
          },
          {
            "id": "fuse-creates-authority-ambiguity",
            "result": "not-observed-with-explicit-role-separation",
            "effect": "supports-no-new-kfd"
          },
          {
            "id": "cross-domain-irreducible-responsibility",
            "result": "not-demonstrated",
            "effect": "withholds-new-kfd"
          },
          {
            "id": "fixed-profile-cannot-fail-closed",
            "result": "falsified-by-retained-adversarial-suite",
            "effect": "supports-no-new-kfd"
          }
        ],
        "semanticConclusion": {
          "outcome": "no-new-kfd",
          "state": "proposal-pending-independent-review-and-disposition",
          "reason": "The Candidate is a useful explicit name for recursive application, but every observed responsibility is derivable from the existing KFD closure plus a fixed non-authoritative Profile.",
          "normativeEffect": "none-before-terminal-receipt-and-repository-admission"
        },
        "authoritySeparation": {
          "assessmentAuthor": "qualification-author",
          "structuralVerifier": "kfd-native-and-wasm-projections",
          "independentReviewer": "pending-exact-assessment-cut-review",
          "dispositionAuthority": "pending-after-independent-review",
          "repositoryAdmission": "protected-kfd-pull-request",
          "releaseAuthority": "not-requested"
        },
        "residualRisks": [
          "No independent non-KFD adopter has tested cross-domain transfer.",
          "The useful procedure name could be mistaken for a new normative Primitive after a no-new-KFD disposition.",
          "Structural validity could be overstated as semantic qualification unless the terminal receipt retains its non-authority boundary."
        ],
        "claimBoundary": "This purpose-bound assessment proposes no-new-kfd for independent review. It cannot approve its own conclusion, issue the terminal disposition, change Candidate status, allocate a number, merge, publish, or release."
      },
      "verification": {
        "schemaVersion": 1,
        "contract": "kfd.recursive-normative-self-conformance-verification/v1",
        "candidateId": "recursive-normative-self-conformance",
        "profile": "kfd-self-conformance@1.0.0-alpha.1",
        "assessmentRoot": "sha256:9781a8dd1abc44f28ad2c8091162b7ef300aec29144a06c8bae254b1ec6dccf5",
        "counterevidenceRoot": "sha256:ea6b3c50588f2867527aad93469a7d5f5384c83b57e072c7348888380deacbb2",
        "candidateRequestRoot": "sha256:4d00f631267f5cab971cf8dd3a035cb20955e333d6eddedf626ab2ade86e30f5",
        "candidateReportRoot": "sha256:7071efef09ef04846dc4e6c2cc4eb2b38fe715032bc1b0f36ffc51e1b71533e2",
        "replayClassifications": {
          "historical-fact": 3,
          "retrospective-reconstruction": 1,
          "counterfactual-replay": 1
        },
        "redundancyOutcome": "no-new-kfd",
        "checks": [
          {
            "id": "candidate-pre-number",
            "status": "pass"
          },
          {
            "id": "exact-genesis-inputs",
            "status": "pass"
          },
          {
            "id": "exact-redundancy-inputs",
            "status": "pass"
          },
          {
            "id": "historical-replay-coverage",
            "status": "pass"
          },
          {
            "id": "historical-non-retroactivity",
            "status": "pass"
          },
          {
            "id": "minimum-closure-deletion-fuse",
            "status": "pass"
          },
          {
            "id": "cross-domain-gap-retained",
            "status": "pass"
          },
          {
            "id": "candidate-lifecycle-reproduced",
            "status": "pass"
          },
          {
            "id": "authority-and-review-separated",
            "status": "pass"
          },
          {
            "id": "package-review-authority-claim-substitution-fail-closed",
            "status": "pass"
          }
        ],
        "cleanRoom": {
          "input": "npm-package-files-only",
          "offline": true,
          "networkDependencies": [],
          "ambientHomeDependencies": [],
          "productCheckoutDependencies": []
        },
        "authority": {
          "verifierNecessary": true,
          "verifierSufficient": false,
          "recommendationOnly": true,
          "terminalDispositionRetained": false
        }
      }
    },
    "machineAssets": [
      {
        "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/manifest.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/manifest.json",
        "mediaType": "application/json",
        "role": "profile-manifest",
        "digest": "sha256:405d367bfc17a466725f792684990f5ee578f81bb65bb3a82b2faf8c65eb9705"
      },
      {
        "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gates.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gates.json",
        "mediaType": "application/json",
        "role": "lifecycle-gates",
        "digest": "sha256:0ba98836f811dc61aeea36f0635dfb422665ca2d63b9a74131164ecf6d33b241"
      },
      {
        "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gate-matrix.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gate-matrix.json",
        "mediaType": "application/json",
        "role": "verifier-matrix",
        "digest": "sha256:bfd8a790cfbc334d915e2037ff8356a7de76fd455a4ddcdef2f1811d91712af5"
      },
      {
        "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/issue-codes.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/issue-codes.json",
        "mediaType": "application/json",
        "role": "issue-codes",
        "digest": "sha256:e5ad0dcb9a5ee4d20853c828fa8435cae96fadf4427e12a4622352647b1633a7"
      },
      {
        "sourcePath": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.assessment.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.assessment.json",
        "mediaType": "application/json",
        "role": "qualification-assessment",
        "digest": "sha256:b61a2fd28bc264baabf206235232fc0e55279b637d72912cd65c3419bfbbcfd7"
      },
      {
        "sourcePath": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.verification.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.verification.json",
        "mediaType": "application/json",
        "role": "independent-verification",
        "digest": "sha256:c74ac5cfd1206d1fd36e4c1f65125a2bd790a2f7fbab53187595394ea87d8efe"
      },
      {
        "sourcePath": "evidence/self-conformance/transitions/recursive-normative-self-conformance-terminal.report.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/transitions/recursive-normative-self-conformance-terminal.report.json",
        "mediaType": "application/json",
        "role": "terminal-transition-report",
        "digest": "sha256:e4ac94237f2a3a3dd2467a39158f1a8a6b0e0882722a11973d01f12c99ad801a"
      },
      {
        "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/history/historical-lineage.report.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/history/historical-lineage.report.json",
        "mediaType": "application/json",
        "role": "historical-lineage",
        "digest": "sha256:d49fc25d5f1816a4f8b4d68aa78ced0f556a80a315d96520eb09f57273a72c1b"
      },
      {
        "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/history/manifest.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/history/manifest.json",
        "mediaType": "application/json",
        "role": "historical-manifest",
        "digest": "sha256:ac5c97fd354eed6b108bc6f498caf0ebcf6cc6add807785e5ba8ee860cc1b9ab"
      }
    ],
    "rendering": {
      "kind": "self-conformance-guide",
      "navigationLabel": "Self-Conformance",
      "navigationGroup": "verify",
      "navigationOrder": 26
    },
    "markdown": "# KFD Self-Conformance Profile v1\n\n`kfd-self-conformance@1.0.0-alpha.1` defines how KFD records evidence about\nits own Candidate, decision, lifecycle, and package transitions. It is a\nportable structural proof contract. It is not an authority to allocate a KFD\nnumber, change a decision status, approve a Foundation Revision, publish a\nrelease, certify an adopter, or declare a claim true.\n\nThe normative closure is the fixed package rooted by\n`profiles/self-conformance/manifest.json`. The profile uses only KFD-owned\npublic files and `sha256-kfd-canonical-json-v1`; no product checkout, hosted\nservice, private repository, network, credential, or ambient Home state is\npart of the contract.\n\n## Reader model: prospective gate and retrospective replay\n\nRead KFD Self-Conformance as two connected lanes, not as one timeless claim:\n\n1. **Prospective governance** applies the live Profile to official Candidate\n   genesis, qualification, numbering, status, Foundation Revision, and\n   release-packaging transitions. Ordinary edits remain edits unless an\n   official lifecycle path is invoked.\n2. **Retrospective structural conformance** replays immutable public evidence\n   from the alpha.28 Foundation Cut to its additive convergence with the\n   alpha.55 pre-Profile live anchor. It always declares\n   `retrospective: true` and `profileAvailableAtEvent: false`.\n\nThe retrospective lane does not assert that historical actors possessed or\nran the later Profile, and it cannot retroactively approve, authorize,\nactivate, certify, or change any historical event. Across both lanes, the\nverifier supplies necessary structural evidence but is never sufficient for\nsemantic truth, human approval, numbering, status change, adoption,\npublication, release authority, or production fitness.\n\n[Inspect the historical guide](history/README.md) ·\n[Inspect the historical report](history/historical-lineage.report.json) ·\n[Inspect the live manifest](manifest.json)\n\n## Conformance objects\n\nThe profile has five load-bearing object kinds:\n\n1. a **state** records the semantic and publication state of one immutable KFD\n   subject coordinate;\n2. a **bootstrap anchor** names the reviewed predecessor from which the first\n   profile-governed chain begins;\n3. a **transition bundle** binds the previous and proposed state roots,\n   evidence, schema set, verifier, authority, review, claim boundary, gaps,\n   immutable coordinates, and expected result;\n4. a **report** records only enumerated structural checks over one exact bundle;\n5. a **package manifest** closes the profile, schemas, vectors, bundle, report,\n   predecessor, and verifier coordinates without including its own digest.\n\nEvery object uses `schemaVersion: 1` and an exact `contract` string. Unknown\nversions, fields, transitions, issue codes, or root algorithms fail closed.\n\nThe independent Rust/WebAssembly projection is selected with\n`self-conformance-transition`. It implements the published contract directly;\nit does not call the JavaScript contract check or any product runtime. Its\nmachine-readable invariant map and adversarial cases are fixed in\n`verifier/specs/self-conformance-matrix.json`.\n\n## Canonical roots and the recursion boundary\n\nAll semantic roots use `sha256-kfd-canonical-json-v1`:\n\n- input is JSON with no duplicate keys;\n- object keys are ordered by UTF-8 byte order;\n- strings and keys are NFC-normalized before admission;\n- integers are non-negative and at most `2^53 - 1`;\n- floating point and exponent forms are forbidden;\n- canonical JSON has no insignificant whitespace and ends in one LF;\n- SHA-256 is encoded as `sha256:` plus 64 lowercase hexadecimal digits.\n\nThe state root is computed from the complete state object. The transition\nbundle root is computed from the complete bundle. The report root is computed\nfrom the complete report, which binds `bundleRoot` but has no `reportRoot`\nfield. The package root is computed from the complete package manifest, which\nhas no `packageRoot` field.\n\nRecursion is therefore finite:\n\n```text\nreviewed bootstrap anchor\n  -> transition bundle root\n  -> report root\n  -> package root\n  -> next transition predecessor roots\n```\n\nA transition may bind only predecessor report and package roots. A current\nreport or package digest must never occur in its own digest preimage. A\ncurrent-version-only pass is not evidence about its predecessor.\n\n## State model\n\nA state separates `semanticState` from `publicationState`. Packaging must not\nsilently change semantic status.\n\nSemantic states are:\n\n- `absent`: no Candidate or numbered decision has been created;\n- `candidate`: a non-normative pressure-field proposal exists;\n- `qualified`: the Candidate has the evidence required to request promotion;\n- `numbered-draft`: maintainers allocated a number and retained draft status;\n- `active`: maintainers activated a numbered decision;\n- `superseded`: an active decision was explicitly superseded;\n- `foundation-revised`: a pre-stable Foundation Revision was authorized;\n- `revised`: the proposal returned for substantive revision;\n- `rejected`: the proposal was rejected with retained rationale;\n- `provisional`: incubation continues without promotion;\n- `no-new-kfd`: the pressure field was resolved without a new KFD.\n\nPublication state is `unpublished` or `packaged`. `release-packaging` changes\nonly publication state and preserves semantic state and subject identity.\n\n## Transition table\n\n| Transition | Allowed previous semantic state | Proposed semantic state | Authority boundary |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| `candidate-genesis` | `absent` | `candidate` | provenance owner records a Candidate; no number |\n| `candidate-qualification` | `candidate`, `revised`, `provisional` | `qualified` | evidence review only; no promotion |\n| `numbered-draft-promotion` | `qualified` | `numbered-draft` | maintainer numbering decision plus independent review |\n| `activation` | `numbered-draft` | `active` | maintainer activation plus independent review |\n| `supersession` | `active` | `superseded` | maintainer supersession plus successor lineage |\n| `foundation-revision` | `numbered-draft`, `active` | `foundation-revised` | explicit pre-stable authorization, mapping, and review |\n| `release-packaging` | any retained semantic state | unchanged | release authority; structural pass is insufficient |\n| `revision-required` | `candidate`, `qualified` | `revised` | reviewer rationale retained |\n| `rejection` | `candidate`, `qualified`, `revised`, `provisional` | `rejected` | accountable disposition retained |\n| `provisional-retention` | `candidate`, `qualified`, `revised`, `provisional` | `provisional` | gap and next-review boundary retained |\n| `no-new-kfd` | `absent`, `candidate`, `qualified`, `revised`, `provisional` | `no-new-kfd` | pressure-field rationale retained |\n\nExcept for `release-packaging`, official semantic transitions preserve\n`publicationState`. A later package may contain any retained terminal outcome;\npackaging does not turn that outcome into success.\n\n## Required bundle bindings\n\nA transition bundle must bind:\n\n- the complete previous and proposed states and their independently recomputed\n  roots;\n- the predecessor kind, bootstrap-anchor root, and predecessor report and\n  package roots where applicable;\n- one or more evidence roots;\n- the exact schema-set root and verifier root;\n- separate authority and independent-review receipt roots;\n- an explicit claim boundary and known-gap array, including an empty array\n  when no gap is known;\n- immutable repository/package coordinates;\n- the expected structural result.\n\nSubstitution, omission, reordering of set-like material, stale predecessor\nroots, circular roots, missing authority, missing review, and claim widening\nare invalid. Array ordering is significant unless the relevant schema calls\nthe array a set; producers must sort root sets lexically and reject duplicates.\n\n## Report and claim boundary\n\nA passing report means only that the checks listed in `checks` passed for the\nexact bundle under the exact profile, schema set, and verifier roots. Reports\nfix `qualifying`, `selfCertified`, `semanticTruth`, `humanApproved`,\n`releaseAuthorized`, `adoptionProven`, and `certified` to `false`.\n\nHuman governance remains external and explicit. The bundle retains authority\nand review receipts so a lifecycle gate can require them, but the verifier does\nnot mint or interpret that authority beyond the enumerated structural checks.\n\n## Bootstrap trust anchor\n\nThe bootstrap anchor is an explicit reviewed exception to predecessor-report\nrecursion. It binds the last pre-profile state and package roots, the exact KFD\ncoordinate, authority and review receipts, rationale, and claim boundary. Only\n`candidate-genesis` may begin from a bootstrap predecessor. Replacing the\nanchor starts a different chain and requires an explicit compatibility action.\n\n## Stable diagnostics\n\nThe stable issue namespace is published in\n`profiles/self-conformance/issue-codes.json`. A verifier may report multiple\nissues, but canonical reports order issues by `code`, then `path`, then\n`message`. Unknown failures use `scp-contract-invalid`; they must never be\ntreated as success or silently ignored.\n\nSet-like arrays are strictly UTF-8 sorted and unique. Roots assigned to\nevidence, verifier, authority, review, predecessor report, and predecessor\npackage roles may not collapse into one another. These checks expose\n`scp-set-order-invalid`, `scp-root-substitution`, and `scp-root-conflict`\nwithout interpreting the semantic content of an authority or review receipt.\n\n## Fixed package and versioning\n\nThe extraction manifest is an allowlist. A clean-room implementation may use\nonly the listed files. The profile contract, schemas, issue inventory, vectors,\nand package rules are KFD-1 welded surfaces with additive/minor impact for this\nfirst publication. Incompatible changes to required fields, canonical roots,\ntransition meaning, claim boundaries, or issue meaning require a successor\nprofile or explicit compatibility action.\n\nThe profile does not change any entry in `drafts/registry.json` or\n`registry.json`. Profile publication is not a Candidate promotion or KFD status\ntransition.\n\n## Official lifecycle gate\n\nEvery official Candidate, qualification, numbered-draft promotion, activation,\nsupersession, Foundation Revision, and release-packaging path consumes\n`profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gates.json`. The gate request retains the\ncomplete chain from the reviewed bootstrap anchor, each transition bundle, its\nindependently reproduced report root, the package root, the actual authority\nreceipt, the independent-review receipt, and counterevidence roots. The\nterminal path, transition, role, and decision must match the published policy.\n\nRun the package-owned gate with no network or product checkout:\n\n```bash\nkfd gate self-conformance-lifecycle transition.request.json \\\n  --output transition.report.json --json\n```\n\nBoth files are retained under `evidence/self-conformance/transitions/` for an\nofficial repository transition. The report is reproduced during\nrepository-native checks; a missing pair, stale report, wrong root, incomplete\npredecessor chain, wrong authority role, non-independent review, claim\noverreach, or verifier-package substitution fails closed with a stable `scg-*`\nor underlying `scp-*` diagnostic.\n\nThe gate never applies a transition. A `proceed` report says that the supplied\nstructural proof and separately supplied governance receipts are mutually\nconsistent. It does not allocate a number, change status, approve, merge, or\nrelease. `revision-required`, `rejection`, `provisional-retention`, and\n`no-new-kfd` remain valid retained `non-promotion` outcomes; counterevidence is\nnot discarded to manufacture a passing promotion.",
    "implementerGuideMarkdown": "# Self-Conformance clean-room guide\n\nStart from an extracted `@kungfu-tech/kfd` package, not a repository sibling or\nproduct checkout. Read these files in order:\n\n1. `profiles/self-conformance/README.md`;\n2. `profiles/self-conformance/manifest.json`;\n3. `schemas/kfd-self-conformance/*.schema.json`;\n4. `profiles/self-conformance/issue-codes.json`;\n5. `profiles/self-conformance/vectors/contract-vectors.json`.\n\nImplement `sha256-kfd-canonical-json-v1` exactly, recompute every state and\nbundle root, validate the predecessor or bootstrap chain, then emit a report\nthat conforms to `transition-report.schema.json`. Sort checks by `id` and\nissues by `code`, `path`, and `message` before serialization.\n\nRun the package-owned contract check offline:\n\n```bash\nnpm run check:self-conformance-profile\n```\n\nRun the independent packaged WebAssembly verifier over one transition bundle:\n\n```bash\nnode bin/kfd.mjs verify self-conformance-transition transition-bundle.json --json\n```\n\nThe native CLI accepts the same kind and input. Both projections share one\nRust core and the fixed verifier matrix requires byte-identical reports,\nsemantic report roots, issue ordering, and exit classification.\n\nThe contract check proves the fixed contract closure, schema and vector\ninventory, canonical roots, package contents, and absence of forbidden\ndependencies. The independent verifier matrix is a separate executable check;\nneither check approves a lifecycle transition.\n\nFor an official lifecycle transition, create a request conforming to\n`lifecycle-gate-request.schema.json`. Its `chain` begins at the packaged\nbootstrap anchor and contains every intervening bundle, independently computed\nreport root, package root, authority receipt, and review receipt. Then run:\n\n```bash\nnode bin/kfd.mjs gate self-conformance-lifecycle request.json \\\n  --output report.json --json\n```\n\nThe command invokes the package's independent WebAssembly verifier for every\nchain entry and separately checks governance-receipt roots and roles. Preserve\nthe request and report together. An output path is create-only, so an earlier\nreport cannot be silently overwritten; regenerate to a new path and review the\nroot change instead.\n\nNever infer missing authority, review, evidence, gap, or predecessor data.\nReject unknown versions and issue codes. Do not read `$HOME`, `.git`, private\nregistries, environment credentials, or network resources. A fixture pass is\nevidence about the fixture only.",
    "rendererContract": {
      "showReaderModel": true,
      "showGovernedObjects": true,
      "showLifecycle": true,
      "showVerifierBoundary": true,
      "showCommands": true,
      "showReleaseSeparation": true,
      "showRecursiveCase": true,
      "showHistoricalLineage": true,
      "showMachineAssets": true,
      "note": "Render package-declared facts and boundaries without inferring self-certification, promotion, number allocation, approval, release authorization, or production fitness."
    },
    "path": "/verify/self-conformance/",
    "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/profiles/self-conformance/README.md"
  },
  "readOrder": [
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/agent-hub/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/decisions/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/foundation/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/concepts/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/verify/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/verify/self-conformance/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/under-load/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/terminology/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/terminology.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-terminology.schema.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/activation-contracts.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-11/adopter-witness.schema.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-12/adopter-witness.schema.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-13/adopter-witness.schema.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-activation/qualification-report.schema.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-activation/activation-record.schema.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/semantic-self-sufficiency/kfd-1-13.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/warrant-evidence/manifest.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/primitive-evidence/first-wave-report.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/primitive-evidence/second-wave-report.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-semantic-self-sufficiency-matrix.schema.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/manifest.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gates.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gate-matrix.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/issue-codes.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.assessment.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.verification.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/transitions/recursive-normative-self-conformance-terminal.report.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/history/historical-lineage.report.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/history/manifest.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/federated-work-continuity/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/action-state-separation/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/atlas-action-perspective/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/pursuit-intent-continuity/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/warrant-bounded-authority/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/claim-assessment-decision-admission/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/federated-work-continuity/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/recursive-normative-self-conformance/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/durable-result-identity-availability/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/atlas-action-perspective/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/pursuit-intent-continuity/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/warrant-bounded-authority/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/federated-work-continuity/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/1/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/2/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/3/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/4/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/5/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/6/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/7/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/8/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/9/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/10/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/11/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/12/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/13/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/1/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/2/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/3/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/4/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/5/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/6/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/7/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/8/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/9/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/10/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/11/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/12/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/13/usage/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/1/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/2/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/3/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/4/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/5/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/6/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/7/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/8/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/9/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/10/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/11/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/12/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/13/formal/",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/registry.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/registry.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/registry.json",
    "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/standards.json"
  ],
  "agentHub": {
    "id": "agent-hub",
    "title": "KFD Agent Hub Conformance Profile",
    "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/agent-hub/",
    "relationship": "experimental-adopter-conformance-profile",
    "normative": false,
    "status": "experimental",
    "authorityPath": "profiles/agent-hub/README.md",
    "guidePath": "profiles/agent-hub/implementer-guide.md",
    "capabilitiesPath": "profiles/agent-hub/cli-capabilities.json",
    "manifestPath": "profiles/agent-hub/manifest.json",
    "lead": "This experimental adopter profile packages a fixed dual-Hub black-box suite, JSONL adapter contract, execution report, and offline report verifier. It lets an npm consumer run and verify the profile without a KFD repository checkout.",
    "profile": "kfd-agent-hub-conformance@0.1.0-alpha.1",
    "protocol": "kfd-agent-hub",
    "binding": "jsonl-stdio/v1",
    "suite": {
      "id": "kfd-agent-hub-20",
      "version": "0.1.0-alpha.1",
      "fixedVectorCount": 20
    },
    "commands": {
      "demo": "kfd demo agent-hub --output <report.json> [--reference-adapter state-machine|rule-table] [--json]",
      "scaffold": "kfd scaffold agent-hub --language <cpp|node|python|rust> --output <new-directory> [--json]",
      "test": "kfd test agent-hub --adapter <path> --output <report.json>",
      "verify": "kfd verify agent-hub-report <report.json> [--adapter <path>] [--json]",
      "kungfuProduct": "kungfu agent hub qualify --output-dir <new-directory> [--json]"
    },
    "scaffoldLanguages": [
      "cpp",
      "node",
      "python",
      "rust"
    ],
    "dimensions": {
      "behavior": {
        "question": "Does the adapter implement the fixed Hub semantics?",
        "measure": "Hub 20 passed scenarios",
        "conforming": "20/20",
        "starter": "0/20"
      },
      "evidence": {
        "question": "Can the report, package roots, capability roots, outcomes, and optional adapter bytes be recomputed offline?",
        "measure": "agent-hub-report verifier valid",
        "conforming": true,
        "starter": true
      },
      "authority": {
        "question": "Does this experimental result grant qualification or certification?",
        "measure": "qualifying and certification claims",
        "conforming": {
          "qualifying": false,
          "certification": false
        },
        "starter": {
          "qualifying": false,
          "certification": false
        }
      }
    },
    "paths": {
      "reference": {
        "purpose": "See a complete implementation succeed before writing an adapter.",
        "expected": {
          "demoExitCode": 0,
          "behavior": "20/20",
          "evidence": "valid",
          "qualifying": false,
          "certification": false
        }
      },
      "starter": {
        "purpose": "Implement product-owned Hub semantics from a fail-closed starter.",
        "expected": {
          "scaffoldExitCode": 0,
          "smokeExitCode": 0,
          "testExitCode": 1,
          "behavior": "0/20",
          "verifyExitCode": 0,
          "evidence": "valid",
          "qualifying": false,
          "certification": false
        }
      }
    },
    "exitCodes": {
      "0": "the requested operation completed; for test this means 20/20, while for verify it means evidence closure is valid",
      "1": "test completed below 20/20, or evidence verification found invalid closure",
      "2": "invalid invocation, unsafe path, malformed JSON, process failure, or envelope failure"
    },
    "reportVerification": {
      "backend": "host-node",
      "processSpawning": "host-only",
      "sharedRustWasmChecks": [],
      "parityBoundary": "No Agent Hub report check is duplicated in the Rust/WASM verifier. The single host verifier binds installed package bytes and optional adapter bytes; native/WASM verification-bundle profiles remain separate semantic authorities. Moving this profile requires a versioned bundle kind and byte-for-byte native/WASM parity before the host verifier can be retired."
    },
    "claimBoundary": "Behavior, evidence, and authority are independent dimensions. A generated starter intentionally produces 0/20 behavior while its report and adapter binding verify as valid evidence; neither that result nor a 20/20 demo grants qualification or certification. Only kfd test agent-hub executes Hub 20 against the named adapter artifact. Kungfu may project that report into an exact installed-product qualification, but it does not turn the result into KFD certification, a security assessment, production fitness, remote-network interoperability, or external adoption.",
    "firstPartyProductProjection": {
      "product": "Kungfu",
      "run": "kungfu agent hub qualify --output-dir <new-directory>",
      "verify": "kungfu agent hub verify --qualification-dir <directory>",
      "ownership": "KFD owns the fixed suite and offline report verifier; Kungfu owns its product semantics, isolated execution, installed-artifact binding, and human or agent explanation."
    },
    "recovery": "Delete only the newly generated scaffold directory or report you created; kfd never overwrites an existing scaffold path.",
    "sections": [
      {
        "id": "three-independent-dimensions",
        "title": "Three independent dimensions",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/README.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Three independent dimensions",
        "defaultPresentation": "dimension-cards",
        "markdown": "| Dimension | Question | Starter result | Reference result |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Behavior | Does the adapter implement the fixed Hub semantics? | `0/20`, not conforming | `20/20`, conforming |\n| Evidence | Can the report, package roots, capability roots, outcomes, and adapter bytes be recomputed offline? | `valid` | `valid` |\n| Authority | Does the result grant qualification or certification? | both `false` | both `false` |\n\nThis is the central teaching case: **the implementation is incomplete, but that failure fact is independently verifiable.**"
      },
      {
        "id": "five-minute-packaged-quickstart",
        "title": "Five-minute packaged quickstart",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/README.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Five-minute packaged quickstart",
        "defaultPresentation": "command-quickstart",
        "markdown": "Pin the prerelease channel explicitly because npm `latest` remains the bootstrap package. One command runs the packaged state-machine reference adapter against Hub 20, writes a rooted report, re-hashes the adapter, and verifies the report offline:\n\n```sh\nnpx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@alpha kfd demo agent-hub \\\n  --output ./agent-hub-demo-report.json\n```\n\nInspect the machine-readable command, language, exit-code, verifier-backend, claim, and recovery boundaries without a repository checkout:\n\n```sh\nnpx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@alpha kfd capabilities agent-hub --json\n```\n\nExpected result: command exit `0`, behavior `20/20`, evidence `valid`, `qualifying=false`, and `certification=false`. The demo is an executable reference path, not adopter evidence. Its packaged adapter is non-product code."
      },
      {
        "id": "verify-the-first-party-kungfu-product",
        "title": "Verify the first-party Kungfu product",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/README.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Verify the first-party Kungfu product",
        "defaultPresentation": "product-qualification",
        "markdown": "Kungfu ships this exact KFD package and exposes the fixed suite through its\ninstalled executable. A human or agent can run the product-owned semantics\nwithout a KFD repository checkout or a separate Node installation:\n\n```sh\nkungfu agent hub qualify --output-dir ./kungfu-agent-hub-check\nkungfu agent hub verify --qualification-dir ./kungfu-agent-hub-check\n```\n\nThe default projection says what passed, which responsibilities were exercised,\nwhat the result means, what it does not mean, whether the real `~/.kungfu`\nstate stayed unchanged, and where the rooted JSON evidence was written. Add\n`--json` for the stable machine projection.\n\nKFD remains the authority for the fixed Hub 20 suite and offline report\nverifier. Kungfu remains the authority for its product semantics, two isolated\nlocal Hub domains, installed-artifact binding, and explanatory projection. A\npass is exact-scope first-party product evidence; it is not KFD certification,\na security assessment, production fitness, remote-network interoperability, or\nexternal adoption."
      },
      {
        "id": "scaffold-an-adopter-adapter",
        "title": "Scaffold an adopter adapter",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/README.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Scaffold an adopter adapter",
        "defaultPresentation": "language-scaffolds",
        "markdown": "Generate exactly one new starter directory:\n\n```sh\nnpx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@alpha kfd scaffold agent-hub \\\n  --language python \\\n  --output ./my-agent-hub-adapter\n```\n\nLanguages are `cpp`, `node`, `python`, and `rust`. KFD refuses an existing output path and never overwrites adopter files. Each starter has deterministic fixtures, two structurally complete rooted capability documents, and a local envelope smoke.\n\nBefore you implement Hub semantics, the expected result is deliberately:\n\n```text\nScaffold            exit 0\nSmoke               exit 0\nHub behavior        exit 1, 0/20, report.valid=false\nEvidence verify     exit 0, verification.valid=true, adapter bytes checked\nAuthority           qualifying=false, certification=false\n```\n\nThe smoke proves only that the process and JSONL envelope work. Hub 20 then produces a trustworthy negative baseline rather than pretending that the starter is a working Hub."
      },
      {
        "id": "implement-hub-semantics",
        "title": "Implement Hub semantics",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/README.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Implement Hub semantics",
        "defaultPresentation": "semantic-implementation",
        "markdown": "“Hub semantics” means the product decisions made inside `evaluate()`: whether each request is admitted, rejected, conflicted, or retained as unavailable, and which stable code and verdict explain that result. The fixed 20 scenarios protect eight user-visible boundaries:\n\n- negotiation: exact profile and capability agreement;\n- delivery: receipts, admission, duplicates, and idempotency;\n- authority: attenuation, amplification rejection, and revocation;\n- conflict: conflicts remain visible instead of being silently erased;\n- knowledge: causal gaps, disclosure limits, and unavailable facts stay distinct;\n- completion: settlement requires sufficient proof;\n- recovery: reconnect does not revive invalid authority;\n- portability: the same semantic outcomes survive implementation and topology changes.\n\nStart in the generated adapter file (`adapter.py`, `adapter.mjs`, `src/main.rs`, or `adapter.cpp`). Preserve the request/response envelope and rooted capability documents, replace the fail-closed `scenario-not-implemented` branch, and use the per-category report counts to advance from `0/20` to `20/20`."
      },
      {
        "id": "run-the-fixed-suite-against-an-adopter",
        "title": "Run the fixed suite against an adopter",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/README.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Run the fixed suite against an adopter",
        "defaultPresentation": "command-workflow",
        "markdown": "An adapter is an executable or JavaScript entry point that reads one JSON request per line from stdin and writes exactly one JSON response per line to stdout. It must answer one handshake plus the fixed 20 evaluation requests.\n\n```sh\nnpx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@alpha kfd test agent-hub \\\n  --adapter ./my-agent-hub-adapter.mjs \\\n  --output ./agent-hub-report.json\n\nnpx --yes --package @kungfu-tech/kfd@alpha kfd verify agent-hub-report \\\n  ./agent-hub-report.json \\\n  --adapter ./my-agent-hub-adapter.mjs\n```\n\nOn an untouched starter, `test` is expected to exit `1` with `0/20`; after all fixed semantics are implemented it exits `0` with `20/20`. In both cases it writes a report. The verifier answers a different question: it exits `0` when that report's evidence closure is valid, even if behavior is `0/20`. Add `--json` only when a machine needs the complete structured result.\n\nOmitting `--adapter` during verification still verifies the installed package cut, profile, protocol, suite, failure inventory, verifier, capability documents, responses, result closure, transcript root, and claim boundary. Supplying it additionally re-hashes the adapter bytes."
      },
      {
        "id": "fixed-boundaries",
        "title": "Fixed boundaries",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/README.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Fixed boundaries",
        "defaultPresentation": "contract-boundary",
        "markdown": "- Profile: `kfd-agent-hub-conformance@0.1.0-alpha.1`\n- Protocol: `kfd-agent-hub@0.1.0-alpha.1`\n- Suite: `kfd-agent-hub-20@0.1.0-alpha.1`, exactly 20 vectors\n- Report: `kfd.agent-hub-report/v1`\n- Offline verifier result: `kfd.agent-hub-report-verifier/v1`\n- Scaffold and smoke exit `0` when generation and the local envelope succeed.\n- Test exits `0` only at `20/20`; a completed run below that threshold exits `1` and still writes its report.\n- Verify exits `0` when report evidence is internally valid; this does not mean behavior passed.\n- Exit `2` means invalid invocation, unsafe path, malformed JSON, adapter process failure, or envelope failure.\n\nThe suite distinguishes transport delivery from semantic admission, preserves visible conflict, rejects authority amplification and root drift, and retains unavailable and intentionally withheld knowledge as different states."
      },
      {
        "id": "claim-boundary",
        "title": "Claim boundary",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/README.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Claim boundary",
        "defaultPresentation": "claim-boundary",
        "markdown": "A `20/20` report is exact-scope behavior evidence for the named adapter artifact, two declared Hub capability documents, fixed suite, installed KFD package cut, platform, and retained residual risks. A verifier result of `valid` means those recorded facts and roots close; it does not change `0/20` into a pass. Neither result is KFD certification, a security assessment, production fitness, independent vendor adoption, or evidence that provisional semantics became normative.\n\n`KFD Runtime 100` remains a separate single-runtime evidence profile. Its 35 Core vectors cover a KFD-7 responsibility-separation subset; its 65 Experimental vectors are provisional and non-qualifying. Agent Hub 20 tests cross-Hub exchange behavior and does not replace Runtime 100.\n\nSee [implementer-guide.md](./implementer-guide.md) for the adapter and report workflow."
      },
      {
        "id": "executable-onboarding-surfaces",
        "title": "Executable onboarding surfaces",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/implementer-guide.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Executable onboarding surfaces",
        "defaultPresentation": "capability-list",
        "markdown": "- `kungfu agent hub qualify --output-dir <new-directory>` runs the fixed suite\n  against the product-owned Kungfu Hub implementation and explains the exact\n  result to a human; `--json` exposes the same bounded result to an agent.\n- `kungfu agent hub verify --qualification-dir <directory>` independently\n  rechecks the retained KFD report, adapter bytes, product binding, and\n  qualification closure without rerunning the suite.\n- `kfd demo agent-hub --output <report.json>` runs one packaged reference adapter, executes Hub 20, and immediately performs bound offline verification.\n- `kfd scaffold agent-hub --language <cpp|node|python|rust> --output <new-directory>` copies a deterministic, fail-closed starter without overwriting an existing path.\n- `kfd capabilities agent-hub --json` exposes commands, contracts, exit codes, supported scaffold languages, verification backend, claim boundary, and recovery as packaged JSON.\n- `kfd test agent-hub --adapter ...` remains the adopter evidence path. Demo and scaffold smoke results do not substitute for it.\n\nThe C++ and Rust starters deliberately use fixture-scoped, dependency-free JSON field readers so clean-pack CI can compile them offline. Adopters must replace those readers with their production JSON boundary. Node.js and Python starters use their standard JSON libraries. All four starters return `scenario-not-implemented` until product-owned semantics are supplied.\n\nAn untouched starter is a supported negative state, not a broken product: smoke exits `0`, Hub 20 exits `1` at `0/20`, and bound offline verification exits `0` with `valid: true`. Qualification and certification remain `false` throughout."
      },
      {
        "id": "adapter-binding",
        "title": "Adapter binding",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/implementer-guide.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Adapter binding",
        "defaultPresentation": "protocol-contract",
        "markdown": "The binding is `jsonl-stdio/v1`. The runner starts one process with `KFD_AGENT_HUB_OFFLINE=1`, preserves the caller's working directory, sends 21 lines, closes stdin, and requires 21 JSON response lines with no stderr output. Package resources are resolved from the installed KFD package; adopter configuration may remain relative to the consumer project.\n\nThe first request has operation `handshake`. A successful response uses code `adapter-ready`, verdict `not-applicable`, and includes at least two Hubs. Every Hub entry contains a capability document and its canonical SHA-256 semantic root. Hub IDs must be unique.\n\nThe remaining requests use operation `evaluate`. An adapter must return the exact request ID plus `status`, `code`, `verdict`, and observations. Machine interpretation always uses the three-field outcome, not the code alone. In particular:\n\n- `conflicted / conflict-visible / conflicted` means the adapter correctly retained a visible conflict.\n- `rejected / conflict-visible / rejected` means the adapter correctly rejected a policy that would hide a visible conflict.\n\nBoth are negative-polarity vectors because neither claims semantic admission."
      },
      {
        "id": "reports-and-roots",
        "title": "Reports and roots",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/implementer-guide.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Reports and roots",
        "defaultPresentation": "evidence-roots",
        "markdown": "The runner binds:\n\n- the installed npm package manifest and release anchor;\n- the conformance and protocol manifests;\n- the fixed vector registry and failure inventory;\n- the verifier and adapter bytes;\n- two or more Hub capability documents;\n- every adapter response, the complete result inventory, and the reconstructed transcript.\n\nRoots use SHA-256. File roots hash the exact packaged bytes. Semantic roots hash canonical JSON followed by one newline; object keys are sorted recursively, array order is retained, and numbers are non-negative safe integers."
      },
      {
        "id": "report-verification",
        "title": "Report verification",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/implementer-guide.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Report verification",
        "defaultPresentation": "verification-boundary",
        "markdown": "The offline verifier independently recomputes public package roots, capability roots, fixed-suite outcomes, response roots, result closure, transcript root, and claim boundary. Unknown, missing, duplicate, or mutated results fail. Claim widening (`qualifying: true` or `certification: true`) fails.\n\nVerifier validity is evidence validity, not behavior conformance. A structurally sound `0/20` starter report verifies successfully because it truthfully records all 20 failed outcomes. A `20/20` report also verifies successfully when the same evidence closure agrees. The CLI therefore presents three lines:\n\n```text\nBehavior: 0/20 (not conforming)\nEvidence: valid (adapter bytes checked)\nAuthority: qualifying=false; certification=false\n```\n\nUse `--json` for the complete machine result. Its `dimensions.behavior`, `dimensions.evidence`, and `dimensions.authority` fields preserve the same separation.\n\nUse `--adapter` during verification when the original adapter bytes are available. This turns the declared adapter digest into a recomputed check.\n\nAgent Hub report verification remains in the single packaged host-side JavaScript verifier. No Agent Hub report checks are duplicated in the Rust/WASM verifier, so there is no partial parity set that could drift. This boundary is machine-readable in `cli-capabilities.json` and checked by the profile test. Process spawning is also host-only. Moving report semantics into the shared core requires a new versioned verification-bundle kind and byte-for-byte native/WASM parity before this host authority can be retired."
      },
      {
        "id": "starter-claim-and-recovery",
        "title": "Starter claim and recovery",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/implementer-guide.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Starter claim and recovery",
        "defaultPresentation": "recovery-boundary",
        "markdown": "Every generated `kfd-scaffold.json` lists what its smoke executes, the expected `0/20` negative baseline, evidence-verification result, and authority boundary. A starter must not be described as a conforming Hub until its compiled or interpreted adapter itself passes the retained Hub 20 runner. To recover from generation, remove only the newly generated directory; generation never mutates an existing destination. Reports are created with exclusive-write semantics and are safe to regenerate only at a new path or after the adopter intentionally removes its own prior report."
      },
      {
        "id": "reference-adapters",
        "title": "Reference adapters",
        "sourcePath": "profiles/agent-hub/implementer-guide.md",
        "sourceHeading": "Reference adapters",
        "defaultPresentation": "reference-list",
        "markdown": "The package includes two intentionally different examples:\n\n- `profiles/agent-hub/adapters/state-machine-adapter.mjs`\n- `profiles/agent-hub/adapters/rule-table-adapter.mjs`\n\nThey demonstrate the wire contract, not a production Hub implementation."
      }
    ],
    "rendererContract": {
      "primary": [
        "three-independent-dimensions",
        "five-minute-packaged-quickstart",
        "scaffold-an-adopter-adapter",
        "implement-hub-semantics",
        "run-the-fixed-suite-against-an-adopter"
      ],
      "detail": [
        "executable-onboarding-surfaces",
        "adapter-binding",
        "reports-and-roots",
        "report-verification",
        "starter-claim-and-recovery",
        "reference-adapters"
      ],
      "boundary": [
        "fixed-boundaries",
        "claim-boundary"
      ],
      "note": "Render the behavior, evidence, and authority dimensions before commands. Preserve the reference 20/20 path and starter 0/20 path as different teaching flows. Do not infer certification, production fitness, or language-runtime parity from scaffold availability."
    },
    "path": "/agent-hub/",
    "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/profiles/agent-hub/README.md"
  },
  "foundation": {
    "path": "/foundation/",
    "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/foundation/",
    "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/foundation.md",
    "relationship": "explanation-of-numbered-decisions",
    "normative": false
  },
  "standalonePages": [
    {
      "id": "conceptual-compression",
      "title": "KFD Conceptual Compression",
      "path": "/concepts/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/concepts/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/conceptual-compression.md",
      "relationship": "non-normative-reader-compression-of-numbered-decisions",
      "normative": false,
      "rendering": {
        "kind": "conceptual-compression",
        "tocDepth": 3,
        "navigationLabel": "Concepts",
        "navigationGroup": "foundation",
        "navigationOrder": 10,
        "progressiveDisclosure": [
          "model-in-one-view",
          "one-real-software-delivery-work",
          "failure-does-not-collapse-the-model",
          "settlement-returns-to-fact",
          "software-work-composes-the-core",
          "common-misreadings",
          "ten-minute-reading-check",
          "continue-to-authority-and-evidence"
        ]
      },
      "authorityNote": "Numbered decisions remain authoritative; terminology.json owns the canonical names and anti-misreading boundaries projected by this page.",
      "rendererContract": {
        "showCoreModelFirst": true,
        "showWorkedExampleAsOneSequence": true,
        "showFailureRecoveryAndSettlement": true,
        "showAuthorityBoundary": true,
        "note": "Render KFD-owned wording and terminology projections without replacing canonical terms with familiar stack aliases or promoting founding-adopter fields into universal semantics."
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "independent-verification",
      "title": "Implement and verify KFD independently",
      "path": "/verify/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/verify/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/independent-verifier.md",
      "relationship": "implementation-and-independent-verification-guide",
      "normative": false,
      "rendering": {
        "kind": "markdown-document",
        "tocDepth": 3,
        "navigationLabel": "Verify KFD",
        "navigationGroup": "foundation",
        "navigationOrder": 25
      },
      "status": "experimental",
      "authorityNote": "Numbered decisions remain authoritative. This page projects packaged implementation and verification evidence without activating drafts or certifying adopters.",
      "releaseIdentity": {
        "package": "@kungfu-tech/kfd",
        "packageAnchor": "kfd.release.json",
        "publicReleasePassport": "Buildchain release Passport for the exact immutable package",
        "releaseEvidenceOwner": "Buildchain",
        "consumingSiteManifest": "/manifest.json",
        "rule": "Verify one immutable package version, integrity, source coordinate, and rendered-site consumption cut; never infer conformance from a mutable alias."
      },
      "commands": {
        "verifyWarrantBundle": "node bin/kfd.mjs verify warrant-evidence profiles/warrant-evidence/fixtures/buildchain-dev-delivery-warrant.json --json",
        "checkWarrantProfile": "node scripts/check-warrant-evidence.mjs"
      },
      "semanticSelfSufficiency": {
        "contract": "kfd.semantic-self-sufficiency-matrix/v1",
        "sourcePath": "evidence/semantic-self-sufficiency/kfd-1-13.json",
        "schemaPath": "schemas/kfd-semantic-self-sufficiency-matrix.schema.json",
        "entryCount": 13,
        "lifecycleCounts": {
          "active": 6,
          "draft": 7
        },
        "coverageCounts": {
          "complete": 5,
          "partial": 8
        },
        "entries": [
          {
            "id": "KFD-1",
            "lifecycleStatus": "active",
            "coverage": "complete",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-1.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-1/contract-world.schema.json",
              "schemas/kfd-1/publication-url-semantics.schema.json",
              "schemas/kfd-1/witness.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [
              ".buildchain/kfd-1/contract-world.witness.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "scripts/check.mjs"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "scripts/check.mjs",
              "verifier/crates/core/src/lib.rs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "broader independent adopter corpus"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-2",
            "lifecycleStatus": "active",
            "coverage": "complete",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-2.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-2/release-claims.schema.json",
              "schemas/kfd-2/release-trust-passport.schema.json",
              "schemas/kfd-2/trust-assessment.schema.json",
              "schemas/kfd-2/trust-claims.schema.json",
              "schemas/kfd-2/trust-taxonomy.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [
              ".buildchain/kfd-2/public-release-trust.claim.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "scripts/check.mjs"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "scripts/check.mjs",
              "verifier/crates/core/src/lib.rs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "non-Kungfu adopter evidence"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-3",
            "lifecycleStatus": "active",
            "coverage": "complete",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-3.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-3/collaboration-interface.schema.json",
              "schemas/kfd-3/witness.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [
              ".buildchain/kfd-3/collaboration-interface.prebuild.json",
              ".buildchain/kfd-3/collaboration-interface.artifact.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "scripts/check.mjs"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "scripts/check.mjs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "plural external value surfaces"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-4",
            "lifecycleStatus": "active",
            "coverage": "complete",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-4.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-4/conformance-witness.schema.json",
              "schemas/kfd-4/observer-perspective.schema.json",
              "schemas/kfd-4/perspective-replay.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [
              "profiles/perspective-conformance/vectors.json",
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-4/valid-conformance-witness.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "profiles/perspective-conformance/vectors.json"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "scripts/check-perspective-conformance.mjs",
              "verifier/crates/core/src/lib.rs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "independent cross-domain replay corpus"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-5",
            "lifecycleStatus": "active",
            "coverage": "partial",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-5.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [
              "cases/registry.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "scripts/check.mjs"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "scripts/check.mjs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "independent primitive qualification corpus"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-6",
            "lifecycleStatus": "draft",
            "coverage": "partial",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-6.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-6/autonomous-discovery-loop.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [],
            "failureTests": [],
            "verifiers": [],
            "gaps": [
              "fixed causal-experience vectors",
              "offline verifier"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-7",
            "lifecycleStatus": "active",
            "coverage": "complete",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-7.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-7/domain-profile.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-7/valid-domain-profile.json",
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-7/invalid-missing-warrant.json",
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-7/invalid-premature-activation.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-7/invalid-missing-warrant.json",
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-7/invalid-premature-activation.json"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "verifier/crates/core/src/lib.rs",
              "scripts/check-verifier.mjs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "more independent Domain Profiles"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-8",
            "lifecycleStatus": "draft",
            "coverage": "partial",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-8.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-8/atlas-coordinate.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [
              "profiles/perspective-conformance/vectors.json",
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-8/valid-current-atlas.json",
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-8/valid-degraded-atlas.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "profiles/perspective-conformance/vectors.json"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "scripts/check-perspective-conformance.mjs",
              "verifier/crates/core/src/lib.rs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "independent adopter evidence before any activation consideration"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-9",
            "lifecycleStatus": "draft",
            "coverage": "partial",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-9.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [],
            "fixtures": [
              "profiles/agent-runtime/vectors/runtime-100.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "profiles/agent-runtime/vectors/runtime-100.json"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "scripts/check-agent-runtime-profile.mjs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "dedicated Pursuit witness",
              "draft-specific conformance profile"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-10",
            "lifecycleStatus": "draft",
            "coverage": "partial",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-10.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-10/conformance-witness.schema.json",
              "schemas/kfd-evidence/primitive-evidence-bundle.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [
              "profiles/warrant-evidence/fixtures/buildchain-dev-delivery-warrant.json",
              "profiles/warrant-evidence/fixtures/kungfu-kfx-recovery-warrant.json",
              "profiles/warrant-evidence/vectors/kfd-10.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "profiles/warrant-evidence/fixtures/negative-cases.json",
              "profiles/warrant-evidence/vectors/kfd-10.json"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "scripts/warrant-evidence-verifier.mjs",
              "scripts/check-warrant-evidence.mjs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "independent adopter evidence",
              "activation qualification gate",
              "competing-model cost comparison"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-11",
            "lifecycleStatus": "draft",
            "coverage": "partial",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-11.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-11/adopter-witness.schema.json",
              "schemas/kfd-11/decision-admission.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-11/valid-adopter-witness.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-11/invalid-write-receipt-as-admission.json"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "scripts/check-verifier.mjs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "qualified independent adopter witness set"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-12",
            "lifecycleStatus": "draft",
            "coverage": "partial",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-12.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-12/adopter-witness.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-12/valid-adopter-witness.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-12/invalid-fused-proposal-acceptance.json"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "scripts/check-verifier.mjs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "qualified independent implementation"
            ]
          },
          {
            "id": "KFD-13",
            "lifecycleStatus": "draft",
            "coverage": "partial",
            "normativeSources": [
              "decisions/KFD-13.md"
            ],
            "schemas": [
              "schemas/kfd-13/adopter-witness.schema.json"
            ],
            "fixtures": [
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-13/valid-adopter-witness.json"
            ],
            "failureTests": [
              "verifier/fixtures/kfd-13/invalid-absorbed-authority.json"
            ],
            "verifiers": [
              "scripts/check-verifier.mjs"
            ],
            "gaps": [
              "qualified independent settlement evidence"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "claimBoundary": "This matrix is an auditable repository-coverage cache. It does not change KFD lifecycle status, make a draft active, or turn a referenced adopter implementation into normative authority."
      },
      "warrantEvidence": {
        "profile": "kfd-warrant-evidence@0.2.0-alpha.1",
        "status": "experimental",
        "manifestPath": "profiles/warrant-evidence/manifest.json",
        "fixedVectorCount": 23,
        "decision": "decisions/KFD-10.md",
        "decisionStatus": "draft",
        "extraction": {
          "manifest": "profiles/warrant-evidence/extraction-manifest.json",
          "mode": "published-kfd-package",
          "offline": true
        },
        "runtimeDependencies": [],
        "forbiddenDependencies": [
          "Buildchain checkout or runtime",
          "Kungfu or KFX checkout or runtime",
          "Atlas workspace",
          "private registry or source",
          "network access"
        ],
        "report": {
          "path": "evidence/primitive-evidence/second-wave-report.json",
          "verdict": "partial",
          "qualifying": false,
          "selfCertified": false
        },
        "claimBoundary": "Passing the profile proves only the fixed KFD package cut and retained evidence inputs. It does not activate KFD-10, certify an adopter, authenticate an upstream repository, or prove production fitness."
      },
      "firstWaveEvidence": {
        "sourcePath": "evidence/primitive-evidence/first-wave-report.json",
        "cut": "2026-08-05",
        "outcomes": {
          "proved": [
            "exact target or source roots",
            "bounded operations",
            "expiry",
            "fencing or stale-cut rejection"
          ],
          "partial": [
            "portable consumption history",
            "portable lifecycle settlement",
            "generic scope independent of product fields"
          ],
          "missing": [
            "issuer and holder on the same portable object",
            "independent revocation in both sources",
            "delegation and residual responsibility evidence",
            "independent adopter implementation"
          ],
          "invalidated": [
            "product success implies authorization",
            "one implementation may activate KFD-10",
            "Buildchain merge authority is universal Warrant semantics",
            "KFX package recovery fields are universal Warrant semantics"
          ]
        },
        "kfd10Status": "draft",
        "qualifying": false,
        "selfCertified": false,
        "nextEvidence": [
          "one independent adopter witness using only the packaged schema and vectors",
          "portable revocation, consumption, and history fixtures",
          "competing authorization model comparison at lower total cost"
        ]
      },
      "machineAssets": [
        {
          "sourcePath": "evidence/semantic-self-sufficiency/kfd-1-13.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/semantic-self-sufficiency/kfd-1-13.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "implementation-map",
          "digest": "sha256:893bd12f32a7dab45e954f9dfa4a2cecb36982e1d9a84c5108fbf14d72335b9b"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "profiles/warrant-evidence/manifest.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/warrant-evidence/manifest.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "verification-profile",
          "digest": "sha256:1032006a7435408761916de291abc8ee239594e70d739f28c3b29b60da75a755"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "evidence/primitive-evidence/first-wave-report.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/primitive-evidence/first-wave-report.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "evidence-report",
          "digest": "sha256:b1f0eb6918f0bf61760a3cadf496c1edb17bab962dcd1a41e2f5875e4b4aa62e"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "evidence/primitive-evidence/second-wave-report.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/primitive-evidence/second-wave-report.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "evidence-report",
          "digest": "sha256:b0ed807dee3e93f0e6764c9d7b4b67c2a7da5a7580e169c03811ec3ec0732149"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "schemas/kfd-semantic-self-sufficiency-matrix.schema.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-semantic-self-sufficiency-matrix.schema.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "schema",
          "digest": "sha256:482fcd5dfdcd78860619f78faedb843357974ea2a21d6f1dc94aca0ac7bacd4f"
        }
      ],
      "rendererContract": {
        "showReleaseIdentity": true,
        "showCommands": true,
        "showCoverageSummary": true,
        "showMachineAssets": true,
        "showClaimBoundaries": true,
        "note": "Render the declared facts and links without converting package verification into certification, draft activation, independent adoption, or production fitness."
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "self-conformance",
      "title": "How KFD changes itself",
      "path": "/verify/self-conformance/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/verify/self-conformance/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/profiles/self-conformance/README.md",
      "relationship": "package-owned-governed-self-change-projection",
      "normative": false,
      "rendering": {
        "kind": "self-conformance-guide",
        "navigationLabel": "Self-Conformance",
        "navigationGroup": "verify",
        "navigationOrder": 26
      },
      "status": "experimental",
      "authorityNote": "This page projects the fixed KFD package. Numbered decisions, Profile contracts, exact evidence roots, and accountable human authority remain authoritative.",
      "commands": [
        {
          "id": "gate-lifecycle",
          "label": "Evaluate a lifecycle gate",
          "command": "kfd gate self-conformance-lifecycle <request> --output <report> --json"
        },
        {
          "id": "verify-transition",
          "label": "Verify a transition report",
          "command": "kfd verify self-conformance-transition <report> --json"
        },
        {
          "id": "verify-history",
          "label": "Replay immutable historical lineage",
          "command": "node bin/kfd-history.mjs verify profiles/self-conformance/history/historical-lineage.report.json --json"
        }
      ],
      "machineAssets": [
        {
          "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/manifest.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/manifest.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "profile-manifest",
          "digest": "sha256:405d367bfc17a466725f792684990f5ee578f81bb65bb3a82b2faf8c65eb9705"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gates.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gates.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "lifecycle-gates",
          "digest": "sha256:0ba98836f811dc61aeea36f0635dfb422665ca2d63b9a74131164ecf6d33b241"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gate-matrix.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gate-matrix.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "verifier-matrix",
          "digest": "sha256:bfd8a790cfbc334d915e2037ff8356a7de76fd455a4ddcdef2f1811d91712af5"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/issue-codes.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/issue-codes.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "issue-codes",
          "digest": "sha256:e5ad0dcb9a5ee4d20853c828fa8435cae96fadf4427e12a4622352647b1633a7"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.assessment.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.assessment.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "qualification-assessment",
          "digest": "sha256:b61a2fd28bc264baabf206235232fc0e55279b637d72912cd65c3419bfbbcfd7"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.verification.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.verification.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "independent-verification",
          "digest": "sha256:c74ac5cfd1206d1fd36e4c1f65125a2bd790a2f7fbab53187595394ea87d8efe"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "evidence/self-conformance/transitions/recursive-normative-self-conformance-terminal.report.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/evidence/self-conformance/transitions/recursive-normative-self-conformance-terminal.report.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "terminal-transition-report",
          "digest": "sha256:e4ac94237f2a3a3dd2467a39158f1a8a6b0e0882722a11973d01f12c99ad801a"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/history/historical-lineage.report.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/history/historical-lineage.report.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "historical-lineage",
          "digest": "sha256:d49fc25d5f1816a4f8b4d68aa78ced0f556a80a315d96520eb09f57273a72c1b"
        },
        {
          "sourcePath": "profiles/self-conformance/history/manifest.json",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/profiles/self-conformance/history/manifest.json",
          "mediaType": "application/json",
          "role": "historical-manifest",
          "digest": "sha256:ac5c97fd354eed6b108bc6f498caf0ebcf6cc6add807785e5ba8ee860cc1b9ab"
        }
      ],
      "rendererContract": {
        "showReaderModel": true,
        "showGovernedObjects": true,
        "showLifecycle": true,
        "showVerifierBoundary": true,
        "showCommands": true,
        "showReleaseSeparation": true,
        "showRecursiveCase": true,
        "showHistoricalLineage": true,
        "showMachineAssets": true,
        "note": "Render package-declared facts and boundaries without inferring self-certification, promotion, number allocation, approval, release authorization, or production fitness."
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "load-bearing-dogfood",
      "title": "KFD Under Load",
      "path": "/under-load/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/under-load/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/load-bearing-dogfood.md",
      "relationship": "pre-release-founding-adopter-evidence-baseline",
      "normative": false,
      "rendering": {
        "kind": "markdown-document",
        "tocDepth": 3,
        "navigationLabel": "Under load",
        "navigationGroup": "foundation",
        "navigationOrder": 30
      },
      "authorityNote": "This page is a dated evidence synthesis. Numbered KFD decisions and accepted live-case cuts remain authoritative."
    }
  ],
  "formalModel": {
    "path": "/formal/",
    "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/formal/",
    "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/formal-model.md",
    "relationship": "non-normative-reference-semantics-for-numbered-decisions",
    "normative": false,
    "formalModelVersion": 1
  },
  "terminology": {
    "path": "/terminology/",
    "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/terminology/",
    "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/terminology.md",
    "contract": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/terminology.json",
    "schema": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-terminology.schema.json",
    "relationship": "canonical-vocabulary-for-all-kfd-surfaces",
    "normative": false
  },
  "activationContracts": {
    "path": "/activation-contracts.json",
    "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/activation-contracts.json",
    "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/activation-contracts.json",
    "relationship": "draft-qualification-and-activation-interfaces",
    "normative": false,
    "authorityNote": "The numbered KFD-11 through KFD-13 decisions remain authoritative and remain draft until a later explicit activation decision.",
    "contract": {
      "$schema": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-activation/contracts-manifest.schema.json",
      "schemaVersion": 1,
      "contract": "kfd-11-13-activation-contracts",
      "status": "draft-interfaces",
      "activationOrder": [
        "kfd-11",
        "kfd-12",
        "kfd-13"
      ],
      "interfaces": {
        "kfd11AdopterWitness": {
          "contract": "kfd-11-adopter-witness",
          "schemaVersion": 1,
          "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-11/adopter-witness.schema.json",
          "schemaPath": "schemas/kfd-11/adopter-witness.schema.json"
        },
        "kfd12AdopterWitness": {
          "contract": "kfd-12-adopter-witness",
          "schemaVersion": 1,
          "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-12/adopter-witness.schema.json",
          "schemaPath": "schemas/kfd-12/adopter-witness.schema.json"
        },
        "kfd13AdopterWitness": {
          "contract": "kfd-13-adopter-witness",
          "schemaVersion": 1,
          "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-13/adopter-witness.schema.json",
          "schemaPath": "schemas/kfd-13/adopter-witness.schema.json"
        },
        "qualificationReport": {
          "contract": "kfd-11-13-qualification-report",
          "schemaVersion": 1,
          "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-activation/qualification-report.schema.json",
          "schemaPath": "schemas/kfd-activation/qualification-report.schema.json"
        },
        "activationRecord": {
          "contract": "kfd-11-13-activation-record",
          "schemaVersion": 1,
          "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-activation/activation-record.schema.json",
          "schemaPath": "schemas/kfd-activation/activation-record.schema.json"
        }
      },
      "nonClaims": [
        "Schema validity is structural conformance only.",
        "A founding implementation or self-review is not activation evidence.",
        "This manifest does not activate KFD-11, KFD-12, or KFD-13."
      ]
    },
    "schemas": [
      {
        "contract": "kfd-11-adopter-witness",
        "schemaVersion": 1,
        "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-11/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "schemaPath": "schemas/kfd-11/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "path": "/schemas/kfd-11/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-11/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/schemas/kfd-11/adopter-witness.schema.json"
      },
      {
        "contract": "kfd-12-adopter-witness",
        "schemaVersion": 1,
        "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-12/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "schemaPath": "schemas/kfd-12/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "path": "/schemas/kfd-12/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-12/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/schemas/kfd-12/adopter-witness.schema.json"
      },
      {
        "contract": "kfd-13-adopter-witness",
        "schemaVersion": 1,
        "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-13/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "schemaPath": "schemas/kfd-13/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "path": "/schemas/kfd-13/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-13/adopter-witness.schema.json",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/schemas/kfd-13/adopter-witness.schema.json"
      },
      {
        "contract": "kfd-11-13-qualification-report",
        "schemaVersion": 1,
        "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-activation/qualification-report.schema.json",
        "schemaPath": "schemas/kfd-activation/qualification-report.schema.json",
        "path": "/schemas/kfd-activation/qualification-report.schema.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-activation/qualification-report.schema.json",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/schemas/kfd-activation/qualification-report.schema.json"
      },
      {
        "contract": "kfd-11-13-activation-record",
        "schemaVersion": 1,
        "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-activation/activation-record.schema.json",
        "schemaPath": "schemas/kfd-activation/activation-record.schema.json",
        "path": "/schemas/kfd-activation/activation-record.schema.json",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-activation/activation-record.schema.json",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/schemas/kfd-activation/activation-record.schema.json"
      }
    ]
  },
  "cases": {
    "path": "/cases/",
    "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/",
    "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/primitive-discovery-cases.md",
    "registry": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/registry.json",
    "registryContract": "kfd-live-case-registry",
    "relationship": "historical-companion-to-kfd-foundation",
    "normative": false,
    "live": [
      {
        "id": "proof-carrying-work-object",
        "title": "Pursuit and Warrant",
        "kind": "primitive-discovery-case",
        "status": "active",
        "standard": "kfd-5",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/",
        "relationship": "provisional-live-case",
        "claimBoundary": "This case preserves the fused Proof-Carrying Work Object genesis and tracks provisional Pursuit and Warrant candidates. It does not establish novelty, universality, product readiness, method superiority, or accepted Primitive status for either track.",
        "humanEntry": {
          "path": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Pursuit and Warrant\n\nThis live case began with the fused working title `Proof-Carrying Work Object`.\nThe immutable genesis remains preserved under that name. A later ontology split\nnow tracks two provisional Primitive candidates:\n\n- `Pursuit`: the durable identity of an intended reality change across\n  revisions, actors, actions, and evidence;\n- `Warrant`: a purpose-bound, fact-addressed authorization for bounded\n  continuation.\n\nBoth names, contracts, and Primitive claims remain open.\n\n## Why the case split\n\n```text\nPursuit persists and may receive a successor intent_root.\nWarrant may be issued, exercised, attenuated, revoked, expired, or superseded.\n```\n\nA Pursuit can remain active without a valid Warrant. A Warrant can expire\nwithout deleting the Pursuit. Fusing them would let mutable work scope alter\nauthority or make authority lifecycle events overwrite work identity.\n\nThe split also made two adjacent independent objects explicit:\n\n| Object | Responsibility |\n|---|---|\n| `Pursuit` | What intended change continues across time and execution surfaces |\n| `Atlas` | What declared perspective and fact cut contextualize the work |\n| `Warrant` | What bounded continuation is authorized, for whom, and why |\n| `Episode` | What action and consequence actually occurred |\n\nSee [Ontology split](ontology-split.md) for definitions, typed relations,\ninvalid compressions, confidence boundaries, and qualification requirements.\nSee the\n[conditional distinguishability argument](distinguishability.md) for the\ncurrent deletion proof obligations and their explicit non-claims.\n\n## Current status\n\n```text\ncase status: active\ngenesis: preserved as Proof-Carrying Work Object\n\nPursuit:\n  minimum closure: inconclusive\n  deletion test: conditional analytic witness; reality evidence pending\n  fuse test: inconclusive\n  dogfood: not run as a common contract\n\nWarrant:\n  minimum closure: inconclusive\n  deletion test: conditional analytic witness; reality evidence pending\n  fuse test: inconclusive\n  dogfood: not run as a common contract\n```\n\nThe machine registry preserves one stable discovery-case identity and exposes\nseparate current KFD-5 cuts for both candidate tracks. Later assessments create\nnew numbered cuts for the affected track; they do not rewrite the genesis or\nthe other candidate.\n\nKFD-7 has separately reached active status with exact Buildchain and Kungfu\nProfile evidence for action-role independence, session round-trip,\ncomplexity-breakpoint behavior, and cross-domain transfer. That evidence\nsupports the active action principle but does not complete the KFD-5\nqualification of Pursuit or Warrant. Their candidate-specific deletion,\nminimum-closure, fuse, and comparative-value evidence remains pending.\n\n## Why this is a reflexive KFD case\n\nThis candidate appeared while KFD was applied to its own propagation problem:\n\n1. KFD-3 reframed propagation as earning cooperation through trusted value\n   rather than persuading or pressuring participants.\n2. KFD-4 changed the observer from a human organization adopting a standard to\n   an agent executing and handing off work.\n3. The new view exposed a propagation loop based on discoverable tools,\n   verifiable outputs, downstream acceptance, and future routing.\n4. KFD-5 first separated the loop from the object repeatedly bearing its\n   cross-boundary burden.\n5. Continued deletion and responsibility analysis then showed that the proposed\n   carrier had fused intended-change continuity with continuation authority.\n\nThe revised hypothesis is that KFD may spread operationally when agents work\nthrough stable Pursuits and fact-addressed Warrants whose value can be inspected\nby downstream participants. This is a hypothesis, not self-proof.\n\n## Claim boundary\n\nThis case does not claim:\n\n- that either name or minimum closure is final;\n- that either candidate is historically novel or universally applicable;\n- that every agent interaction requires all four objects;\n- that Atlas Go proves a universal Pursuit contract;\n- that transient approval, capability, credential, mandate, or policy systems\n  cannot already implement Warrant behavior;\n- that the four-object model is a complete settlement model;\n- that schema validity or KFD origin proves Primitive status;\n- that agents will prefer producers of these objects;\n- that operational use will necessarily reproduce KFD behavior;\n- that a producer may certify its own work or transfer unlimited authority.\n\n`Pursuit` names an intention-continuity hypothesis, not all performed work.\n`Warrant` names an authorization hypothesis, not enforcement, absolute truth,\nor universal local permission.\n\n## Case surfaces\n\n- [Genesis](genesis.md)\n- [Ontology split](ontology-split.md)\n- [Conditional distinguishability argument](distinguishability.md)\n- [KFD method trace](kfd-method-trace.md)\n- [Propagation hypothesis](propagation-hypothesis.md)\n- [Genesis KFD-5 cut](cuts/0001-genesis.json)\n- [Current Pursuit cut](cuts/0002-pursuit.json)\n- [Current Warrant cut](cuts/0002-warrant.json)\n- [Qualification reviews](reviews/README.md)\n- [Live case registry](../../registry.json)\n\n## Qualification direction\n\nPursuit becomes stronger only if stable identity and successor intent roots\nsurvive non-isomorphic work profiles and reduce recovery or scope drift.\nWarrant becomes stronger only if exact subject, purpose, basis, authority, and\nlifecycle reduce repeated authorization reconstruction without creating\nambient authority or approval bureaucracy.\n\nEvidence against either track remains visible and may independently result in\nrename, rejection, subsumption, or `no-new-primitive`."
        },
        "genesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/genesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Genesis: Proof-Carrying Work Object\n\nThis document freezes the first public reconstruction of the candidate's\ngenesis. It preserves the initial uncertainty and must not be rewritten into a\nlater success narrative. Factual errata may be appended with an explicit date.\n\n## Initial question\n\nThe inquiry began with KFD propagation. The original observer was a human\norganization deciding whether to adopt a philosophy or standard:\n\n```text\ncompany understands KFD\n  -> management approves\n  -> team adopts\n  -> engineers integrate\n```\n\nUnder this view, propagation appeared to depend mainly on branding, commercial\ncommunication, governance, and organizational persuasion.\n\n## Perspective transformation\n\nThe observer was changed from the adopting organization to the agent performing\nwork and handing it to another participant:\n\n```text\ntool becomes discoverable\n  -> agent invokes it\n  -> verifiable output is produced\n  -> downstream review cost falls\n  -> the output passes a gate more easily\n  -> success enters memory and routing\n  -> similar tools receive more future selection weight\n```\n\nFrom this position, tool discovery, machine protocols, authorization,\nsupply-chain evidence, memory, routing, and downstream gates no longer appeared\nonly as separate product categories. They appeared as stages in one possible\nwork-propagation loop.\n\n## Compression from chain to object\n\nThe propagation chain was not itself the strongest Primitive candidate. The\nrepeated burden fell on the object crossing each boundary.\n\nThat object had to carry more than an output:\n\n- the work result;\n- source facts and provenance;\n- verification state;\n- responsibility and claim boundaries;\n- residual risk and degraded state;\n- purpose-bound conditions for continuation;\n- machine semantics for downstream judgment.\n\nThis produced the working candidate `Proof-Carrying Work Object`.\n\n## Initial examples\n\nThe candidate became visible across examples that currently belong to different\ndomains:\n\n| Example | Possible shared function |\n|---|---|\n| Buildchain Release Passport | Carries release result, provenance, verification, responsibility, and publication conditions. |\n| Kungfu Episode | Carries bounded causal work history for replay, recovery, audit, and continuation. |\n| Primitive Candidate | Carries genesis, grounding, qualification, falsifiers, risk, and promotion state. |\n| Perspective Replay | Carries source views, reconstruction policy, preserved elements, loss, and verification state. |\n| Transaction mandate | Could carry intent, limits, authority, revocation, evidence, and execution conditions. |\n\nThe transaction mandate remains a hypothetical comparison in this evidence\ncut. The table does not establish a shared contract.\n\n## Initial Primitive shape\n\n```text\nidentity:\n  one bounded work claim and its continuation basis\n\nboundary:\n  result + fact cut + evidence + responsibility + residual risk\n  + continuation conditions\n\nauthority:\n  producer declares; verifier assesses; downstream participant decides\n  under its own purpose and policy\n\nlifecycle:\n  proposed -> produced -> assessed -> accepted or rejected\n           -> authorized -> consumed -> stale, revoked, or superseded\n\noperations:\n  inspect, verify, accept, reject, continue, delegate, attenuate,\n  revoke, replay, supersede\n```\n\n## Alternatives visible at genesis\n\nThe candidate may be:\n\n- only a common envelope over attestations, credentials, capability tokens,\n  workflow artifacts, event logs, and signed records;\n- a composition pattern rather than an independent Primitive;\n- a useful local abstraction whose semantics do not transfer across domains;\n- the wrong boundary around several narrower objects;\n- unnecessary if downstream participants still need full reinvestigation.\n\n`No new Primitive` remains a required alternative.\n\n## Initial falsifiers\n\nThe candidate weakens or fails if:\n\n- there are no reusable operations beyond similar metadata fields;\n- downstream participants do not measurably reduce reinvestigation;\n- evidence cannot be safely reassessed for a new purpose;\n- continuation authority cannot be attenuated, revoked, or delegated safely;\n- a common envelope erases natural domain boundaries;\n- acceptance depends mainly on vendor defaults or brand rather than evidence;\n- first-party examples cannot transfer to an independent context;\n- the producer remains the sole verifier or promotion authority.\n\n## Evidence cut and known gaps\n\nThis genesis cut records a conceptual convergence on 2026-07-17. It does not\ncontain a common implementation, cross-domain benchmark, independent adopter,\nmeasured routing preference, or evidence that operational use reproduces KFD\nbehavior. Those absences are qualification requirements, not editorial gaps to\nbe filled by stronger wording."
        },
        "methodTrace": {
          "path": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/kfd-method-trace.md",
          "markdown": "# KFD Method Trace\n\nThis trace records how KFD contributed first to the fused candidate genesis and\nthen to its split into Pursuit and Warrant. It does not claim that KFD uniquely\ncaused either candidate or that either candidate proves KFD.\n\n## KFD-1: preserve the discovery cut\n\nThe genesis, ontology split, current candidate shapes, alternatives, falsifiers,\nand known gaps are stored as public repository facts. The original\nProof-Carrying Work Object cut remains intact. Pursuit and Warrant begin new\nimmutable qualification lines instead of editing the initial uncertainty away.\n\n## KFD-2: separate four claims\n\nThe case now keeps these claims independent:\n\n```text\nC1  KFD-4 and KFD-5 materially contributed to the fused genesis.\nC2  Deleting independent responsibilities justifies tracking Pursuit and\n    Warrant separately.\nC3  Pursuit can reduce cross-session intent and recovery reconstruction.\nC4  Warrant can reduce authorization reconstruction without widening authority.\nC5  Agents will prefer tools whose outputs and continuation are easier to\n    inspect.\nC6  Repeated use can reproduce KFD-compatible work structure without prior\n    philosophical adoption.\n```\n\nThe genesis record supports a bounded version of C1. The ontology split records\nthe reasoning behind C2 but does not qualify either Primitive. C3 through C6\nremain unverified.\n\n## KFD-3: propagation begins with trusted value\n\nThe original propagation problem assumed that humans first had to understand\nand accept KFD. KFD-3 changed the constraint: cooperation should be earned by\ndiscoverable, inspectable, trusted value rather than pressure or hidden\nworkflow capture.\n\nThis opened the possibility that an agent could preserve the Pursuit it is\ncontinuing and present a Warrant that makes bounded continuation easier for\ndownstream participants to inspect, without first adopting KFD as an explicit\ndoctrine.\n\nThe mechanism would violate KFD-3 if routing were hidden, alternatives were\nsuppressed, constraints were unreviewable, or past success were used to force\nfuture selection.\n\n## KFD-4: move to the executing agent's position\n\nChanging the observer from organizational management to the executing and\ndownstream agents changed the natural objects:\n\n| Organization-adoption view | Agent-work view |\n|---|---|\n| Product category | Discoverable capability |\n| Standard adoption | Machine contract acceptance |\n| Brand trust | Inspectable evidence and residual risk |\n| Organizational rollout | Work-object handoff |\n| User retention | Future routing weight |\n\nThis transformation exposed the possible propagation loop. It did not by\nitself identify the Primitive.\n\n## KFD-5: separate the loop, then split the fused object\n\nStructural compression and reconstruction-pressure analysis asked what would\nhave to be rebuilt if the chain lacked a durable carrier. The answer was the\nbasis on which downstream participants decide whether to trust and continue\nwork.\n\nThe chain describes system dynamics. The first compression produced an object\nwith identity, boundary, authority, lifecycle, and operations. A second\ndeletion test exposed that it still fused two different responsibilities:\n\n```text\nPursuit  intended-change identity and revision continuity\nWarrant  fact-addressed and authority-bounded continuation\n```\n\nAtlas and Episode remained independently necessary as context and experienced\nfact. This is a stronger current boundary, not retrospective proof that the\ngenesis was wrong or that both new candidates will qualify.\n\nKFD-5 now prevents the discovery story from promoting its own split. Both\ntracks remain provisional until alternatives, falsifiers, dogfood, security,\nand independent transfer are examined.\n\n## KFD-6 boundary\n\nNo autonomous discovery claim is made. A later KFD-6 experiment could compare\nwhether causal work corpora repeatedly expose this object or competing\nboundaries, but this case currently depends on direct human judgment and\nscalable agent reasoning under human-held promotion authority.\n\n## Reflexive dogfood claim\n\nThe live case demonstrates that KFD can preserve a candidate genesis and later\nsplit its ontology without erasing the earlier cut. It does not yet demonstrate\nthat KFD reliably discovers valid Primitives, that Pursuit or Warrant is novel,\nor that the proposed work structure has high propagation power."
        },
        "propagationHypothesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/propagation-hypothesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Propagation Hypothesis\n\nThe reflexive hypothesis is:\n\n> KFD may spread operationally when agents preserve the Pursuits they continue\n> and present fact-addressed Warrants whose bounded value lets downstream\n> participants continue work without reconstructing intent and authority from\n> scratch.\n\nThis is different from asking participants to read, believe, or endorse KFD.\n\n## Proposed loop\n\n```text\nagent continues Pursuit@intent_root against Atlas@cut\n  -> acts under a purpose-bound Warrant\n  -> Episode preserves action and consequence\n  -> downstream participant checks facts, authority, and local policy\n  -> accepted or derived Warrant unlocks bounded continuation\n  -> outcome, review cost, and successor state are recorded\n  -> future routing can compare this path with alternatives\n  -> successful producers may receive more selection weight\n```\n\nProducts and APIs remain execution and distribution surfaces. The hypothesis\nis no longer that one fused work object crosses every boundary. Pursuit may\ncarry continuity and routing identity, while Warrant carries bounded\ncontinuation authority. Atlas and Episode preserve the fact context and causal\nexperience required to inspect that authority.\n\n## KFD structure carried through use\n\nThe proposed structure would operationalize:\n\n```text\nKFD-1  stable fact cuts, identities, contracts, and provenance\nKFD-2  bounded claims, assessments, responsibility, and residual risk\nKFD-3  inspectable value, choices, constraints, and continuation conditions\nKFD-4  declared observer, perspective, transformation, and loss when relevant\nKFD-5  genesis and qualification when the work proposes a Primitive\n```\n\nA participant could therefore use KFD-shaped work relations before learning the\nKFD name. This would be structural reproduction, not proof of philosophical\nagreement.\n\n## Claim assessments\n\n| Claim | Current assessment | Evidence boundary |\n|---|---|---|\n| C1: KFD contributed to genesis and split | Supported with residual risk | Public reconstructed genesis, ontology split, and method trace; no independent replay yet |\n| C2: Pursuit reduces intent reconstruction | Unverified | No common cross-provider implementation or benchmark |\n| C3: Warrant reduces authority reconstruction | Unverified | No common runtime, security qualification, or benchmark |\n| C4: agents prefer producing tools | Unverified | No controlled routing or repeat-selection evidence |\n| C5: KFD-compatible structure propagates through use | Unverified | No independent cross-organization transfer |\n\n## Required evidence\n\n- non-isomorphic Pursuit profiles produced by more than one tool or domain;\n- Warrant profiles compared with approval, capability, credential, mandate,\n  policy decision, and passport alternatives;\n- downstream intent and authorization reconstruction time, retries, and\n  clarification measured against ordinary workflows;\n- purpose-bound reassessment without treating old proof as universal;\n- safe attenuation, delegation, revocation, staleness, and supersession;\n- visible routing reasons, alternatives, confidence, and opt-out;\n- at least one transfer outside first-party examples;\n- negative cases where a plausible object is rejected;\n- evidence that recipients preserve the KFD constraints rather than merely\n  copying fields.\n\n## Cautionary precedent: FIPA\n\nAgent standardization has been attempted before. FIPA standardized agent\ncommunication in the late 1990s through agent communication languages,\nspeech-act performatives, interaction protocols, management specifications,\nreference implementation ecosystems such as JADE, and interoperability tests.\nIt later joined the IEEE Computer Society. FIPA is currently inactive, while\nits specifications remain openly available.\n\nFIPA's own 1997 Agent Communication Language specification exposes a precise\nboundary. It defined formal mental-attitude semantics but made that model\ninformative rather than normative because agreed compliance testing for those\nattitudes was unresolved. Implementations could interoperate at declared\nmessage surfaces without proving the internal semantic conditions that gave\nthe vocabulary its strongest meaning.\n\nModern agent protocols do not generally require FIPA compatibility, and direct\ncontinuity between the generations appears limited. That observation is not a\nproof that FIPA failed or that no implementation lineage exists. FIPA achieved\nreal tooling, deployments, and interoperability work. It is a caution that a\nmachine-readable standard and a living implementation ecosystem can still\nlose load-bearing continuity when later work no longer depends on the same\nsemantics.\n\nThe loop proposed above is deliberately inverse to FIPA's order: working\nsubstrate first, agent adoption for self-interested reasons (lower\nreconstruction cost, higher gate passage), and the standard read out of\nrunning systems rather than legislated ahead of them. This remains a\nhypothesis, not a settled historical law. The case therefore adds a falsifier\nof its own, recorded below.\n\nSources:\n\n- [FIPA public specification archive](https://www.fipa.org/repository/standardspecs.html)\n- [FIPA 1997 Agent Communication Language specification](https://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00003/OC00003A)\n- [JADE FIPA-compliant platform documentation](https://jade.tilab.com/documentation/tutorials-guides/sniffer/introduction/)\n\n## Falsifiers\n\nThe propagation hypothesis weakens or fails if:\n\n- downstream review cost does not fall;\n- agents cannot discover or interpret the object without private context;\n- routing preference is dominated by hidden defaults, bundling, or brand;\n- evidence accepted for one purpose is silently reused for another;\n- authorization becomes ambient, non-revocable, or transferable beyond intent;\n- recipients strip provenance, risk, perspective, or responsibility fields;\n- Pursuit or Warrant creates more coordination burden than it removes;\n- independent domains converge on incompatible identity or authority\n  boundaries;\n- the original fused object performs better than the split under real work;\n- machine-conformant surfaces and citations grow while independent working\n  substrates and downstream reliance do not.\n\n## Anti-self-certification\n\nKFD produced the method trace and currently owns the case record. That makes\nthe record inspectable; it does not make the propagation claim true.\n\nThe generator must not be the sole verifier. Promotion requires evidence whose\nfailure is not identical to the KFD narrative, including real downstream\nbehavior, independent review, rejected or subsumed tracks, security failures,\nand consequences that can contradict the hypothesis."
        },
        "reviewIndex": {
          "path": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/reviews/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Qualification Reviews\n\nThis directory is the append-only human review path for the\n`proof-carrying-work-object` live case.\n\nA review is required when:\n\n- a candidate is split, fused, renamed, rejected, or subsumed;\n- a new concrete domain profile is added;\n- an alternative is rejected or subsumed;\n- a falsifier is triggered or retired;\n- a qualification test changes state;\n- a deletion witness is added, contradicted, or promoted from analytic to\n  observed evidence;\n- a new immutable KFD-5 cut is proposed for either candidate track;\n- the case is used in a product or adoption claim;\n- the outcome may change from `provisional`.\n\nEach review records:\n\n1. the previous cut and digest;\n2. new supporting and contradicting facts;\n3. changed alternatives, tests, and residual risks;\n4. verification responsibility;\n5. decision responsibility;\n6. the reason for retaining or changing the outcome;\n7. the affected candidate track;\n8. the path and digest of any new cut.\n\nFor a distinguishability claim, the review also records:\n\n- the decision question whose answer changes;\n- the two valid histories and the exact deletion projection;\n- which retained observations are equal after deletion;\n- whether the witness is analytic, observed, or cross-domain;\n- whether a rival representation preserves the same distinction with lower\n  burden.\n\nReviews do not rewrite prior cuts. A correction identifies the affected claim,\npreserves the old coordinate, and creates a new cut for the affected track when\nits current candidate state changes. Pursuit and Warrant may qualify, fail,\nrename, or be subsumed independently."
        },
        "ontologySplit": {
          "path": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/ontology-split.md",
          "markdown": "# Ontology Split: Pursuit and Warrant\n\nThe genesis cut named one fused candidate, `Proof-Carrying Work Object`. Further\nanalysis found that this boundary combined at least two independently meaningful\nobjects. This document records the split without rewriting that genesis:\n\n- `Pursuit` is the durable identity of an intended reality change across\n  revisions, actors, actions, and evidence.\n- `Warrant` is a purpose-bound, fact-addressed authorization for bounded\n  continuation.\n\nBoth names and both Primitive claims remain provisional.\n\n## Why the fused object was unstable\n\nThe genesis candidate carried a proposed or completed work unit, facts,\nevidence, responsibility, risk, and continuation conditions. That shape mixed\ntwo lifecycles:\n\n```text\nthe intended change persists and may be revised\nthe permission to continue may be issued, exercised, revoked, or expire\n```\n\nA Pursuit can remain active while no valid Warrant exists. A Warrant can expire\nwithout deleting the Pursuit. Conversely, a valid Warrant does not define the\nPursuit's purpose or prove that the Pursuit is complete. Fusing these states\nwould make scope revision silently alter authority or make authority loss erase\nthe work identity.\n\n## Four-object work state\n\nThe split exposed a wider object model:\n\n| Object | Independent responsibility | Agent question |\n|---|---|---|\n| `Pursuit` | Durable intended-change identity and revision lineage | What change am I continuing to pursue? |\n| `Atlas` | Perspective- and cut-bound semantic closure | On what declared view of reality am I acting? |\n| `Warrant` | Purpose-bound and authority-bounded continuation | What may I do now, and under whose authority? |\n| `Episode` | Preserved action, consequence, and causal experience | What actually happened? |\n\nThese objects are independent but intentionally composable. Independence means\nthat each keeps its own identity, contract, authority, and lifecycle. It does\nnot mean that useful work leaves them unrelated.\n\n```text\nAgentWorkState =\n  Pursuit@intent_root\n  + Atlas@atlas_root/perspective/cut\n  + Warrant@holder/validity/action-boundary\n  + Episode@causal-head\n```\n\nThis tuple is a provisional operational model, not a claim that every agent\ninteraction requires all four objects.\n\n## Pursuit boundary\n\nA Pursuit is not the task card, chat, session, plan, execution trace, or work\nresult used to present it. Its proposed minimum closure is:\n\n```text\npursuit_ref\nintent_root\npurpose\ndesired change\nscope\nacceptance or settlement conditions\nsafety boundaries\ntyped parent, dependency, and successor relations\n```\n\n`pursuit_ref` preserves identity. `intent_root` binds one immutable\nspecification cut. A material change to purpose, scope, acceptance, or safety\ncreates a successor intent root; it must not retroactively enlarge an old\nWarrant.\n\nThe Atlas `Go` is the first observed profile motivating this candidate. A Go\nCard, registry row, dashboard entry, or provider-native goal is a projection or\nexecution binding of that longer-lived object, not the object itself. This\nobservation does not prove that all domains require the name `Pursuit` or the\nfull Atlas Go vocabulary.\n\n## Warrant boundary\n\nA Warrant does not define a Pursuit, carry all work history, or certify a\nresult. Its proposed minimum closure is:\n\n```text\nwarrant_ref\nsubject_ref + exact revision root\npurpose\nissuer and recognized authority\nholder\nallowed and forbidden actions\nfact and evidence basis\nconstraints, expiry, delegation, and attenuation\nresidual risk\nlineage and lifecycle events\n```\n\nThe conservative default is one Warrant for one exact Pursuit intent root and\none bounded action set. A root Warrant may authorize derivation of narrower\nWarrants. A multi-Pursuit Warrant must bind an immutable subject set or an\nexplicitly reviewable selector; newly created Pursuits must not silently expand\nold authority.\n\nImported Warrants are claims about remote authority until local policy accepts\nthem or derives a local Warrant. A producer cannot self-certify trusted\ncontinuation unless a recognized prior authority explicitly permits that\nderivation.\n\n## Typed relations\n\nThe model is many-to-many at the storage layer, but relation types must not be\ncollapsed into one generic `covers` edge:\n\n```text\nPursuit --contextualized_by/input/result--> Atlas\nWarrant --authorizes--> Pursuit@intent_root or another exact subject\nWarrant --based_on--> Atlas and prior Episode/assessment/passport roots\nEpisode --executed_under--> Warrant\nEpisode --contributes_to--> one primary and zero or more related Pursuits\nEpisode --observed_against/produces_context_for--> Atlas cuts\n```\n\nAn Atlas normally gives a Pursuit its initial and successor context, but a\ncandidate Pursuit may exist before an Atlas is compiled. An Episode may be\ncaptured before it is attributed to a Pursuit. A Warrant may authorize a\nrelease, transaction, artifact operation, or other exact subject without\nrequiring a Pursuit.\n\n## Execution and settlement\n\nThe four objects clarify execution state but do not let an executing agent\nself-declare completion:\n\n```text\nexecution:\n  Pursuit + Atlas + Warrant + Episode\n\nsettlement:\n  Claim + Assessment + authorized Decision\n```\n\nClaims, assessments, decisions, passports, task charts, and project cuts may be\nderived procedures, relations, or carried artifacts over the four-object\nstate. Their exact Primitive status is not decided here.\n\n## Invalid compressions\n\nThe model rejects these shortcuts:\n\n- active Pursuit means valid Warrant;\n- valid Warrant means an action is wise, successful, or complete;\n- sealed Episode means Pursuit acceptance is satisfied;\n- fresh Atlas means the participant is authorized to act;\n- mutable task text may enlarge authority without a successor intent root;\n- a provider session or goal owns the durable Pursuit identity;\n- one fused work object may overwrite independent intent, knowledge,\n  authorization, and experience lifecycles.\n\n## Prior art and independent convergence: BDI\n\nThe four-object model has an independent theory-first ancestor. The\nBelief-Desire-Intention line began from the philosophy of action (Bratman,\n*Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason*, 1987): intentions are not reducible\nto beliefs plus desires; they are persisting commitments that constrain later\ndeliberation because deliberation is resource-bounded. Rao and Georgeff\nsubsequently formalized BDI agents and connected the theory to executable\nsystems. BDI architectures also reached real deployments and mature agent\ntooling.\n\nThe comparison is useful, but it does not yield a one-to-one mapping:\n\n| BDI concept | Closest four-object relation | Boundary |\n|---|---|---|\n| Belief base | `Atlas` | Partial: both condition action on a represented world, but Atlas declares perspective, cut, provenance, and loss rather than merely storing current beliefs |\n| Desire or goal | Candidate input to `Pursuit` | Partial: a desired state can motivate a Pursuit but does not by itself provide durable identity, revision lineage, or settlement conditions |\n| Intention or committed plan | `Pursuit` | Strongest correspondence: both preserve commitment across bounded deliberation, while Pursuit externalizes identity across actors and execution surfaces |\n| Authorization or permission | `Warrant` | No direct counterpart in the classical BDI core; a Warrant adds an external deontic and authority boundary rather than another private mental attitude |\n| Action, event, or percept history | `Episode` | Operational BDI systems can record these, but the core model does not require a first-class, durable, replayable causal-evidence object |\n\nThe missing direct counterpart for Warrant is informative. A BDI intention is\nthe agent's own commitment to act; a Warrant addresses whether a recognized\nauthority permits bounded continuation. Multi-agent BDI research does not make\nBDI a single-owner theory, but the classical belief-desire-intention core does\nnot itself make external authority, delegation, revocation, and evidential\nbasis first-class attitudes.\n\nLimits exposed by BDI's adoption history also identify risks for this model:\n\n- beliefs and plan libraries were hand-authored, reproducing the knowledge\n  engineering bottleneck;\n- formal semantics and executable implementations have a standing\n  correspondence and verification burden;\n- provenance, evidence cuts, content addressing, and external authority are\n  not guaranteed by the three-attitude core;\n- real deployments did not make BDI the dominant general substrate for\n  cross-boundary agent work.\n\nTwo implications follow. First, an independent theory-first path and this\npressure-first path converging on related commitment and represented-world\ndimensions raises prior confidence that those dimensions are not merely one\norganization's taste. It does not prove the four-object model, its names, or\nits minimum closure. Second, BDI's mixed record of formal maturity, real\ndeployment, and limited general infrastructure adoption is a standing warning:\nan ontology does not transfer merely because it is coherent.\n\nThis mapping is a comparison instrument, not a lineage claim. The candidates\nwere not derived from BDI, and every row remains open to stronger historical\nand empirical review.\n\nThe BDI literature also contributes reusable probes for the qualification\nplan: intention-reconsideration policies (bold versus cautious agents, Kinny\nand Georgeff 1991) probe when a Pursuit should retain or revise commitment.\nThey do not determine Warrant expiry or renewal, which remains an authority\npolicy. BDI maintenance goals -- goals with no terminal acceptance state --\nprobe the continuing-process boundary already listed as a required Pursuit\ncounterexample.\n\nSources:\n\n- [Michael Bratman, *Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason*](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/I/bo3629095.html)\n- [Anand Rao and Michael Georgeff, *BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice*](https://aaai.org/papers/icmas95-042-bdi-agents-from-theory-to-practice/)\n\nThe separate\n[conditional distinguishability argument](distinguishability.md) now tests\nwhether the information attributed to Pursuit, Atlas, Warrant, and Episode can\nbe deleted without changing a required decision. It is stronger than analogy\nto prior art but still does not establish universal necessity.\n\n## Current confidence\n\nThe strongest current claim is structural:\n\n> Long-running real-world agent work appears to require an addressable\n> continuity object even when users call it a task, case, incident, job,\n> investigation, plan, or Go.\n\nConfidence is lower that `Pursuit` is the final name, that its proposed fields\nare the universal minimum closure, or that Warrant must always bind a Pursuit.\nOne-shot conversation, stateless tool use, ambient observation, and\nopen-ended processes remain required counterexamples.\n\n## Qualification plan\n\nThe two tracks must be qualified separately and together:\n\n1. Test Pursuit against non-isomorphic work profiles, including software work,\n   incidents, exploration, personal matters, and continuing processes.\n2. Test whether stable identity plus successor intent roots prevents scope and\n   recovery drift across agents and providers.\n3. Test Warrant against transient approval, capability, credential, mandate,\n   and policy alternatives.\n4. Measure whether exact subject and basis references reduce repeated approval\n   reconstruction without creating authorization bureaucracy.\n5. Test the four-object tuple under pause, resume, multi-agent, remote,\n   revocation, stale-context, failure, and settlement conditions.\n6. Preserve rejection, subsumption, rename, or `no-new-primitive` outcomes for\n   either track independently."
        },
        "distinguishabilityArgument": {
          "path": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/distinguishability.md",
          "markdown": "# Conditional Distinguishability Argument\n\nThis note asks a narrower question than whether Pursuit, Atlas, Warrant, and\nEpisode form a universal or uniquely minimal ontology:\n\n> Does each proposed object preserve information that can change a required\n> action or audit conclusion when the other three are held fixed?\n\nThe current answer is conditionally yes. The argument separates four\ninformation dimensions. It does not prove that every product needs four\ndatabase entities, that these names are final, or that no rival representation\ncan carry the same information more economically.\n\n## Decision semantics\n\nLet a valid work history `h` contain typed objects and relations. For each\nobject family `X`, let `remove_X(h)` erase objects of that family and their\nincident typed relations while preserving all other observable information.\n\nLet `D_Q(h)` be the answer required for a declared decision question `Q`.\nInformation carried by `X` is non-redundant for `Q` if two valid histories\nexist such that:\n\n```text\nremove_X(h1) = remove_X(h2)\nand\nD_Q(h1) != D_Q(h2)\n```\n\nAny representation sufficient for `Q` must therefore preserve information\nequivalent to the deleted distinction. It need not preserve the proposed\nobject name, file shape, storage boundary, or implementation.\n\nThe four current decision questions are:\n\n| Question | Required distinction |\n|---|---|\n| `Q_P` continuity | Which intended reality change is being continued? |\n| `Q_A` epistemic basis | Against which declared perspective and fact cut should the next judgment be made? |\n| `Q_W` admissibility | Is this participant authorized to perform this bounded continuation now? |\n| `Q_E` occurrence | Did the relevant action and consequence occur, and what should be retried or compensated? |\n\n## Analytic witness pairs\n\nThese pairs are proof obligations expressed as minimal counterfactuals. They\nshow conditional separability if both histories are valid in the target\ndomain.\n\n### Pursuit\n\nHold the Atlas cut fixed and assume no Warrant or Episode. In `h1`, the\ncontinuing intended change is to repair a configuration defect. In `h2`, it is\nto redesign the configuration contract. Removing Pursuit makes the histories\nobservationally equal, but the next plan, acceptance test, and safe scope\ndiffer. Pursuit information is therefore non-redundant for `Q_P`.\n\n### Atlas\n\nHold the Pursuit fixed and assume no Warrant or Episode. In `h1`, planning uses\na source-code perspective before a production incident. In `h2`, it uses a\nuser-observed cut after the incident. Removing Atlas makes the histories\nobservationally equal, but the justified diagnosis and next investigation\ndiffer. Atlas information is therefore non-redundant for `Q_A`.\n\n### Warrant\n\nHold Pursuit and Atlas fixed and assume no Episode. In `h1`, the participant\nhas a valid Warrant for the exact action. In `h2`, the Warrant is absent,\nexpired, or revoked. Removing Warrant makes the histories observationally\nequal, but one permits execution while the other requires stopping or seeking\nauthority. Warrant information is therefore non-redundant for `Q_W`.\n\n### Episode\n\nHold Pursuit, Atlas, and Warrant fixed. In `h1`, the authorized action occurred\nand produced a recorded consequence. In `h2`, it did not occur. Removing\nEpisode makes the histories observationally equal, but retry, compensation,\nand audit conclusions differ. Episode information is therefore non-redundant\nfor `Q_E`.\n\n## What the argument establishes\n\nIf a domain admits the witness histories and requires the declared decisions,\nthen a system cannot safely erase the corresponding information dimension.\nThis rules out a fused model only when fusion makes one dimension\nindependently unaddressable, mutable, or unrecoverable.\n\nIt does not establish:\n\n- that all four decision questions arise in every interaction;\n- that the proposed objects are jointly sufficient for all work state;\n- that four is the globally minimal number of objects;\n- that a task, case, session, log, approval, capability, or other object cannot\n  embed one or more equivalent dimensions;\n- that analytic witnesses measure real-world burden or adoption value;\n- that the candidates have passed KFD-5 qualification.\n\nThis distinction prevents circular reasoning. The test starts from externally\nmeaningful decisions, not from an assumption that the four names must exist.\n\n## Conservative reduction does not erase distinction\n\nConditional distinguishability does not require every interaction to display\nfour separate objects. Several information dimensions may be coextensive in a\nbounded history without becoming universally derivable from one another.\n\nFor example, a simple agent session may contain one local goal, one current\ncontext, one stable permission grant, one execution attempt, and only an input\nand result state. In that limit, a session-compatible view can project:\n\n```text\ngoal              <- Pursuit\ncontext           <- Atlas\ntool permissions  <- Warrant\nrun or transcript <- Episode\ninput and result  <- Fact cuts\n```\n\nThis is valid compression if the projection preserves the decisions required\nfor the bounded task and its assumptions remain inspectable. It is not evidence\nthat the dimensions are identical. The stronger hypothesis is a conservative\nextension: preserve the low-cost session experience where the dimensions move\ntogether, then expose the independent roles only when work crosses goals,\nperspectives, authority states, Episodes, or material Fact branches.\n\nThis gives KFD-7 a two-sided burden. It must show both that separation changes\nreal decisions in complex histories and that ordinary simple work does not pay\npermanent ceremony for distinctions that can be safely projected.\n\n## Evidence ladder\n\n| Stage | Required evidence | Current state |\n|---|---|---|\n| Conditional separation | Valid witness pairs and explicit decision semantics | KFD-7 activation evidence passes at the action-role level; candidate-specific Pursuit/Warrant qualification remains open |\n| Conservative reduction | Simple session round-trip preserves bounded task semantics without manual object ceremony | Passed for KFD-7's two activated product Profiles; not yet established as Pursuit/Warrant Primitive evidence |\n| Complexity breakpoint | Crossing a low-complexity assumption makes one or more independent roles necessary and visible | Passed for KFD-7's two activated product Profiles; broader candidate transfer remains open |\n| First-party reality | Preserved histories where deletion changes a real decision or audit | Exact KFD-7 runtime evidence retained; Pursuit/Warrant KFD-5 deletion evidence remains pending |\n| Cross-domain transfer | Non-isomorphic domains reproduce the distinction | Passed across the activated Buildchain and Kungfu Profiles for KFD-7; not yet broad enough to qualify either candidate |\n| Comparative value | Rival or fused models require more reconstruction, error, or authority risk | KFD-7 activation supports the role-separation claim; candidate-specific comparative evidence remains pending |\n| Minimality or universality | Alternatives fail while the same dimensions remain necessary at broad scale | Not claimed |\n\nThe passed states above refer only to the exact KFD-7 activation cut documented\nin [`docs/KFD-7-activation.md`](../../../docs/KFD-7-activation.md) and\n[`evidence/kfd-7/activation-record.json`](../../../evidence/kfd-7/activation-record.json).\nThey activate an action-responsibility principle; they do not qualify Pursuit\nor Warrant as universal, minimal, or independently load-bearing Primitives.\nThose candidate claims remain governed by their own KFD-5 cuts and evidence.\n\n## Falsifiers\n\nThe four-object hypothesis weakens if:\n\n- one dimension is always derivable from the others without loss;\n- deleting a dimension never changes a safe action or audit conclusion;\n- the proposed witness histories cannot coexist with the same retained state;\n- a fused or rival model preserves the same decisions with less lifecycle,\n  reconstruction, and governance burden;\n- the proposed structure cannot recover the familiar session experience in its\n  low-complexity limit;\n- progressive disclosure cannot keep simple work simpler than the expanded\n  complex-work representation;\n- the dimensions cannot vary independently under real work;\n- empirical profiles repeatedly omit a dimension without hidden replacement.\n\nThe next qualification step is therefore not another naming exercise. It is to\npreserve real witness histories, apply the deletion projection, and compare\nthe resulting decisions and reconstruction cost."
        },
        "candidateTracks": [
          {
            "id": "pursuit",
            "title": "Pursuit",
            "status": "provisional",
            "definition": "The durable identity of an intended reality change across revisions, actors, actions, and evidence.",
            "currentCut": {
              "path": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/cuts/0002-pursuit.json",
              "sha256": "f927611ce8ad78d7ada87ca92c5b14fca5f6672d001f1b34b99a2526d9f9d6ee",
              "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json",
              "schemaVersion": 3,
              "record": {
                "schemaVersion": 3,
                "contract": "kfd-5-primitive-discovery",
                "standard": "kfd-5",
                "candidate": {
                  "id": "pursuit",
                  "title": "Pursuit",
                  "problemStatement": "Long-running real-world agent work is repeatedly represented by provider sessions, goals, task cards, issues, traces, and mutable prose, none of which reliably preserve one intended-change identity across revisions, actors, actions, evidence, pause, and recovery.",
                  "scope": "A provisional generic continuity object behind profiles such as Atlas Go. The name, universal minimum closure, cross-domain applicability, novelty, and Primitive status remain open."
                },
                "genesis": {
                  "methods": [
                    "direct-situated-judgment",
                    "perspective-transformation",
                    "reconstruction-pressure",
                    "structural-compression"
                  ],
                  "observationPerspective": {
                    "id": "provider-task-state",
                    "bearer": "agent or operator viewing work through one task card, chat, session, or provider goal",
                    "role": "current execution participant",
                    "proximity": "inside one execution surface but outside the full cross-session continuity",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears context loss, scope reconstruction, handoff, recovery, and completion ambiguity"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "prompt",
                      "session",
                      "goal",
                      "task card",
                      "issue",
                      "workflow run"
                    ]
                  },
                  "currentOntology": [
                    "task",
                    "goal",
                    "issue",
                    "session",
                    "work item",
                    "mission",
                    "job",
                    "plan",
                    "workflow run",
                    "agent thread"
                  ],
                  "observation": "Separating context, authorization, and execution history from a long-running Atlas Go still left one necessary object: the stable identity of an intended reality change whose current specification can be revised while the work remains recognizable across agents and execution providers.",
                  "candidateObject": "A Pursuit is the durable identity of an intended reality change across revisions, actors, actions, and evidence.",
                  "claimBoundary": "This cut records a provisional continuity-object hypothesis grounded in maintainer experience and structural analysis. It does not establish a universal work ontology, final name, historical novelty, product readiness, or accepted Primitive status.",
                  "methodEvidence": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/ontology-split.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/genesis.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    }
                  ],
                  "transformedPerspective": {
                    "id": "cross-execution-intent-continuity",
                    "bearer": "human and agents jointly continuing one intended change across sessions and providers",
                    "role": "long-lived work participant and successor",
                    "proximity": "inside the continuity, revision, and recovery burden",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears identity drift, intent revision, attribution, resumption, and settlement consequences"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "stable pursuit identity",
                      "immutable intent revision",
                      "typed work relation",
                      "execution binding",
                      "settlement state"
                    ]
                  },
                  "transformation": "The observer moved from one provider's current task representation to the participant responsible for preserving one intended change across many representations and executions.",
                  "newlyVisibleNeed": "A stable work identity must survive provider goals and mutable projections while material intent changes produce exact successor roots rather than retroactively changing old context or authority.",
                  "methodNotes": "The original fused Proof-Carrying Work Object was decomposed after Warrant, Atlas, and Episode responsibilities were removed and an intended-change continuity object still remained."
                },
                "boundaryPressure": {
                  "contactSides": [
                    "one execution session, agent, provider goal, or task projection",
                    "future agents, operators, tools, and settlement processes continuing the same intended change"
                  ],
                  "implicitHandling": "Continuity is reconstructed from mutable task prose, chat history, issue state, branch names, human memory, and provider-specific identifiers.",
                  "pressureChanges": [
                    {
                      "kind": "new-participant",
                      "description": "Different humans and agents increasingly continue the same work without sharing transient context."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "scale",
                      "description": "Long-running and multi-agent work creates many provider-local goals, sessions, and task projections for one intended change."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "heterogeneity",
                      "description": "The same work crosses repositories, devices, models, task systems, and domain vocabularies."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "consequence",
                      "description": "Identity or scope drift changes what work is attributed, authorized, assessed, and declared complete."
                    }
                  ],
                  "observedFailures": [
                    "A new agent cannot tell whether two task records continue the same intended change.",
                    "Editing mutable scope text silently changes the meaning of prior approval and evidence.",
                    "A provider goal disappears while the real work remains active.",
                    "Execution completion is mistaken for satisfaction of the enduring intent."
                  ],
                  "mediationClaim": "A stable Pursuit reference plus immutable successor intent roots may preserve intended-change continuity while allowing provider-specific task and goal projections.",
                  "internalObjectAlternative": "The same behavior may be implemented by disciplined issue, case, workflow, or event-sourced aggregate contracts without a distinct Pursuit Primitive."
                },
                "grounding": {
                  "pressure": [
                    "Cross-session and cross-agent continuity reconstruction",
                    "Mutable task descriptions expanding prior meaning",
                    "Provider-local goals failing to survive the real work lifecycle",
                    "Need to join context, authorization, episodes, and settlement to one stable intended change"
                  ],
                  "factSources": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/ontology-split.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/genesis.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    }
                  ],
                  "evidenceBoundary": "Public reconstruction of maintainer experience with long-running agent work and the ontology split recorded on 2026-07-17. No independent adopter, cross-domain implementation, benchmark, or universal deletion test is included.",
                  "knownGaps": [
                    "No final name or proven universal minimum closure",
                    "No independent non-software implementation",
                    "No measured comparison with issue, case, workflow, or provider-goal alternatives",
                    "No proof that acceptance and safety belong in every Pursuit profile",
                    "No common runtime contract for intent-root revision and relation semantics"
                  ]
                },
                "participants": [
                  {
                    "id": "human-perspective-source",
                    "kind": "human",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "decision"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "reasoning-agent",
                    "kind": "agent",
                    "functions": [
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "scalable-reasoning"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "future-independent-reviewer",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "evidence-custody",
                      "verification"
                    ]
                  }
                ],
                "alternatives": [
                  {
                    "name": "Work or work item",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "This is the safest generic vocabulary but may conflate intended continuity, performed activity, and produced result."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Goal, task, issue, case, incident, job, or plan",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "These may be sufficient domain profiles, or their repeated cross-domain structure may indicate a shared underlying object."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Purpose or intent",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "Purpose explains why and intent specifies one cut, but neither clearly preserves the identity that survives intent revision."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Event-sourced workflow aggregate",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "A generic aggregate with domain events may implement the required behavior without a separately named Primitive."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "No new Primitive",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "The continuity may be a common product requirement rather than an independently useful object."
                  }
                ],
                "contractModel": {
                  "identity": "A stable pursuit_ref for one intended reality change, with immutable intent_root successors for material revisions.",
                  "boundary": "Purpose, desired change, current intent root, scope, acceptance or settlement conditions, safety boundaries, and typed parent, dependency, and successor relations; context, authorization, execution history, and provider projections remain external references.",
                  "authority": "Creating or revising a Pursuit declares an intended change but does not itself authorize execution, certify facts, or decide completion. Those responsibilities remain with Warrant, evidence, assessment, and authorized decision processes.",
                  "lifecycle": "proposed -> available or active -> paused or revised -> settled, abandoned, or superseded; exact state vocabulary remains profile-dependent",
                  "operations": [
                    "create",
                    "inspect",
                    "revise",
                    "relate",
                    "bind-execution",
                    "pause",
                    "resume",
                    "claim-result",
                    "settle",
                    "abandon",
                    "supersede"
                  ]
                },
                "tests": {
                  "minimumClosure": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/ontology-split.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Stable identity and successor intent roots appear load-bearing, but purpose, acceptance, safety, and relation fields have not survived non-isomorphic domain implementations."
                  },
                  "deletion": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/ontology-split.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Without a continuity object, Atlas selection, Warrant subject binding, Episode attribution, and settlement each need another task identity, but existing issue or case systems may already supply it."
                  },
                  "fuse": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/ontology-split.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Task, case, incident, investigation, and Go appear related, but no shared contract has been implemented across them."
                  },
                  "falsifiers": [
                    "Provider goals or ordinary issue systems preserve all required continuity without repeated reconstruction.",
                    "Intent-root versioning creates more coordination cost than scope drift prevents.",
                    "Non-software domains require incompatible identity or lifecycle semantics.",
                    "Pursuit cannot be separated cleanly from Mission, workflow, or actor commitment.",
                    "The object has no reusable operations beyond generic event-sourced aggregate behavior.",
                    "Users or agents cannot map their work without unnatural mandatory fields."
                  ],
                  "dogfood": {
                    "result": "not-run",
                    "evidence": [],
                    "notes": "Long-running Atlas Go experience motivates the candidate, but this public cut contains no common Pursuit runtime contract or comparative qualification."
                  }
                },
                "decision": {
                  "outcome": "provisional",
                  "owner": "KFD maintainers",
                  "reason": "Removing Atlas, Warrant, Episode, and provider-goal responsibilities leaves a coherent intended-change continuity object, but naming, minimum closure, transfer, deletion, fuse, and dogfood evidence remain unresolved.",
                  "residualRisks": [
                    "The candidate may rename an ordinary work-item aggregate.",
                    "Atlas Go experience may overfit software and maintainer workflow.",
                    "The poetic name may obscure simpler domain vocabulary.",
                    "A universal schema may force bounded-task assumptions onto exploration or continuing processes.",
                    "Identity revision rules may become administrative burden rather than useful compression."
                  ]
                }
              }
            },
            "claimBoundary": "This track does not establish that Pursuit is the final name, a universal work ontology, historically novel, product-ready, or an accepted Primitive."
          },
          {
            "id": "warrant",
            "title": "Warrant",
            "status": "provisional",
            "definition": "A purpose-bound, fact-addressed authorization for bounded continuation.",
            "currentCut": {
              "path": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/cuts/0002-warrant.json",
              "sha256": "c1c4c619a0d5ae4eef238b4766ec6a8bb8a3d8bbf61f2365a94a3a6aedb67b49",
              "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json",
              "schemaVersion": 3,
              "record": {
                "schemaVersion": 3,
                "contract": "kfd-5-primitive-discovery",
                "standard": "kfd-5",
                "candidate": {
                  "id": "warrant",
                  "title": "Warrant",
                  "problemStatement": "Agent action authority is commonly reconstructed from chat, transient approval dialogs, hidden policy, credentials, evidence, and human memory, so downstream participants cannot reliably determine why a bounded action may continue, what exact subject and purpose were authorized, or whether authority has expired, narrowed, or been revoked.",
                  "scope": "A provisional purpose-bound, fact-addressed authorization object for bounded continuation. The name, universal contract, relation to existing capability and mandate systems, cross-domain applicability, novelty, and Primitive status remain open."
                },
                "genesis": {
                  "methods": [
                    "direct-situated-judgment",
                    "perspective-transformation",
                    "reconstruction-pressure",
                    "structural-compression"
                  ],
                  "observationPerspective": {
                    "id": "transient-approval-interface",
                    "bearer": "human or agent viewing one permission prompt, task authorization block, credential, or policy result",
                    "role": "current approver or executor",
                    "proximity": "inside one authorization event but outside durable work and evidence lineage",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears repeated approval, unclear scope, authority drift, revocation, and audit cost"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "approval",
                      "permission",
                      "credential",
                      "capability token",
                      "policy decision",
                      "task authorization"
                    ]
                  },
                  "currentOntology": [
                    "approval",
                    "permission",
                    "capability",
                    "credential",
                    "mandate",
                    "policy decision",
                    "access token",
                    "attestation",
                    "passport",
                    "task authorization"
                  ],
                  "observation": "Separating a persistent Pursuit, contextual Atlas, and experienced Episode from the fused Proof-Carrying Work Object still left one necessary boundary: a durable decision that binds exact subject, purpose, facts, authority, holder, allowed continuation, constraints, and residual risk.",
                  "candidateObject": "A Warrant is a purpose-bound, fact-addressed authorization for bounded continuation.",
                  "claimBoundary": "This cut records a provisional authorization-object hypothesis. It does not claim that every approval requires a durable Warrant, that Warrant replaces enforcement or assessment, that remote authority is locally valid, or that the candidate is novel, universal, product-ready, or accepted.",
                  "methodEvidence": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/ontology-split.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/genesis.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    }
                  ],
                  "transformedPerspective": {
                    "id": "cross-boundary-continuation",
                    "bearer": "downstream participant deciding whether a specific action may continue for a specific purpose",
                    "role": "authority issuer, holder, local acceptor, or later auditor",
                    "proximity": "inside the fact, authority, action, and consequence boundary",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears unauthorized action, repeated investigation, over-broad delegation, stale authority, and revocation failure"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "exact subject revision",
                      "fact-addressed basis",
                      "recognized authority",
                      "bounded continuation",
                      "attenuation lineage",
                      "lifecycle event"
                    ]
                  },
                  "transformation": "The observer moved from one approval interaction to the participant who must later explain and enforce why an exact continuation was legitimate across agents, tools, and organizations.",
                  "newlyVisibleNeed": "Authorization must become an independently addressable, purpose-bound fact object rather than remain ambient in chat, credentials, mutable task text, or hidden policy.",
                  "methodNotes": "The original fused candidate combined epistemic basis, work identity, execution history, and continuation permission. Structural compression retained the minimum object joining facts and recognized authority to an exact bounded action."
                },
                "boundaryPressure": {
                  "contactSides": [
                    "authority issuer, policy, evidence producer, or approving participant",
                    "agent, tool, downstream gate, operator, or organization deciding whether to continue"
                  ],
                  "implicitHandling": "Purpose, evidence, scope, issuer authority, holder, constraints, and revocation are reconstructed from prompts, policy engines, credentials, task text, logs, and human memory.",
                  "pressureChanges": [
                    {
                      "kind": "new-participant",
                      "description": "Agents increasingly request, derive, exercise, and inspect authority without sharing one conversational context."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "authority",
                      "description": "Real-world agent actions require exact limits, recognized issuers, local acceptance, attenuation, expiry, and revocation."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "heterogeneity",
                      "description": "Authorization crosses provider approval systems, operating-system enforcement, organization policy, and domain-specific evidence."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "consequence",
                      "description": "Over-broad or stale authority can change source, publish artifacts, move money, disclose information, or alter real systems."
                    }
                  ],
                  "observedFailures": [
                    "A downstream participant must reconstruct why an action was permitted.",
                    "Mutable task scope silently broadens a prior approval.",
                    "Remote or producer-declared authority is mistaken for local permission.",
                    "Revocation edits or deletes history instead of preserving an auditable lifecycle.",
                    "Successful execution is mistaken for legitimate authorization."
                  ],
                  "mediationClaim": "A Warrant may bind exact subject, purpose, basis, authority, holder, action set, constraints, and lifecycle so continuation can be independently inspected and locally accepted.",
                  "internalObjectAlternative": "Existing capability, authorization decision, verifiable credential, mandate, policy, and event-log compositions may provide all required behavior without a new Warrant Primitive."
                },
                "grounding": {
                  "pressure": [
                    "Repeated reconstruction of action legitimacy",
                    "Task and approval scope drifting independently",
                    "Need for revocable and attenuable cross-agent continuation",
                    "Separation between epistemic evidence and operational permission"
                  ],
                  "factSources": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/ontology-split.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/genesis.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    }
                  ],
                  "evidenceBoundary": "Public reconstruction of the authorization split recorded on 2026-07-17. No common implementation, enforcement integration, independent adopter, multi-domain attenuation test, benchmark, or security review is included.",
                  "knownGaps": [
                    "No final name or proven universal minimum closure",
                    "No common local and remote acceptance protocol",
                    "No implementation of immutable body plus append-only lifecycle events",
                    "No measured reduction in repeated approval cost",
                    "No adversarial delegation, revocation, expiry, or confused-deputy qualification",
                    "No proof that existing capability or mandate standards are insufficient"
                  ]
                },
                "participants": [
                  {
                    "id": "human-perspective-source",
                    "kind": "human",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "decision"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "reasoning-agent",
                    "kind": "agent",
                    "functions": [
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "scalable-reasoning"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "future-independent-security-reviewer",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "evidence-custody",
                      "verification"
                    ]
                  }
                ],
                "alternatives": [
                  {
                    "name": "Transient approval or provider permission",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "This may be sufficient for one local execution but usually lacks durable purpose, fact basis, cross-agent identity, lineage, and later reassessment."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Capability token",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "Capabilities strongly represent exercisable authority but may not preserve the purpose-bound epistemic basis, residual risk, and independent judgment expected here."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Verifiable credential or authorization credential",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "Credentials may carry signed claims and authority but may not define the full continuation lifecycle or local purpose-bound acceptance."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Mandate, permit, policy decision, or access-control record",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "One of these existing domain objects may already be the correct boundary, with Warrant only a naming profile."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Passport or proof-carrying artifact",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "A passport may justify trust in a result but does not necessarily authorize a holder to take the next action."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "No new Primitive",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "The candidate may be a composition profile across evidence, policy, capability, credential, and lifecycle event standards."
                  }
                ],
                "contractModel": {
                  "identity": "An immutable warrant_ref for one purpose-bound authorization decision, with exact subject revision, issuer, holder, and lineage.",
                  "boundary": "Exact subject and revision root, purpose, issuer and recognized authority, holder, allowed and forbidden actions, fact and evidence basis, constraints, expiry, delegation and attenuation rules, residual risk, and lifecycle references.",
                  "authority": "The issuer must possess recognized authority for the bounded continuation; the recipient or local policy independently decides whether to accept an imported Warrant. A Warrant explains authorization but does not replace operating-system, sandbox, provider, or domain enforcement.",
                  "lifecycle": "requested -> issued, conditionally issued, or denied -> accepted or rejected locally -> exercised -> expired, revoked, exhausted, or superseded",
                  "operations": [
                    "request",
                    "issue",
                    "inspect",
                    "verify-basis",
                    "accept",
                    "reject",
                    "derive",
                    "attenuate",
                    "exercise",
                    "revoke",
                    "expire",
                    "supersede"
                  ]
                },
                "tests": {
                  "minimumClosure": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/ontology-split.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Exact subject, purpose, basis, authority, holder, action set, constraints, and lifecycle appear load-bearing, but no common implementation has tested whether all fields are minimal."
                  },
                  "deletion": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/ontology-split.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Without Warrant, authority remains ambient or reconstructed, but an existing capability, mandate, or policy-decision composition may already remove that burden."
                  },
                  "fuse": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/ontology-split.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Approvals, mandates, capabilities, credentials, and policy decisions appear structurally related, but shared operations and security semantics have not survived cross-domain implementation."
                  },
                  "falsifiers": [
                    "Existing capability, credential, mandate, or policy systems provide the full contract without repeated reconstruction.",
                    "Fact-addressed authorization does not reduce clarification, approval, or audit cost.",
                    "Purpose-bound evidence cannot be safely interpreted across local policy boundaries.",
                    "Attenuation, delegation, expiry, and revocation cannot be made safe and comprehensible.",
                    "The Warrant becomes an ambient permission, hidden routing mechanism, or self-certification path.",
                    "The object adds bureaucracy while enforcement systems still require unrelated approvals.",
                    "A common contract erases necessary domain-specific authority distinctions."
                  ],
                  "dogfood": {
                    "result": "not-run",
                    "evidence": [],
                    "notes": "Embedded standing authorization and release/continuation examples motivate the candidate, but this public cut contains no common Warrant runtime or independent security qualification."
                  }
                },
                "decision": {
                  "outcome": "provisional",
                  "owner": "KFD maintainers",
                  "reason": "Separating persistent work identity, contextual facts, and execution history leaves a coherent fact-to-action authorization object, but minimum closure, relation to existing standards, security, transfer, deletion, fuse, and dogfood evidence remain unresolved.",
                  "residualRisks": [
                    "The candidate may rename an existing capability or mandate composition.",
                    "The legal and epistemic meanings of Warrant may create false assurance.",
                    "A machine-readable Warrant may be mistaken for enforcement or universal validity.",
                    "Multi-Pursuit or dynamic subject selectors may silently expand authority.",
                    "First-party workflow may overfit software and release governance.",
                    "Authorization convenience may outrun security review."
                  ]
                }
              }
            },
            "claimBoundary": "This track does not establish that Warrant is the final name, replaces enforcement or existing authorization systems, is universally valid, historically novel, product-ready, or an accepted Primitive."
          }
        ],
        "path": "/cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/cases/live/proof-carrying-work-object/README.md",
        "candidates": [
          {
            "id": "action-state-separation",
            "title": "Cross-domain action primitives",
            "path": "/drafts/action-state-separation/",
            "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/action-state-separation/"
          },
          {
            "id": "atlas-action-perspective",
            "title": "Atlas action perspective",
            "path": "/drafts/atlas-action-perspective/",
            "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/atlas-action-perspective/"
          },
          {
            "id": "pursuit-intent-continuity",
            "title": "Pursuit intent continuity",
            "path": "/drafts/pursuit-intent-continuity/",
            "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/pursuit-intent-continuity/"
          },
          {
            "id": "warrant-bounded-authority",
            "title": "Warrant bounded authority",
            "path": "/drafts/warrant-bounded-authority/",
            "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/warrant-bounded-authority/"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "software-work-perspective-settlement",
        "title": "Initiative, Assignment, and Project Cut",
        "kind": "primitive-discovery-case",
        "status": "active",
        "standard": "kfd-5",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/",
        "relationship": "provisional-live-case",
        "claimBoundary": "This case records two perspective transformations and three bounded KFD-5 acceptances. It does not establish cross-domain universality, historical novelty, one physical implementation, or activation of the current draft KFD-12 and KFD-13 decisions. Immutable cuts retain their prerelease coordinates and map forward through the 2026-07-21 Foundation Revision.",
        "humanEntry": {
          "path": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Initiative, Assignment, and Project Cut\n\nThis live case preserves two successive KFD-4 perspective transformations and\nthe KFD-5 qualification of three software-domain Primitive candidates:\n\n- **Initiative**: the independently addressable context for continuing\n  coordinated software work;\n- **Assignment**: the independently addressable bounded responsibility\n  proposed to, accepted by, or held by a participant;\n- **Project Cut**: the independently addressable macro commitment that states\n  what a software project officially became at a settled boundary.\n\nThe three current cuts are accepted within the software-development Domain\nProfile described by KFD-12 and KFD-13. Their immutable prerelease cuts retain\nthe earlier KFD-11 and KFD-12 coordinates; the current mapping is recorded by\nthe 2026-07-21 Foundation Revision. Acceptance does not establish\ncross-domain universality, historical novelty, one required storage shape, or\nactivation of either numbered draft.\n\n## Two perspective transformations\n\nThe first observer was a Primitive researcher and product developer. From that\nposition, the natural work was to refine Fact, Episode, Pursuit, Atlas, and\nWarrant and to expose more precise control over their independent\nresponsibilities.\n\nChanging to the position of a person using agents for real work changed the\nnatural question:\n\n```text\nnot: which action coordinates need finer control?\nbut: what continuing work matters, and who owns the next bounded responsibility?\n```\n\nThis made Initiative and Assignment visible as software-domain objects above\nthe cross-domain Action Responsibility Geometry.\n\nThe second observer was a coordinator maintaining Initiative and Assignment.\nFrom that position, keeping the work graph current appeared sufficient.\nChanging to the position of a successor agent about to act exposed another\nquestion:\n\n```text\nnot: which work records remain open?\nbut: what has this project officially become, and what exact state may I continue from?\n```\n\nThis made Project Cut visible as a project-level settlement object. The human\nmaintainer reports that the candidate was first proposed from the agent's\naction perspective and was not fully understood by the maintainer even after\ninitial implementation. Repository history proves the later public decision,\nimplementation, tests, and review, not the private conversational authorship\nclaim. That distinction remains part of the evidence boundary.\n\n## Current settlement\n\n| Candidate | KFD-5 outcome | Bounded reason |\n|---|---|---|\n| Initiative | accepted | Removing it forces continuing coordinated work, participant relations, and settlement state to be reconstructed from lower-level direction and task records. |\n| Assignment | accepted | Removing it erases the independently variable state of who accepted bounded responsibility, even when objective, Warrant, Atlas, and Episode facts remain. |\n| Project Cut | accepted | Removing it forces every successor to reconstruct which source, Atlas, Episode, policy, omission, and risk roots were officially admitted together. |\n\nThe outcome accepts independent semantic responsibility, not five physical\ntables, APIs, screens, or files. A conforming product may compress the objects\nin simple work when their distinctions remain recoverable.\n\n## Layering\n\n```text\nFact-Episode Ontology\n  + Action Responsibility Geometry\n      -> Initiative and Assignment software-work organization\n          -> Project Cut software-project settlement\n```\n\nProject Cut is therefore not a fourth Fact engine or a peer of Pursuit, Atlas,\nand Warrant. It is a higher-layer Primitive whose value is precisely that it\nbinds lower authorities without absorbing them.\n\n## Case surfaces\n\n- [Genesis](genesis.md)\n- [Layered ontology](ontology-split.md)\n- [Conditional distinguishability and qualification](distinguishability.md)\n- [KFD method trace](kfd-method-trace.md)\n- [Propagation consequence](propagation-hypothesis.md)\n- [Initiative KFD-5 cut](cuts/0001-initiative.json)\n- [Assignment KFD-5 cut](cuts/0001-assignment.json)\n- [Project Cut KFD-5 cut](cuts/0001-project-cut.json)\n- [Qualification reviews](reviews/README.md)\n- [Live case registry](../../registry.json)\n\n## Claim boundary\n\nThis case does not claim that every domain needs these names, that every simple\ntask must expose all three objects, that a schema or first-party implementation\nself-certifies a Primitive, or that the current fields are universally\nminimal. Counterevidence may narrow, supersede, or reject any track without\nrewriting its accepted cut."
        },
        "genesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/genesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Genesis: Two Perspective Transformations\n\nThis record freezes the first public reconstruction of how Initiative,\nAssignment, and Project Cut became visible. It separates reported genesis from\nlater repository evidence and must not be rewritten into a cleaner success\nstory.\n\n## Starting ontology: the developer and Primitive-research view\n\nThe starting ontology was already rich:\n\n```text\nFact      admitted state\nEpisode   realized causal occurrence\nPursuit   continuing direction\nAtlas     declared perspective and fact cut\nWarrant   bounded authority\n```\n\nFrom the position of a researcher or product developer, the obvious next work\nwas to improve those objects: add fields, lifecycle control, storage,\nverification, queries, migration, and perhaps discover more peers at the same\nlayer.\n\nThat view was valid for building the substrate. It did not identify the\nobjects a person naturally uses to organize real software work.\n\n## Transformation one: from developer to real user\n\nThe observer changed from the participant implementing action primitives to a\nperson trying to get real work done with agents. The consequence position also\nchanged: the user bears continuity loss, unclear responsibility, repeated\nexplanation, and failed handoff rather than API incompleteness.\n\n| Developer view | Real-user view |\n|---|---|\n| refine Pursuit, Atlas, and Warrant controls | preserve the continuing work that matters |\n| expose more coordinate fields | make one bounded responsibility understandable and assignable |\n| optimize primitive APIs | reduce mental reconstruction and handoff cost |\n| reason from implementation boundaries | reason from lived purpose and consequence |\n\nTwo macro objects became natural:\n\n```text\nInitiative\n  continuing coordinated work with declared intent, scope, participants,\n  Pursuits, Assignment relations, lineage, and settlement state\n\nAssignment\n  bounded responsibility with participant, objective, Atlas, Warrant,\n  acceptance boundary, expected evidence, lineage, and state\n```\n\nThe earlier Mission/Go product vocabulary supplied first-party pressure and\nimplementation evidence. The pre-stable KFD-11 later assigned the canonical\nsoftware-profile vocabulary; the 2026-07-21 Foundation Revision maps it to\ncurrent KFD-12 without rewriting this genesis. It names Initiative and\nAssignment. The candidate claim is not that the labels created the\nresponsibilities, but that the responsibilities remain useful and independently\naddressable after the lower coordinates are held fixed.\n\n## Transformation two: from work coordinator to successor agent\n\nOnce Initiative and Assignment existed, the coordinator's natural model was a\ncontinuing graph of work, responsibility, Episodes, claims, assessments, and\ndecisions. From inside that graph, keeping it current appeared sufficient.\n\nThe observer then changed to an agent receiving the project after prior work.\nThat participant does not primarily need the complete management context. It\nneeds a bounded answer to:\n\n> What has this project officially become, which authorities establish that\n> state, what is missing, and from which exact boundary may I continue?\n\nReconstructing that answer from every open and closed work object would make\neach continuation repeat the settlement investigation. Project Cut became\nvisible as the object carrying the admitted relationship:\n\n```text\npredecessor Project Cut\n  + accepted source projection\n  + successor Atlas\n  + admitted Episode delta\n  + interpretation policy\n  + omissions, conflicts, unknowns, and residual risk\n  -> verifiable project-level commitment\n```\n\n## Agent-origin testimony and public evidence\n\nThe human maintainer reports that Project Cut was proposed by an agent reasoning\nfrom the successor-agent action perspective, and that its need remained partly\nnon-obvious to the maintainer through initial implementation. This is a\nmaintainer testimony about genesis, not a fact recoverable from Git authorship.\n\nPublic repository evidence begins with the accepted Project Cut architecture\nin Kungfu PR 958 and continues through canonical-root, agent-first settlement,\nGit-history, clean-clone continuation, independent review, and concurrent\ncomposition work. That evidence can qualify the object and contradict the\ngenesis story; it cannot prove who first conceived it in an unretained private\nconversation.\n\n## Why this is KFD-4 evidence\n\nNeither transformation merely changed wording. Each changed the natural object\nrequired for action:\n\n```text\ndeveloper -> user\ncoordinates become Initiative and Assignment\n\ncoordinator -> successor agent\nwork history becomes Project Cut\n```\n\nThe lower objects did not become false. They became insufficient as the direct\ninterface for a different consequence-bearing participant. This is the KFD-4\npattern: preserve facts and invariants while changing the declared observer so\npreviously hidden object boundaries can appear.\n\n## Initial alternatives\n\n- keep refining Pursuit, Atlas, and Warrant without new macro objects;\n- use task, issue, project, workflow, or context as the only work object;\n- treat Initiative as one Pursuit and Assignment as one Warrant;\n- use the latest database row, Fact Cut, Git commit, release tag, or context\n  snapshot as project settlement;\n- require each successor to reconstruct the relevant binding;\n- conclude that no new Primitive is justified.\n\nThese alternatives remain part of qualification rather than being erased by\nthe accepted outcome."
        },
        "methodTrace": {
          "path": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/kfd-method-trace.md",
          "markdown": "# KFD Method Trace\n\nThis trace records how KFD-1 through KFD-5 govern the discovery and settlement\nof Initiative, Assignment, and Project Cut. It does not claim that KFD uniquely\ncaused them or that self-application proves them.\n\n## KFD-1: preserve each cut\n\nThe reported genesis, public implementation coordinates, alternatives,\ndistinguishability arguments, qualification outcomes, and residual risks are\nstored separately. Later evidence creates successor cuts; it does not rewrite\nthe uncertainty or authorship boundary of the first record.\n\n## KFD-2: separate claims from evidence strength\n\nThe case keeps these claims distinct:\n\n```text\nC1  perspective transformation contributed to candidate genesis\nC2  Initiative carries independently useful software-work responsibility\nC3  Assignment carries independently useful accepted-responsibility state\nC4  Project Cut carries independently useful project settlement\nC5  each candidate transfers beyond the founding implementation\nC6  each candidate is historically novel or universally necessary\n```\n\nMaintainer testimony supports a bounded C1. Public contracts, tests, dogfood,\nrebuild, review, and continuation evidence support C2 through C4 within the\ndeclared software profile. C5 remains narrower than universal transfer. C6 is\nnot claimed.\n\n## KFD-3: let participant value change the design\n\nThe developer view did not receive permanent authority merely because it built\nthe substrate. The human user's need for low-friction work organization and the\nsuccessor agent's need for an exact continuation boundary were treated as\nfirst-class value claims.\n\nThis would violate KFD-3 if the product forced users or agents to manipulate\nall lower coordinates directly, hid defaults, or dismissed the agent-generated\ncandidate because it did not originate from the human maintainer.\n\n## KFD-4: declare and change the observer\n\nTwo transformations generated the candidates:\n\n```text\nPrimitive developer -> real human user\n  reveals Initiative and Assignment\n\nInitiative/Assignment coordinator -> successor acting agent\n  reveals Project Cut\n```\n\nThe transformations preserve source facts, lower object identity, authority,\nand causal history. They change which burden is local and which object is\nnatural for the participant who bears the next consequence.\n\n## KFD-5: qualify each object independently\n\nThe shared genesis does not permit a package verdict. Each track receives its\nown minimum closure, alternatives, deletion test, fuse test, falsifiers,\ndogfood evidence, decision, and residual risks.\n\nAcceptance is bounded:\n\n- Initiative and Assignment are accepted as software-work organization\n  Primitives under KFD-12;\n- Project Cut is accepted as a software-project settlement Primitive under\n  KFD-13;\n- none is promoted as a universal cross-domain ontology requirement;\n- KFD-12 and KFD-13 remain numbered drafts until their separate activation\n  gates close.\n\n## Anti-self-certification\n\nKFD owns this case record and Kungfu supplies the founding evidence. That\ncreates correlated evidence. Independent repository review, explicit\nfalsifiers, retained negative cases, and future adopter evidence remain able to\nnarrow or reverse the outcome."
        },
        "propagationHypothesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/propagation-hypothesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Product and Propagation Consequence\n\nThe bounded propagation hypothesis is:\n\n> KFD-shaped infrastructure becomes easier to adopt when products expose the\n> macro objects natural to each participant rather than asking participants to\n> manipulate the underlying ontology directly.\n\nFor a real user, Initiative and Assignment are useful because they organize\npurpose and responsibility. For a successor agent, Project Cut is useful\nbecause it provides an exact, inspectable continuation boundary. Neither\nparticipant must first study Action Responsibility Geometry.\n\n```text\nlower KFD responsibilities remain exact\n  -> user acts through Initiative and Assignment\n  -> work is settled into a Project Cut\n  -> successor agent verifies one bounded macro commitment\n  -> reconstruction and handoff cost can fall\n```\n\nThis is not evidence that simpler vocabulary alone creates trust. The macro\nobjects carry value only when their lower Fact, Episode, Atlas, Pursuit,\nWarrant, assessment, omission, and receipt boundaries remain inspectable.\n\nThe hypothesis fails if products hide those boundaries, force all users to\nlearn the full ontology, or let convenient macro objects silently absorb their\nsource authorities. Adoption, retention, or first-party implementation does\nnot prove philosophical agreement or cross-domain validity."
        },
        "reviewIndex": {
          "path": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/reviews/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Qualification Reviews\n\nThis directory is the append-only review path for the\n`software-work-perspective-settlement` live case.\n\nThe initial review must independently check:\n\n1. whether both perspective transformations preserve their source facts and\n   declare the participant bearing the consequence;\n2. whether maintainer testimony about Agent genesis is kept separate from Git\n   authorship and implementation evidence;\n3. whether each accepted track has its own deletion, fuse, alternative,\n   falsifier, dogfood, and residual-risk judgment;\n4. whether acceptance is limited to the current KFD-12/13 software profile;\n5. whether Project Cut remains a higher-layer settlement Primitive rather than\n   a fourth fact engine or action coordinate;\n6. whether KFD-12/13 draft status remains independent from the Primitive\n   outcomes.\n\nA later review is required when new evidence changes a track's scope, minimum\nclosure, alternatives, tests, outcome, or residual risk. Reviews never mutate a\npublished cut. They identify the prior digest and create a successor cut for\nthe affected track."
        },
        "ontologySplit": {
          "path": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/ontology-split.md",
          "markdown": "# Layered Ontology: Coordinates, Work, and Settlement\n\nThe discovery did not add Initiative, Assignment, and Project Cut as peers of\nFact, Episode, Pursuit, Atlas, or Warrant. It exposed two higher layers.\n\n## Layer one: contract-world substrate\n\n```text\nFact     admitted state at a declared Cut\nEpisode  realized causal occurrence with replayable evidence\n```\n\nThese answer what state has been admitted and what actually happened.\n\n## Layer two: action responsibility\n\n```text\nPursuit  continuing direction\nAtlas    declared perspective and fact basis\nWarrant  bounded authority\n```\n\nThese coordinates remain independently addressable. They answer what change is\nbeing pursued, on which view, and under which authority.\n\n## Layer three: software-work organization\n\n```text\nInitiative  continuing coordinated work context\nAssignment  bounded participant responsibility\n```\n\nInitiative and Assignment compose lower coordinates without absorbing them.\nOne Initiative may coordinate several Pursuits and Assignments. One Assignment\nbinds an actor and objective to exact Atlas and Warrant roots and may produce\nseveral Episodes, claims, assessments, and continuation decisions.\n\nThe lower coordinates cannot derive whether a participant accepted an\nAssignment or which set of directions and responsibilities belong to one\ncontinuing Initiative unless an equivalent higher relation is preserved.\n\n## Layer four: software-project settlement\n\n```text\nProject Cut  official, verifiable macro commitment at one project boundary\n```\n\nProject Cut binds selected source, Atlas, Episode, policy, omission, risk, and\npredecessor roots. It does not become their authority. Its independent\nresponsibility is selection and settlement: which exact combination was\nadmitted together as the project's successor state.\n\nThis resolves an apparent conflict in the founding Kungfu ADR, which says\nProject Cut must not become a fourth primitive. At the Fact-Episode and Action\nResponsibility layers, that remains correct: Project Cut is not a fourth fact\nengine, action coordinate, or universal project identity. At the software\nsettlement layer, it is an independently addressable Primitive because deleting\nits binding changes what a successor may treat as officially settled.\n\n## Invalid flattening\n\nThe layered model rejects:\n\n- Initiative is only a larger Pursuit;\n- Assignment is only a task, Warrant, or Episode;\n- maintaining current Initiative/Assignment state proves project settlement;\n- Project Cut is the latest Git commit, Fact Cut, database row, or context\n  snapshot;\n- Project Cut may reinterpret or absorb source, Atlas, Episode, or policy\n  authority;\n- acceptance in this software profile makes the same vocabulary mandatory in\n  another domain.\n\n## Conservative reduction\n\nSimple work may project the structure into one familiar session:\n\n```text\none Initiative\n  + one accepted Assignment\n  + one current Atlas and Warrant\n  + one Episode\n  + one result Fact Cut\n  + one implicit local settlement view\n```\n\nThe product need not expose six forms. Compression is valid when later\ninspection can recover the distinctions whose variation would change a\ndecision. Complexity is revealed only when work crosses participants,\ndirections, authority states, Episodes, or settlement boundaries."
        },
        "distinguishabilityArgument": {
          "path": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/distinguishability.md",
          "markdown": "# Distinguishability and Qualification\n\nThis note asks whether Initiative, Assignment, and Project Cut preserve\ninformation that changes a required software-work decision when lower-layer\nfacts are held fixed. It does not require separate physical records.\n\n## Decision semantics\n\nFor object family `X`, let `remove_X(h)` erase that semantic distinction from a\nvalid history `h` while preserving every other observable fact. `X` is\nnon-redundant for decision `Q` when two valid histories exist such that:\n\n```text\nremove_X(h1) = remove_X(h2)\nand\nD_Q(h1) != D_Q(h2)\n```\n\nAny rival representation may qualify if it preserves equivalent information\nwith lower total burden. The names and file shapes are not assumed by the test.\n\n## Initiative witness\n\nHold the same Pursuits, Atlas roots, Warrants, Episodes, and source state fixed.\nIn `h1`, two Pursuits belong to one continuing coordinated migration with one\nparticipant set and one settlement horizon. In `h2`, they belong to independent\nwork contexts whose resources, decisions, and settlement must not be coupled.\n\nAfter deleting Initiative, the retained lower objects are equal. The answers to\n\"which responsibilities should be coordinated, paused, superseded, or settled\ntogether?\" differ. Equivalent Initiative information is therefore necessary\nfor that software-work decision.\n\n## Assignment witness\n\nHold objective, Pursuit, Atlas, Warrant, and possible execution capability\nfixed. In `h1`, participant A accepted responsibility under the declared\nboundary. In `h2`, the same work was only proposed, refused, or left unowned.\n\nDeleting Assignment acceptance makes the histories equal, but the answer to\n\"who is responsible to act, report, hand off, or explicitly decline now?\"\ndiffers. Warrant states what may be done; it does not establish that a\nparticipant accepted responsibility. Episode states what occurred; occurrence\ndoes not retroactively assign responsibility.\n\n## Project Cut witness\n\nHold the same available source projection, Atlas, Episode, policy, omission,\nrisk, Initiative, and Assignment records fixed. In `h1`, one exact combination\nwas verified and admitted as the project's successor settlement. In `h2`, it\nwas only a candidate combination or a different predecessor/selection was\naccepted.\n\nDeleting Project Cut makes the available components equal, but the answer to\n\"which exact project state may the successor verify and continue from without\nre-adjudicating prior work?\" differs. Equivalent settlement-selection\ninformation is therefore necessary.\n\n## Alternative comparison\n\n| Alternative | Qualification result |\n|---|---|\n| Refine Pursuit, Atlas, and Warrant only | Retained as lower infrastructure; insufficient to express coordination grouping, accepted responsibility, or project settlement without adding equivalent relations. |\n| Task, issue, workflow, or project record | May implement Initiative or Assignment semantics; does not invalidate the Primitive when equivalent identity and lifecycle are preserved. |\n| Git commit or release tag | Publishes bytes or a label but does not bind causal, perspective, omission, policy, and risk authorities. |\n| Latest Fact Cut or database row | States admitted state inside one authority but does not publish the cross-authority project settlement relation. |\n| Context snapshot | Helps reconstruction but does not by itself establish responsibility, acceptance, or official settlement. |\n| No new Primitive | Rejected within this software profile because deletion changes required coordination, responsibility, and continuation decisions. |\n\n## Qualification evidence\n\nInitiative and Assignment reuse the first-party Mission/Go pressure field and\npublic Kungfu Mission Control implementation. The evidence includes stable\nidentity, append-only lifecycle, fact admission, queries, assessment,\nportability, GUI/CLI parity, and completion paths. It supports the bounded\nsoftware-profile responsibilities, not universal terminology.\n\nProject Cut has stronger retained implementation evidence: canonical roots,\nagent-first settlement, stage-0 recovery, Git-history bindings, clean-clone\ncontinuation, independent review, three-agent dogfood, and concurrent\ncomposition. The evidence supports a software-project settlement Primitive,\nnot a fourth fact engine or proof of completed work.\n\n## Falsifiers\n\nThe accepted outcomes must be narrowed or reversed if:\n\n- Initiative grouping is always derivable from Pursuit and typed relations\n  without reconstruction or changed decisions;\n- Assignment acceptance never varies independently from Warrant, Episode, or\n  an existing task object;\n- successors can identify the admitted project state from existing authorities\n  with lower cost and no hidden policy;\n- Project Cut becomes a second source, Atlas, Episode, or completion authority;\n- progressive disclosure cannot preserve simple-session usability;\n- first-party terminology fails to map to independent software workflows;\n- retained implementation evidence cannot be reproduced from its exact public\n  coordinates;\n- the accepted objects export more coordination complexity than they compress.\n\n## Outcome boundary\n\nAll three tracks are accepted only as software-domain Primitives. This outcome\ndoes not activate current KFD-12 or KFD-13, freeze their pre-stable fields,\nprove broad minimality, or require other domains to adopt the same objects.\nThose are separate decisions with separate evidence obligations."
        },
        "candidateTracks": [
          {
            "id": "initiative",
            "title": "Initiative",
            "status": "accepted",
            "definition": "An independently addressable context for continuing coordinated software work across participants, Pursuits, Assignments, decisions, lineage, and settlement.",
            "currentCut": {
              "path": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/cuts/0001-initiative.json",
              "sha256": "411d2c765e287431b7025756d4309229732428faba3f127bd0d356d7cbd33ea6",
              "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json",
              "schemaVersion": 3,
              "record": {
                "schemaVersion": 3,
                "contract": "kfd-5-primitive-discovery",
                "standard": "kfd-5",
                "candidate": {
                  "id": "initiative",
                  "title": "Initiative",
                  "problemStatement": "Lower-level direction, perspective, authority, and occurrence objects do not by themselves identify which Pursuits, participants, Assignments, decisions, and settlement state form one continuing coordinated software-work context.",
                  "scope": "Accepted as a software-development Domain Profile Primitive under KFD-11; cross-domain vocabulary, historical novelty, universal minimum fields, and KFD-11 activation are not claimed."
                },
                "genesis": {
                  "methods": [
                    "direct-situated-judgment",
                    "perspective-transformation",
                    "reconstruction-pressure",
                    "structural-compression"
                  ],
                  "observationPerspective": {
                    "id": "action-primitive-developer",
                    "bearer": "human and agent participants refining the software action substrate",
                    "role": "Primitive researcher and product developer",
                    "proximity": "inside the implementation and contract boundary",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears API, storage, migration, verification, and responsibility-separation defects"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "Fact",
                      "Episode",
                      "Pursuit",
                      "Atlas",
                      "Warrant",
                      "schema",
                      "state machine"
                    ]
                  },
                  "currentOntology": [
                    "Fact",
                    "Episode",
                    "Pursuit",
                    "Atlas",
                    "Warrant",
                    "task",
                    "session",
                    "project"
                  ],
                  "observation": "From the developer view, the natural continuation was finer control over action coordinates. Moving to the real user's consequence position exposed a different need: preserve one continuing body of coordinated work without making the user reconstruct it from coordinates and task records.",
                  "candidateObject": "An Initiative is an independently addressable context that turns declared intent into continuing coordinated software work by preserving scope, participants, relevant Pursuits, Assignment relations, lineage, and settlement state.",
                  "claimBoundary": "The cut accepts independent software-work responsibility, not a universal ontology, mandatory user-visible object, physical storage shape, or proof that Initiative is historically novel.",
                  "methodEvidence": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/genesis.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "decisions/KFD-11.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/585",
                      "observer": "Kungfu Mission Control implementers and reviewers"
                    }
                  ],
                  "transformedPerspective": {
                    "id": "real-software-work-user",
                    "bearer": "a person using agents to advance consequential software work",
                    "role": "work owner and continuing participant",
                    "proximity": "inside continuity, coordination, handoff, and settlement consequences",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears repeated explanation, fragmented direction, responsibility drift, and unclear settlement"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "continuing initiative",
                      "bounded assignment",
                      "participant",
                      "decision",
                      "settlement"
                    ]
                  },
                  "transformation": "The observer moved from implementing independent action coordinates to the person responsible for making one continuing body of real work understandable and governable.",
                  "newlyVisibleNeed": "A stable software-work context must coordinate multiple directions and bounded responsibilities without fusing their lower identities or requiring the user to operate the substrate directly.",
                  "methodNotes": "The founding Mission vocabulary supplied first-party pressure; KFD-11 later assigned Initiative as the canonical software-profile term."
                },
                "boundaryPressure": {
                  "contactSides": [
                    "independent action coordinates, tasks, sessions, and provider-local records",
                    "the person and agents continuing one coordinated body of software work"
                  ],
                  "implicitHandling": "Coordination is reconstructed from project prose, task grouping, chat memory, issue labels, branch names, and the maintainer's current understanding.",
                  "pressureChanges": [
                    {
                      "kind": "new-participant",
                      "description": "Multiple humans and agents join, leave, and resume the same coordinated work."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "scale",
                      "description": "One real initiative spans many Pursuits, Assignments, Episodes, repositories, and decisions."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "consequence",
                      "description": "Incorrect grouping changes priorities, handoff, settlement, and which work should continue together."
                    }
                  ],
                  "observedFailures": [
                    "Lower-level objects remain individually valid while the continuing coordination context must be reconstructed.",
                    "Completing one task or Pursuit is mistaken for settling the larger work.",
                    "A new participant cannot tell which responsibilities belong to one coordinated effort."
                  ],
                  "mediationClaim": "Initiative may preserve one continuing software-work context while referencing rather than absorbing Pursuit, Atlas, Warrant, Episode, and Assignment identities.",
                  "internalObjectAlternative": "A disciplined project, workflow aggregate, or typed relation graph may implement equivalent Initiative semantics without using this name."
                },
                "grounding": {
                  "pressure": [
                    "Real users need a stable work-level object rather than direct manipulation of action coordinates.",
                    "Long-running work spans several directions, participants, responsibilities, Episodes, and decisions.",
                    "Coordination and settlement state must survive sessions, agents, repositories, and mutable projections."
                  ],
                  "factSources": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "decisions/KFD-11.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/bcbe4abe0918e65647e9df7c2309ef489b1e16d4",
                      "observer": "Kungfu Mission Control implementation"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/distinguishability.md",
                      "observer": "KFD qualification"
                    }
                  ],
                  "evidenceBoundary": "Public KFD-11 and first-party Kungfu Mission Control implementation establish one software profile with stable work identity, lifecycle, queries, assessment, portability, and participant surfaces. No independent non-Kungfu implementation or universal domain transfer is included.",
                  "knownGaps": [
                    "No cross-domain universality claim",
                    "No independent adopter using the Initiative name",
                    "No proof that the current field set is globally minimal",
                    "KFD-11 activation remains separate"
                  ]
                },
                "participants": [
                  {
                    "id": "human-user-perspective-source",
                    "kind": "human",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "decision"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "agent-reasoning-participant",
                    "kind": "agent",
                    "functions": [
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "scalable-reasoning"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "repository-review",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "evidence-custody",
                      "verification"
                    ]
                  }
                ],
                "alternatives": [
                  {
                    "name": "One Pursuit",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "A continuing direction does not by itself own the participant set, several Pursuits, Assignment relations, and work-level settlement state."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Project, workflow, or issue aggregate",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "These may be valid Domain Profile implementations when they preserve equivalent identity, lineage, responsibility, and settlement semantics."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "More precise Atlas, Pursuit, and Warrant control",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "This remains necessary substrate work but does not remove the higher coordination responsibility unless equivalent grouping is added."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "No new Primitive",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "The deletion witness changes coordination and settlement decisions while lower object facts remain fixed."
                  }
                ],
                "contractModel": {
                  "identity": "A stable initiative_ref for one continuing coordinated body of software work.",
                  "boundary": "Declared intent, scope, participants, relevant Pursuit roots, Assignment relations, lineage, and settlement state; lower facts, authority, perspective, and occurrence remain references.",
                  "authority": "Initiative authority may declare and coordinate work but cannot manufacture facts, grant Warrant authority, prove occurrence, accept claims, or publish Project Cut settlement by itself.",
                  "lifecycle": "proposed -> active -> paused or revised -> settled, abandoned, superseded, or forked; exact state vocabulary remains Domain Profile-owned",
                  "operations": [
                    "create",
                    "inspect",
                    "clarify",
                    "relate-pursuit",
                    "relate-assignment",
                    "pause",
                    "resume",
                    "settle",
                    "supersede",
                    "fork"
                  ]
                },
                "tests": {
                  "minimumClosure": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "docs/KFD-11-formal.md"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/585"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Stable identity, declared intent and scope, relevant Pursuits, participants, Assignment relations, lineage, and settlement state are sufficient for the bounded software profile while lower authority remains external."
                  },
                  "deletion": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/distinguishability.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Deleting Initiative while holding lower roots fixed changes which work and responsibilities must be coordinated and settled together."
                  },
                  "fuse": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/ontology-split.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Fusing Initiative with Pursuit, repository, or project makes coordination scope and lower direction identity silently co-vary; equivalent typed relations remain allowed."
                  },
                  "falsifiers": [
                    "Initiative grouping is always derivable from lower roots with no reconstruction or changed decision.",
                    "Independent software workflows cannot map their project or work aggregate without forced semantics.",
                    "The minimum closure creates more coordination burden than it removes.",
                    "Progressive disclosure cannot preserve the simple-session experience."
                  ],
                  "dogfood": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/fac15d2660223b48196060107e40e99ff7c4f3e2"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/bcbe4abe0918e65647e9df7c2309ef489b1e16d4"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "The founding Mission profile exercised stable identity, fact admission, progress assessment, Cost/State/Proof, portability, and human/agent surfaces. The evidence is first-party and software-scoped."
                  }
                },
                "decision": {
                  "outcome": "accepted",
                  "owner": "KFD maintainers under repository review",
                  "reason": "Within the KFD-11 software profile, Initiative preserves a coordination and settlement distinction that changes required decisions when lower action coordinates remain fixed, and the first-party implementation demonstrates executable lifecycle and continuation value.",
                  "residualRisks": [
                    "The object may map to an ordinary project or workflow aggregate in other products.",
                    "The founding evidence is correlated with one organization and product family.",
                    "The current minimum closure may narrow before KFD-11 activation.",
                    "Cross-domain use and historical novelty are unqualified."
                  ]
                }
              }
            },
            "claimBoundary": "Accepted only as a software-development Domain Profile Primitive under current KFD-12; the immutable cut retains its earlier KFD-11 coordinate. Cross-domain vocabulary, historical novelty, universal minimum fields, and KFD-12 activation are not claimed."
          },
          {
            "id": "assignment",
            "title": "Assignment",
            "status": "accepted",
            "definition": "An independently addressable bounded software-work responsibility proposed to, accepted by, or held by a participant under declared context, authority, evidence, and settlement conditions.",
            "currentCut": {
              "path": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/cuts/0001-assignment.json",
              "sha256": "454ad9d2b2b04e48b09e4526b51375d2366058e405102d361326834db76fe2f9",
              "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json",
              "schemaVersion": 3,
              "record": {
                "schemaVersion": 3,
                "contract": "kfd-5-primitive-discovery",
                "standard": "kfd-5",
                "candidate": {
                  "id": "assignment",
                  "title": "Assignment",
                  "problemStatement": "Objective, permission, context, and occurrence do not by themselves state whether a participant was proposed, accepted, refused, or remains responsible for bounded software work and its evidence boundary.",
                  "scope": "Accepted as a software-development Domain Profile Primitive under KFD-11; universal task ontology, one physical record, historical novelty, and KFD-11 activation are not claimed."
                },
                "genesis": {
                  "methods": [
                    "direct-situated-judgment",
                    "perspective-transformation",
                    "reconstruction-pressure",
                    "structural-compression"
                  ],
                  "observationPerspective": {
                    "id": "action-coordinate-developer",
                    "bearer": "human and agent participants implementing Pursuit, Atlas, Warrant, and Episode controls",
                    "role": "Primitive researcher and product developer",
                    "proximity": "inside action contract and execution mechanics",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears invalid state transitions, missing roots, and execution ambiguity"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "objective",
                      "Pursuit",
                      "Atlas",
                      "Warrant",
                      "Episode",
                      "task state"
                    ]
                  },
                  "currentOntology": [
                    "task",
                    "goal",
                    "Pursuit",
                    "Atlas",
                    "Warrant",
                    "Episode",
                    "claim"
                  ],
                  "observation": "Changing from the implementation view to the participant receiving work exposed that authority to act and action occurrence do not answer whether that participant accepted bounded responsibility or what evidence and handoff it owes.",
                  "candidateObject": "An Assignment is an independently addressable bounded responsibility proposed to, accepted by, or held by a participant, binding objective, Atlas, Warrant, acceptance boundary, expected evidence, lineage, and state.",
                  "claimBoundary": "The cut accepts a software-domain responsibility distinction, not a universal task object, mandatory delegation ceremony, physical table, or proof that every Assignment requires a different participant.",
                  "methodEvidence": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/genesis.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "decisions/KFD-11.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/585",
                      "observer": "Kungfu Mission Control implementers and reviewers"
                    }
                  ],
                  "transformedPerspective": {
                    "id": "responsibility-bearing-participant",
                    "bearer": "a human or agent proposed for bounded software work",
                    "role": "potential, current, or successor responsibility holder",
                    "proximity": "inside acceptance, execution, evidence, refusal, and handoff consequences",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears unclear ownership, accidental commitment, unsupported completion, and failed handoff"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "assignment proposal",
                      "acceptance or refusal",
                      "responsible participant",
                      "evidence expectation",
                      "claim and settlement"
                    ]
                  },
                  "transformation": "The observer moved from the system that can authorize and record action to the participant whose acceptance and continuing responsibility cannot be inferred from those mechanics.",
                  "newlyVisibleNeed": "A bounded responsibility must preserve proposal, acceptance, holder, evidence, lineage, claim, and settlement state independently from permission and occurrence.",
                  "methodNotes": "The founding Go vocabulary supplied first-party pressure; KFD-11 later assigned Assignment as the canonical software-profile term."
                },
                "boundaryPressure": {
                  "contactSides": [
                    "the coordinator or agent proposing bounded work",
                    "the participant expected to accept, refuse, perform, report, or hand off that work"
                  ],
                  "implicitHandling": "Responsibility is inferred from prompts, task status, assignee fields, permission grants, branch ownership, or the fact that an action happened.",
                  "pressureChanges": [
                    {
                      "kind": "new-participant",
                      "description": "Work increasingly crosses humans, agents, reviewers, and successor agents with different acceptance states."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "authority",
                      "description": "Permission, responsibility acceptance, claim, assessment, and decision must remain independently auditable."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "consequence",
                      "description": "Mistaking permission or occurrence for accepted responsibility changes who may be held accountable or expected to continue."
                    }
                  ],
                  "observedFailures": [
                    "A proposed task is treated as accepted merely because it exists.",
                    "A valid Warrant is mistaken for a commitment by its holder.",
                    "An Episode is mistaken for proof that the actor owned or completed the responsibility.",
                    "A completion claim is treated as settlement without independent assessment and decision."
                  ],
                  "mediationClaim": "Assignment may preserve bounded participant responsibility while referencing rather than absorbing objective, Atlas, Warrant, Episode, claim, assessment, and decision authority.",
                  "internalObjectAlternative": "A disciplined task, issue, ticket, or workflow item may implement equivalent Assignment semantics without using this name."
                },
                "grounding": {
                  "pressure": [
                    "Responsibility acceptance varies independently from permission and action occurrence.",
                    "Bounded work needs stable evidence expectations, lineage, and settlement state across sessions and participants.",
                    "Agent self-report must not self-certify completion or expand authority."
                  ],
                  "factSources": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "decisions/KFD-11.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/9da49c368806f89d11402375479ebc84cbd724d2",
                      "observer": "Kungfu Mission Control implementation"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/distinguishability.md",
                      "observer": "KFD qualification"
                    }
                  ],
                  "evidenceBoundary": "Public KFD-11 and first-party Kungfu Mission Control implementation establish one software profile with proposal, lifecycle, execution evidence, claims, assessment, decisions, portability, and participant surfaces. Independent product transfer remains absent.",
                  "knownGaps": [
                    "No universal task or delegation ontology claim",
                    "No independent adopter using the Assignment name",
                    "Self-assignment and ambient low-risk defaults need continuing product qualification",
                    "KFD-11 activation remains separate"
                  ]
                },
                "participants": [
                  {
                    "id": "human-user-perspective-source",
                    "kind": "human",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "decision"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "agent-responsibility-participant",
                    "kind": "agent",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "scalable-reasoning"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "repository-review",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "evidence-custody",
                      "verification"
                    ]
                  }
                ],
                "alternatives": [
                  {
                    "name": "Task, issue, ticket, or workflow item",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "These may be valid Domain Profile implementations when they preserve proposal, acceptance, authority, evidence, claim, and settlement distinctions."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Warrant",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "Permission to act does not imply that the holder accepted responsibility or owes the expected evidence and handoff."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Episode or run",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "Occurrence does not establish prior responsibility, acceptance, valid claim, or settlement."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "No new Primitive",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "The deletion witness changes who must act, report, refuse, or hand off while objective, permission, and occurrence remain fixed."
                  }
                ],
                "contractModel": {
                  "identity": "A stable assignment_ref for one bounded software responsibility proposal and its accepted or refused lineage.",
                  "boundary": "Participant, objective, exact Atlas and Warrant roots, acceptance boundary, expected evidence, parent Initiative or Assignment, state, claim, assessment, decision, and continuation references.",
                  "authority": "Proposal does not imply acceptance; acceptance does not create Warrant authority, prove occurrence, validate a claim, or authorize settlement. Each remains independently decided.",
                  "lifecycle": "proposed -> accepted, refused, or revision-requested -> active, blocked, paused, or handed-off -> claimed -> assessed -> settled, reopened, or continued",
                  "operations": [
                    "propose",
                    "inspect",
                    "accept",
                    "refuse",
                    "request-revision",
                    "start",
                    "block",
                    "claim",
                    "assess",
                    "settle",
                    "reopen",
                    "handoff",
                    "continue"
                  ]
                },
                "tests": {
                  "minimumClosure": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "docs/KFD-11-formal.md"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/585"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Stable identity, participant, objective, Atlas, Warrant, acceptance, evidence, lineage, and state preserve the bounded software responsibility while other authorities remain external."
                  },
                  "deletion": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/distinguishability.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Deleting Assignment acceptance while holding objective, permission, context, and occurrence fixed changes who is responsible to act or decline."
                  },
                  "fuse": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/ontology-split.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Fusing Assignment with Warrant or Episode makes acceptance silently follow authority or occurrence; task systems remain valid when they preserve equivalent separation."
                  },
                  "falsifiers": [
                    "Responsibility acceptance never varies independently from an existing task, Warrant, or Episode in valid software work.",
                    "The explicit lifecycle creates more ceremony than reconstruction or authority risk it removes.",
                    "Self-assigned and delegated work require incompatible minimum contracts.",
                    "Independent software workflows cannot map equivalent responsibility semantics."
                  ],
                  "dogfood": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/9da49c368806f89d11402375479ebc84cbd724d2"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/bcbe4abe0918e65647e9df7c2309ef489b1e16d4"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "The founding Go profile exercised bounded objective, actor, Episode evidence, completion claim, purpose-bound assessment, portability, and continuation. The evidence is first-party and software-scoped."
                  }
                },
                "decision": {
                  "outcome": "accepted",
                  "owner": "KFD maintainers under repository review",
                  "reason": "Within the KFD-11 software profile, Assignment preserves accepted bounded responsibility independently from objective, authority, occurrence, claim, and settlement, and the first-party implementation demonstrates an executable lifecycle.",
                  "residualRisks": [
                    "The object may map to an ordinary task or workflow item in other products.",
                    "The founding evidence is correlated with one organization and product family.",
                    "Poor defaults could turn explicit responsibility into ceremony or hidden coercion.",
                    "Cross-domain use and historical novelty are unqualified."
                  ]
                }
              }
            },
            "claimBoundary": "Accepted only as a software-development Domain Profile Primitive under current KFD-12; the immutable cut retains its earlier KFD-11 coordinate. Universal task vocabulary, one actor model, historical novelty, and KFD-12 activation are not claimed."
          },
          {
            "id": "project-cut",
            "title": "Project Cut",
            "status": "accepted",
            "definition": "A software-project settlement object that publishes what a project officially became by binding independent source, Atlas, Episode, policy, and predecessor authorities without absorbing them.",
            "currentCut": {
              "path": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/cuts/0001-project-cut.json",
              "sha256": "261c6e05308a4e197bc4727f2828cf621b8d496e0c8b5f33b01ae5646fa1c200",
              "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json",
              "schemaVersion": 3,
              "record": {
                "schemaVersion": 3,
                "contract": "kfd-5-primitive-discovery",
                "standard": "kfd-5",
                "candidate": {
                  "id": "project-cut",
                  "title": "Project Cut",
                  "problemStatement": "A successor agent cannot determine which available source, Atlas, Episode, policy, omission, risk, and predecessor roots were officially admitted together merely by reading open work state or the component authorities independently.",
                  "scope": "Accepted as a software-project settlement Primitive under KFD-12; it is not a fourth fact engine, universal cross-domain object, completion proof, historical novelty claim, or activation of KFD-12."
                },
                "genesis": {
                  "methods": [
                    "direct-situated-judgment",
                    "perspective-transformation",
                    "reconstruction-pressure",
                    "structural-compression"
                  ],
                  "observationPerspective": {
                    "id": "initiative-assignment-coordinator",
                    "bearer": "human or agent maintaining software work, responsibility, context, and decisions",
                    "role": "work coordinator and current-state operator",
                    "proximity": "inside the Initiative and Assignment lifecycle",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears stale work state, missing responsibility, and incomplete review"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "Initiative",
                      "Assignment",
                      "Episode",
                      "claim",
                      "assessment",
                      "decision",
                      "continuation"
                    ]
                  },
                  "currentOntology": [
                    "Initiative",
                    "Assignment",
                    "source commit",
                    "Atlas",
                    "Episode",
                    "claim",
                    "assessment",
                    "decision",
                    "release"
                  ],
                  "observation": "Maintaining Initiative and Assignment state appeared sufficient from the coordinator view. Moving to the successor agent's action position exposed the repeated need for one exact answer to what the project officially became and which settled boundary may be continued without re-adjudicating every prior work object.",
                  "candidateObject": "A Project Cut is an independently addressable software-project macro commitment that binds selected predecessor, source, Atlas, Episode, policy, omission, conflict, unknown, and residual-risk roots without absorbing their authorities.",
                  "claimBoundary": "The cut accepts the higher-layer settlement responsibility within software projects. It does not claim that Project Cut is another fact engine, that valid settlement proves work quality or release fitness, or that every domain needs the same object.",
                  "methodEvidence": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/genesis.md",
                      "observer": "human maintainer testimony about agent-origin genesis"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/958",
                      "observer": "Kungfu Project Cut architecture and review"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/969",
                      "observer": "Kungfu agent-first settlement implementation and review"
                    }
                  ],
                  "transformedPerspective": {
                    "id": "successor-acting-agent",
                    "bearer": "an agent receiving a project after prior work and settlement",
                    "role": "successor verifier and bounded continuation actor",
                    "proximity": "inside reconstruction, trust, retry, and next-action consequences",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears repeated investigation, stale continuation, wrong source selection, and unverified authority binding"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "predecessor project boundary",
                      "official successor state",
                      "verifiable project cut",
                      "continuation receipt",
                      "declared omissions and risk"
                    ]
                  },
                  "transformation": "The observer moved from maintaining the work graph to the downstream agent that must verify one bounded project state before safely continuing.",
                  "newlyVisibleNeed": "A successor needs one deterministic, independently checkable macro commitment selecting which exact component roots were officially admitted together, without replaying the entire management context.",
                  "methodNotes": "The human maintainer reports agent-origin candidate generation. Git proves the later submitted architecture, implementation, tests, and review but not the private conversational authorship claim."
                },
                "boundaryPressure": {
                  "contactSides": [
                    "the participants and authorities that produced source, Atlas, Episode, policy, and work decisions",
                    "the successor agent, reviewer, release process, or clean clone that must continue from the accepted project state"
                  ],
                  "implicitHandling": "The binding is reconstructed from Git ancestry, latest files, task state, context, release notes, caches, and participant memory.",
                  "pressureChanges": [
                    {
                      "kind": "new-participant",
                      "description": "Successor agents and independent reviewers do not share the producer's transient context."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "heterogeneity",
                      "description": "Source, Atlas, Episode, policy, and review systems retain different roots and authority semantics."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "consequence",
                      "description": "Choosing the wrong combination changes what code, knowledge, causal history, omissions, and risks the successor treats as official."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "latency",
                      "description": "Re-adjudicating prior work before every continuation makes handoff and recovery expensive."
                    }
                  ],
                  "observedFailures": [
                    "A Git commit is mistaken for causal or epistemic settlement.",
                    "A valid Atlas or Episode root is treated as complete project identity.",
                    "A successor must inspect many management records to infer the accepted component set.",
                    "Hooks, caches, or prior conversations become hidden authority for continuation."
                  ],
                  "mediationClaim": "Project Cut may publish one deterministic cross-authority settlement binding that successors can verify without converting it into a new component authority.",
                  "internalObjectAlternative": "A release manifest, provenance envelope, snapshot, or commit attestation may implement equivalent Project Cut semantics if it binds the same authorities, omissions, risks, and predecessor relation."
                },
                "grounding": {
                  "pressure": [
                    "Successor agents need one exact continuation boundary rather than the complete Initiative and Assignment context.",
                    "Git, Atlas, and Episode roots remain independently authoritative and cannot replace one another.",
                    "Settlement must survive hooks, caches, GUI state, Git rewrites, clean clones, concurrent work, and missing private context."
                  ],
                  "factSources": [
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/a529e1405ac6e1bc24acb53c4ef1937bc6208fbc",
                      "observer": "Kungfu Project Cut architecture"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/0633a4038612487e2130df01e795f0472924bc6c",
                      "observer": "Kungfu agent-first settlement implementation"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/blob/8aa1f9ab9a9eee6129be3e43ac6e0acb971da135/framework/project-cut/qualification/three-agent-dogfood/final-phase-matrix.json",
                      "observer": "Kungfu retained three-agent qualification"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/distinguishability.md",
                      "observer": "KFD qualification"
                    }
                  ],
                  "evidenceBoundary": "Public Kungfu architecture, deterministic root implementation, agent-first settlement, stage-0 recovery, Git-history bindings, clean-clone continuation, independent review, three-agent dogfood, and concurrent composition support one software-project profile. The private agent-origin conversation is not independently retained.",
                  "knownGaps": [
                    "No universal cross-domain settlement claim",
                    "No independent non-Kungfu implementation",
                    "Private conversational authorship cannot be reconstructed from Git",
                    "KFD-12 activation remains separate",
                    "Release fitness and work correctness remain external assessments"
                  ]
                },
                "participants": [
                  {
                    "id": "human-maintainer-perspective-witness",
                    "kind": "human",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "evidence-custody",
                      "decision"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "agent-candidate-generator",
                    "kind": "agent",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "scalable-reasoning"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "repository-review-and-qualification",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "evidence-custody",
                      "verification"
                    ]
                  }
                ],
                "alternatives": [
                  {
                    "name": "Maintain Initiative and Assignment state only",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "Work state does not by itself select and publish which independent authority roots form the official successor project boundary."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Git commit, tag, or release",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "Git publishes bytes and ancestry but does not own causal, perspective, omission, policy, risk, or completion semantics."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Fact Cut, Atlas, Episode, or latest database state",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "Each remains authoritative for its own domain and cannot select the cross-authority settlement without adding an equivalent binding."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Release manifest, provenance envelope, or snapshot",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "These may implement equivalent Project Cut semantics when they preserve exact roots, predecessor, omissions, risk, independent verification, and no authority absorption."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "No new Primitive",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "The deletion witness changes which exact state a successor may treat as officially settled while every component remains available."
                  }
                ],
                "contractModel": {
                  "identity": "A deterministic project_cut_root over one canonical settlement preimage, independent from its outer Git publication coordinate.",
                  "boundary": "Predecessor Project Cut roots, accepted source projection, successor Atlas, admitted Episode delta, interpretation policy and protocol roots, omissions, conflicts, unknowns, residual risk, receipt, and outer publication relation.",
                  "authority": "Project Cut selects and binds exact roots but cannot reinterpret source, Atlas, Episode, policy, claim, assessment, decision, completion, or release authority.",
                  "lifecycle": "prepared -> sealed-unpublished -> published and reconciled -> succeeded by another cut, rejected, or retained as historical lineage; published cuts remain immutable",
                  "operations": [
                    "prepare",
                    "verify",
                    "publish",
                    "reconcile",
                    "inspect",
                    "export",
                    "import",
                    "compare",
                    "compose",
                    "supersede",
                    "reject"
                  ]
                },
                "tests": {
                  "minimumClosure": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/958"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/969"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "The canonical root and settlement contracts retain exact predecessor, source, Atlas, Episode, policy, omission, risk, receipt, and publication boundaries without self-reference."
                  },
                  "deletion": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/distinguishability.md"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/blob/8aa1f9ab9a9eee6129be3e43ac6e0acb971da135/framework/project-cut/qualification/three-agent-dogfood/final-phase-matrix.json"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Without Project Cut, a successor must reselect and re-adjudicate which available component roots form the official project state."
                  },
                  "fuse": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/ontology-split.md"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/958"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Fusing Project Cut with Git, Atlas, Episode, Fact, or completion authority creates circular identity or silent reinterpretation; equivalent settlement manifests remain allowed."
                  },
                  "falsifiers": [
                    "Successors can derive the accepted component set and omissions from existing authorities with lower cost and no hidden policy.",
                    "Independent implementations cannot reproduce the same root or continuation decision.",
                    "Project Cut becomes a second fact, source, Atlas, Episode, completion, or release authority.",
                    "The binding cannot survive clean-clone, Git-history, missing-cache, and concurrent-publication conditions.",
                    "A simpler retained manifest preserves all required decisions with less lifecycle and verification burden."
                  ],
                  "dogfood": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/969"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/blob/8aa1f9ab9a9eee6129be3e43ac6e0acb971da135/framework/project-cut/qualification/three-agent-dogfood/final-phase-matrix.json"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/a9b441c0150e3f88bf51751e0994cc35c6f84300"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Retained first-party evidence covers agent-first settlement, public Episode integration, three-agent independent review and continuation, clean-clone rebuild, Git history, and concurrent composition."
                  }
                },
                "decision": {
                  "outcome": "accepted",
                  "owner": "KFD maintainers under repository review",
                  "reason": "Within the KFD-12 software-project profile, Project Cut preserves the independently necessary selection and settlement of exact authority roots, has a closed non-self-referential contract, and survives retained agent-first, recovery, review, and composition pressure.",
                  "residualRisks": [
                    "The object may map to an existing release manifest or provenance envelope in other systems.",
                    "The qualification evidence remains first-party to Kungfu.",
                    "A convenient Project Cut could be misread as proof of correctness, completion, or release fitness.",
                    "The agent-origin genesis claim relies on maintainer testimony rather than retained transcript evidence.",
                    "Cross-domain use and historical novelty are unqualified."
                  ]
                }
              }
            },
            "claimBoundary": "Accepted only as a software-project settlement Primitive under current KFD-13; the immutable cut retains its earlier KFD-12 coordinate. It is not a fourth fact engine, a peer action coordinate, a universal domain object, proof of historical novelty, or activation of KFD-13."
          }
        ],
        "path": "/cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/README.md",
        "candidates": [
          {
            "id": "claim-assessment-decision-admission",
            "title": "Claim, Assessment, Decision, and Admission",
            "path": "/drafts/claim-assessment-decision-admission/",
            "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/claim-assessment-decision-admission/"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "decision-admission-settlement",
        "title": "Consequential Settlement",
        "kind": "primitive-discovery-case",
        "status": "active",
        "standard": "kfd-5",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/",
        "relationship": "provisional-live-case",
        "claimBoundary": "This case preserves the distributed Agent-led development, KFD-4 perspective replay, and provisional KFD-5 qualification of the Consequential Settlement procedure. Private attribution evidence and public Git chronology remain separate, and cross-domain activation is not claimed.",
        "humanEntry": {
          "path": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Consequential Settlement\n\nThis live case retrospectively records the distributed Agent-led development,\nKFD-4 recognition, and KFD-5 qualification that produced the KFD-11 candidate\nprocedure:\n\n```text\nClaim -> Assessment -> Decision -> Admission\n```\n\nThe important genesis fact is not that an agent drafted wording after a human\nsupplied the model. On 2026-07-11, agents first decomposed trust into Claim,\npurpose-bound Assessment, and TrustReport; then composed those objects with\nMission/Go and generated Decision as part of the work lifecycle. Subsequent\nProject Cut, independent review, and Action Loop dogfood made Decision and\nAdmission independently consequential. The maintainer supplied the reality\npressure and authorized the work, but did not specify these intermediate\nobjects and reports only learning that they existed during the later KFD\ndiscussion.\n\nThe 2026-07-21 transformation was therefore not the one-time invention of all\nfour nouns. The agent recognized an already functioning but distributed\nstructure, connected Fact Admission to the trust and authority lifecycle, and\ncompressed it into one cross-domain settlement procedure.\n\nThe maintainer then authorized the pre-stable Foundation Revision and the\nField Responsibility Matrix. That authorization is the qualification and\ngovernance decision; it is not rewritten as candidate generation.\n\n## Early KFD-6 evidence\n\nThis development line is also an early retained natural pre-enactment of\npart of KFD-6. Agents generated ontology under real development pressure and\nlater recognized it across retained causal evidence before separate human and\nrepository admission. The case therefore supports KFD-6's feasibility, but it\ndoes not pass KFD-6: human prompts still triggered and corrected the replay,\nthe evidence cut was retrospective, and no bounded multi-method comparison,\nbaseline, held-out transfer, or systematic false-candidate rejection ran.\n\nThe exact loop mapping and failed obligations are recorded in the\n[development lineage](development-lineage.md#6-kfd-6-early-feasibility-case).\n\n## Current settlement\n\n| Candidate | KFD-5 outcome | Boundary |\n|---|---|---|\n| Consequential Settlement | provisional | The four responsibilities are distinguishable and KFD-11 has a closed draft contract, but independent cross-domain implementations, operational cost, and activation evidence remain open. |\n\n## Case surfaces\n\n- [Genesis](genesis.md)\n- [Development lineage](development-lineage.md)\n- [KFD method trace](kfd-method-trace.md)\n- [Distinguishability and qualification](distinguishability.md)\n- [Responsibility split](ontology-split.md)\n- [Propagation hypothesis](propagation-hypothesis.md)\n- [Current KFD-5 cut](cuts/0002-consequential-settlement.json)\n- [Superseded first cut](cuts/0001-consequential-settlement.json)\n- [Qualification reviews](reviews/README.md)\n- [Live case registry](../../registry.json)\n\n## Evidence boundary\n\nA retained maintainer-held task transcript and maintainer testimony support the\nconversational attribution. Public Git history independently preserves the\nsemantic sequence from Fact Admission and claim-triggered Assessment through\nMission Control, independent review, recoverable settlement, KFD\nformalization, and pull-request review. Git can audit the public development\nsequence; it cannot independently reconstruct every utterance in a transcript\nthat is not distributed with KFD.\n\nThis case does not claim historical novelty, universal minimality, KFD-11\nactivation, or that four physical records are required.\n\nThe first cut remains immutable as evidence of the initial, too-late genesis\nreconstruction. The second cut corrects the lineage without rewriting that\nearlier public fact."
        },
        "genesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/genesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Genesis: From Development Pressure to Consequential Settlement\n\nThis record separates the distributed development genesis from later KFD\nrecognition and public qualification. It must not be rewritten to make\nmaintainer pressure or authorization look like maintainer generation of the\nintermediate ontology.\n\n## The discovery began before KFD-11\n\nOn 2026-07-11, the maintainer asked how Kungfu should determine whether Agent\nwork was trustworthy and later asked the agent to connect KFD, Fact Manager,\nADR-0048, and Atlas Mission/Go into one product. Those prompts supplied the\nreal problem and desired outcome. They did not specify Claim, Assessment, or\nDecision as product objects.\n\nThe agent first generated a trust decomposition:\n\n```text\nClaim + purpose + pinned cut + policy -> Assessment -> TrustReport\n```\n\nIt then generated the Mission Control chain and identity graph:\n\n```text\nMission -> Go -> Episode -> Fact query -> Assessment -> Decision\n\nmission -> go -> run -> episode -> claim -> query -> assessment -> decision\n```\n\nKungfu PRs [#542](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/542),\n[#545](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/545), and\n[#585](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/585) preserve the public\narchitecture and implementation sequence. Claim, Assessment, and Decision\ntherefore predate the later KFD numbering question.\n\n## The later maintainer question\n\nOn 2026-07-21, the maintainer asked whether Claim, Assessment, and Decision\nneeded to become KFDs. The maintainer reports that this was also the first time\nthey became aware those named objects already existed. The question did not\npropose the three objects, Admission, a four-stage cross-domain procedure, or\nthe conclusion that the visible nouns should not become three separate\ndecisions.\n\nA maintainer-held local task transcript retains the earlier exchanges, but it\nis not distributed in the public repository. Public Git proves the subsequent\nsemantic and implementation sequence, not every conversational utterance.\n\n## The Agent's retrospective transformation\n\nBy then, Project Cut settlement, independent review, and Action Loop recovery\nhad made the responsibilities operational. Admission also already existed in\nthe Fact architecture as the difference between a recorded observation and\nadmitted state. The agent stopped treating the visible nouns as a numbering\nproblem and recognized that these separately generated lines shared one\nprocedure.\n\nThe compression was:\n\n- Claim and Assessment were not missing KFDs; KFD-2 already owned them.\n- Assessment could not authorize action; a Decision required Warrant.\n- A valid Decision still could become stale, conflict, be denied, or fail to\n  change the owning Fact authority.\n- Therefore existing Fact Admission had to remain distinct from Decision in a\n  cross-domain settlement model.\n\nThe candidate was compressed into one procedure:\n\n```text\nClaim -> Assessment -> Decision -> Admission\n```\n\nThis was Agent Primitive recognition and structural compression over an\nAgent-generated development ontology, not Agent verification of a model\nalready supplied by the maintainer.\n\n## Later human and repository roles\n\nThe maintainer accepted the structural correction, authorized renumbering\nbefore stable, and requested the Field Responsibility Matrix. KFD PR\n[#230](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/230) then made the candidate\npublic through a formalizing commit that declares `Agent: Codex`, a machine\nschema, and a Foundation Revision. `kungfu-origin` independently reviewed the\nresponsibility split and approved the change. PR\n[#231](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/231) closed the public evidence\ncoordinates.\n\nThese later actions qualify, authorize, review, and preserve the candidate.\nThey do not transfer generation of Claim, Assessment, Decision, or their\ncomposition from the agents to the maintainer or reviewer.\n\nThe full dated evidence chain is preserved in the\n[development lineage](development-lineage.md).\n\n## Counterfactual alternatives retained at genesis\n\n- allocate separate KFDs to Claim, Assessment, and Decision;\n- leave all three inside the software Domain Profile;\n- treat an authorized Decision as proof of successful state change;\n- append a generic settlement rule after the software-specific decisions;\n- conclude that existing transaction or approval vocabulary already preserves\n  every responsibility without a new KFD procedure."
        },
        "developmentLineage": {
          "path": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/development-lineage.md",
          "markdown": "# Development Lineage\n\nThe settlement procedure did not originate in one KFD numbering conversation.\nIt emerged across several Agent-led design and implementation episodes, then\nwas recognized and compressed into KFD-11. This record separates the reality\npressure supplied by the maintainer from the intermediate objects generated by\nagents.\n\n## 1. Trust decomposition: 2026-07-11\n\nThe maintainer asked how Kungfu should assess continuously reported Agent work,\nwhen assessment should run, and whether it should remain off the recording hot\npath. The question did not supply Claim, purpose-bound Assessment, or a\nsettlement lifecycle.\n\nIn a retained maintainer-held task transcript, the agent decomposed the problem\nas:\n\n```text\nClaim + purpose + pinned cut + policy -> Assessment -> TrustReport\n```\n\nIt then proposed claim-triggered assessment jobs, independent Assessment\nEpisodes, and process/thread execution profiles. Public repository history\npreserves the resulting architecture:\n\n- Kungfu PR [#542](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/542)\n  introduced domain Fact admission and historical interpretation.\n- Kungfu PR [#545](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/545)\n  explicitly introduced claim-triggered KFD-2 assessment jobs.\n\nThe maintainer subsequently used the new term `claim` while asking how a\nworkspace master should dispatch an assessor. That later use is adoption of the\nAgent-generated decomposition, not evidence that the maintainer supplied it.\n\n## 2. Mission Control composition: 2026-07-11\n\nLater that day, the maintainer asked the agent to connect KFD, Fact Manager,\nADR-0048, and Atlas Mission/Go into one product. The requested outcome was\nclear: preserve Mission/Go over time, inspect drift and execution, and judge\nwhether work was reasonably advancing. The prompt did not specify Completion\nClaim, Assessment, Decision, or their lifecycle.\n\nThe agent generated the operating chain:\n\n```text\nMission -> Go -> Episode -> admitted Facts -> query\n  -> Assessment -> human or Agent Decision -> successor work\n```\n\nIt also generated the first explicit work lifecycle containing\n`CompletionClaimed`, `CompletionAssessed`, and `DecisionRequested`, plus the\nidentity graph:\n\n```text\nmission -> go -> run -> episode -> claim -> query -> assessment -> decision\n```\n\nKungfu PR [#585](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/585)\nthen made that model executable through Mission/Go Fact admission,\nproof-backed Mission progress assessment, and evidence-bound completion\nclaims. This is the first public implementation coordinate showing that Claim\nand Assessment were not later KFD editorial inventions.\n\n## 3. Independent Decision: 2026-07-15/2026-07-16\n\nProject Cut and successor-agent dogfood exposed that an assessment result still\ndid not determine what action should follow. The implementation therefore made\nreview and continuation independent:\n\n- Kungfu PR [#958](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/958)\n  defined the Project Cut authority boundary.\n- Kungfu PR [#969](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/969)\n  added agent-first Project Cut settlement.\n- Kungfu PR [#980](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/980)\n  added distinct-reviewer Completion Claim assessment, a purpose-bound\n  TrustReport, bounded continuation, and human authority gates.\n\nThis development pressure turned `Decision` from a diagram label into a\ndurable, independently responsible step. The claimant, assessor, and decision\nauthority could now disagree without rewriting one another.\n\n## 4. Recoverable effect and Admission: 2026-07-19\n\nAdmission had already existed separately in the Fact architecture: a recorded\nobservation did not become admitted state merely because it was written or\nassessed. Action-loop dogfood then exposed the same boundary after a Decision.\n\nKungfu PR [#1120](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/1120)\nimplemented a recoverable settlement bridge that seals the work Episode,\nrefreshes successor Atlas and Fact authority, publishes and independently\nreviews a completion claim, records continuation, and closes Pursuit and\nWarrant transitions without treating process exit as completion.\n\nThis made the remaining distinction operationally visible:\n\n```text\nauthorized or recommended next action\n  is not yet\nsuccessfully admitted successor state\n```\n\n## 5. KFD compression: 2026-07-21\n\nOnly after the software had accumulated these objects did the maintainer ask\nwhether Claim, Assessment, and Decision required separate KFDs. The maintainer\nreports that this was also the first time they became aware that those named\nobjects already existed in the implementation model.\n\nThe agent did not invent all four nouns at that moment. It recognized that\nthree Agent-generated development lines had converged:\n\n```text\nclaim-triggered trust assessment\n+ independent continuation decision\n+ independently admitted successor state\n= Claim -> Assessment -> Decision -> Admission\n```\n\nThe KFD contribution was therefore **retrospective Primitive recognition and\ncross-domain compression**. KFD PR\n[#230](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/230) formalized the procedure;\nKFD PR [#232](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/232) opened this live\nqualification case.\n\n## 6. KFD-6 early feasibility case\n\nThe complete lineage is a natural, human-assisted pre-enactment of part of the\nKFD-6 loop:\n\n```text\nO_n: Fact Admission + KFD-2 trust execution + Mission/Go semantics\n  -> Agent-generated Claim / Assessment / Decision\n  -> implementation, review, failure, and dogfood evidence\n  -> later Agent replay and compression with Admission\n  -> provisional KFD-5 qualification\n  -> separate maintainer authorization and repository admission\n  -> O_(n+1): draft KFD-11\n```\n\nThis is stronger than a hypothetical example because the intermediate\nontology and implementation coordinates predate the later KFD interpretation.\nIt shows that agents can generate and later recognize a candidate ontology\nfrom causal development pressure without the maintainer first naming its\nobjects.\n\nIt is not a complete KFD-6 run. The maintainer initiated the original work and\nlater demanded the deeper historical replay; the causal-experience cut was\nreconstructed rather than frozen before discovery; no plural methods shared a\ndeclared budget; fixed-ontology and no-new-Primitive baselines were absent;\nrepository review was not held-out evaluation of the discovery method; and no\nautonomous trigger decided when ontology review should begin. These omissions\nremain experimental requirements rather than being repaired through\nretrospective narration.\n\n## Responsibility attribution\n\n| Participant | Contribution |\n|---|---|\n| Human maintainer | Supplied real work pressure, desired outcomes, value judgments, authorization, dogfood, and later recognition questions. |\n| Agents | Generated the Claim/Assessment/Decision intermediate model, composed it with Mission/Go, implemented and refined it under failures, and later recognized the cross-domain settlement procedure. |\n| Runtime dogfood | Exposed where self-report, trust judgment, authority, and actual state change failed independently. |\n| Independent review | Challenged, qualified, and admitted public changes without becoming their conceptual author. |\n\nThe result is collaborative, but the intermediate ontology was not specified by\nthe maintainer. Human authorization and later understanding must not be\nrewritten as human candidate generation.\n\n## Evidence boundary\n\nPublic Git proves dates, public semantics, implementation sequence, tests,\nreview, and merge. A retained maintainer-held task transcript plus maintainer\ntestimony support conversational attribution. The transcript is not part of\nthe public KFD package, so an independent public reader can audit the\ndevelopment sequence but cannot independently verify every private utterance.\n\nThis lineage does not prove historical novelty, universal minimality, or that\nthe same agent identity generated every stage."
        },
        "methodTrace": {
          "path": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/kfd-method-trace.md",
          "markdown": "# KFD Method Trace\n\n## KFD-1: preserve genesis and qualification separately\n\nThe record keeps the retained private task-transcript evidence, maintainer\ntestimony, dated public implementation coordinates, the formalizing commit's\n`Agent: Codex` declaration, human authorization, and independent review as\ndifferent facts. Later KFD recognition does not rewrite the earlier\ndevelopment sequence.\n\n## KFD-2: bound every claim to its evidence\n\nConversational attribution rests on a retained maintainer-held task transcript\nplus maintainer testimony. Public semantic chronology rests on Kungfu PRs 542,\n545, 585, 958, 969, 980, and 1120. The cross-domain claim rests on the prior\nKFD-2/KFD-7/KFD-10 contracts, the KFD-11 schema, deletion and fuse witnesses,\nand repository review. None of these evidence classes silently proves the\nothers.\n\n## KFD-3: preserve distinct participant value\n\nThe human supplied reality pressure, desired outcomes, authorization, dogfood,\nand final value judgment. Agents generated the Claim/Assessment/Decision\nintermediate model, composed it with Mission/Go, implemented it, and later\nconnected it to Admission as a cross-domain procedure. Independent review\nsupplied a separate challenge and verification boundary. Treating the\nmaintainer as the source of the intermediate ontology would erase the\ncollaboration that made the result possible.\n\n## KFD-4: change the consequence-bearing observer\n\nKFD-4 operated more than once. The first transformations moved from raw Agent\nreports to the assessor, from Mission/Go coordinator to independent reviewer,\nand from process completion to successor-state authority. The final\ntransformation moved from allocating KFD numbers to asking what must remain\ndistinct before a successor Fact may exist.\n\nThese views made Claim, Assessment, Decision, and Admission visible at\ndifferent times. The final cross-perspective replay exposed them as one\nprocedure rather than four unrelated implementation details.\n\n## KFD-5: qualify the generated procedure\n\nQualification did not rely on origin prestige. It tested whether deleting or\nfusing a role changes consequential decisions, compared alternative\nallocations, published the contract and schema, retained falsifiers, and\nrequired independent review.\n\nThe current outcome is **provisional**. The procedure is strong enough to hold\na numbered draft and guide implementations, but KFD has not yet established\nindependent cross-domain adoption, universal minimality, acceptable cost, or\nthe activation gate.\n\n## KFD-6: preserve the partial autonomous loop without certifying it\n\nThe lineage demonstrates real Agent ontology generation, causal development\npressure, later replay, KFD-5 handoff, and separated promotion authority. It\ntherefore supplies early feasibility evidence for KFD-6. It does not supply a\npredeclared experiment cut, plural method comparison, required baselines,\nheld-out transfer, systematic false-candidate rejection, or an autonomous\ntrigger. The case remains a natural pre-enactment, not a KFD-6 witness.\n\n## Method boundary\n\nThis case shows that agents can generate an intermediate ontology during real\nimplementation and later recognize a Primitive by replaying and compressing\nthat distributed work. It does not show that perspective transformation is\nalways the best discovery method, that every Agent proposal should be\npromoted, or that human judgment becomes optional."
        },
        "propagationHypothesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/propagation-hypothesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Propagation Hypothesis\n\nAgent work crosses repositories, tools, organizations, and authority systems.\nAt each boundary, persuasive output is cheap but admitted consequence is not.\nThe KFD-11 procedure may propagate because it lets downstream participants ask\nfour stable questions without reconstructing the producer's context:\n\n```text\nWhat is claimed?\nFor what purpose was it assessed?\nWho authorized which disposition?\nWhat effect was actually admitted?\n```\n\nRelease passports, review decisions, project cuts, mandates, regulated\nsubmissions, and other proof-carrying work objects may implement this procedure.\nThis is a hypothesis, not evidence of adoption or superiority."
        },
        "reviewIndex": {
          "path": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/reviews/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Qualification Reviews\n\n- Kungfu PRs [#542](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/542),\n  [#545](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/545), and\n  [#585](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/585): public evidence for\n  Fact Admission, claim-triggered Assessment, and Mission Control\n  Claim/Assessment implementation.\n- Kungfu PRs [#958](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/958),\n  [#969](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/969),\n  [#980](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/980), and\n  [#1120](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/1120): public evidence\n  for Project Cut authority, agent-first settlement, independent Decision, and\n  recoverable successor-state settlement.\n- [KFD PR #230](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/230): public\n  formalization whose commit declares `Agent: Codex`, Foundation Revision,\n  KFD-11 schema, and independent `kungfu-origin` approval.\n- [KFD PR #231](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/231): evidence\n  coordinate and review-closure repair.\n- [KFD PR #232](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/232): first live-case\n  reconstruction, retained as a superseded cut rather than silently rewritten.\n\nThe PR reviews qualify public semantics and implementation. They do not\nindependently prove conversational attribution in the retained but\nnon-publicly-distributed task transcript."
        },
        "ontologySplit": {
          "path": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/ontology-split.md",
          "markdown": "# Responsibility Split\n\n```text\nKFD-2 trust world\n  Claim -> Assessment\n\nKFD-10 authority geometry\n  Warrant -> Decision authority\n\nKFD-7 Fact-Episode Ontology\n  requested effect -> Admission -> successor Fact\n```\n\nKFD-11 does not create a second Claim, Assessment, Warrant, Fact, or Episode\nauthority. It names the procedure that carries one consequential proposition\nfrom purpose-bound trust judgment through authorized disposition to the\nindependently recorded result of applying that disposition.\n\nDomain Profiles own proposition kinds, assessment methods, disposition\nvocabulary, transaction technology, retry policy, and participant projection.\nThey may not redefine a passing Assessment as authority or a valid Decision as\nsuccessful Admission."
        },
        "distinguishabilityArgument": {
          "path": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/distinguishability.md",
          "markdown": "# Distinguishability and Qualification\n\nThe candidate is one procedure with four independently variable\nresponsibilities, not a claim that all four are newly discovered nouns.\n\n## Deletion witnesses\n\n| Deleted distinction | Histories held equal | Decision that changes |\n|---|---|---|\n| Claim | Same evidence and occurrence, different proposition or claimant | What exactly is being relied on and who owns the assertion? |\n| Assessment | Same Claim and evidence, different purpose, checked boundary, or residual risk | May this Claim be trusted for this purpose? |\n| Decision | Same Assessment, different Warrant, policy, conditions, or disposition | Which consequential effect is authorized? |\n| Admission | Same authorized Decision, one effect admitted and one stale, conflicted, denied, or failed | Which successor Fact is authoritative? |\n\nIf Admission is removed, two histories can contain the same Claim, Assessment,\nDecision, and requested effect while only one has a valid successor Fact. The\nprocedure therefore cannot stop at Decision.\n\n## Fuse tests\n\n- Fusing Claim with evidence makes evidence state its own proposition.\n- Fusing Assessment with Claim makes a statement certify itself.\n- Fusing Assessment with Decision turns trust judgment into authority.\n- Fusing Decision with Admission makes authorization self-executing and hides\n  stale basis, conflicts, denial, write failure, and partial application.\n\nEquivalent implementations may use one transaction, object, API, or screen if\nthe distinctions remain independently inspectable and retry-safe.\n\n## Alternatives\n\nKFD-2 already owns generic Claim and Assessment, so separate numbered KFDs for\nthose nouns would duplicate authority. Leaving Decision and Admission inside\nsoftware work would make the boundary appear domain-specific. Treating a\ndatabase transaction, approval, merge, release, or mandate as sufficient is\nretained as an implementation possibility only when it preserves equivalent\nresponsibility, evidence, and failure semantics.\n\n## Qualification result\n\nThe deletion and fuse tests pass at the contract level. The KFD repository\npublishes a schema and verifier checks, and PR #230 received independent\nreview. First-party settlement and release workflows provide pressure but do\nnot yet establish independent cross-domain adoption. The KFD-5 result therefore\nremains provisional.\n\n## Falsifiers\n\n- Claim or Assessment cannot vary independently in a relevant adopter domain.\n- Decision authority and Admission outcome can always be fused without losing\n  stale, conflict, denial, failure, retry, or successor-state information.\n- Existing portable transaction or authorization standards preserve the same\n  responsibilities with lower total burden.\n- Implementations cannot expose the distinctions without unacceptable cost or\n  user friction.\n- Cross-domain examples require incompatible meanings rather than one portable\n  procedure."
        },
        "candidateTracks": [
          {
            "id": "consequential-settlement",
            "title": "Consequential Settlement",
            "status": "provisional",
            "definition": "A cross-domain procedure that preserves Claim, purpose-bound Assessment, Warrant-bound Decision, and independently recorded Admission as distinct responsibilities before successor Fact publication.",
            "currentCut": {
              "path": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/cuts/0002-consequential-settlement.json",
              "sha256": "e851f041d4d3b27e635924f1a1f24678db0e04c5757af9e3dc505e39f112657e",
              "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json",
              "schemaVersion": 3,
              "record": {
                "schemaVersion": 3,
                "contract": "kfd-5-primitive-discovery",
                "standard": "kfd-5",
                "candidate": {
                  "id": "consequential-settlement",
                  "title": "Consequential Settlement",
                  "problemStatement": "A purpose-bound trust judgment, an authorized disposition, and the actual admission of its requested effect can vary independently, but the prior KFD structure left that cross-domain boundary implicit inside software work.",
                  "scope": "Provisional cross-domain procedure expressed by draft KFD-11; this cut does not activate KFD-11, require four physical records, prove universal minimality, or establish historical novelty."
                },
                "genesis": {
                  "methods": [
                    "direct-situated-judgment",
                    "perspective-transformation",
                    "perspective-replay",
                    "structural-compression"
                  ],
                  "observationPerspective": {
                    "id": "numbered-standard-editor",
                    "bearer": "a maintainer or agent deciding whether visible concepts deserve separate KFD numbers",
                    "role": "standard taxonomy and dependency editor",
                    "proximity": "inside the pre-stable KFD numbering and software-work model",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears duplicated decisions, wrong dependency order, and hidden cross-domain responsibility"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "Claim",
                      "Assessment",
                      "Decision",
                      "numbered KFD",
                      "software work lifecycle"
                    ]
                  },
                  "currentOntology": [
                    "KFD-2 Claim",
                    "KFD-2 Assessment",
                    "KFD-10 Warrant",
                    "software Decision",
                    "Continuation",
                    "Fact",
                    "Episode"
                  ],
                  "observation": "The maintainer asked whether Claim, Assessment, and Decision should become KFDs only after Agent-led Kungfu development had already generated and implemented those objects. The agent replayed the Fact Admission, claim-triggered Assessment, Mission Control, Project Cut review, and Action Loop settlement lines and recognized that they formed one cross-domain procedure.",
                  "candidateObject": "Consequential Settlement is the Claim to Assessment to Decision to Admission procedure that preserves proposition, purpose-bound trust, bounded authority, and actual successor-state admission as independently inspectable responsibilities.",
                  "claimBoundary": "A retained maintainer-held task transcript and maintainer testimony identify Agent generation of the intermediate ontology. Public Git preserves the dated semantic and implementation sequence but cannot independently verify every private utterance. The candidate remains provisional across domains.",
                  "methodEvidence": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/development-lineage.md",
                      "observer": "dated reconstruction separating maintainer pressure from Agent-generated objects"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/545",
                      "observer": "claim-triggered KFD-2 assessment architecture"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/585",
                      "observer": "Mission Control implementation of progress Assessment and Completion Claim"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/980",
                      "observer": "independent review and continuation Decision"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/1120",
                      "observer": "recoverable Action Loop successor-state settlement"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/230",
                      "observer": "public formalization declaring Agent: Codex and independent review"
                    }
                  ],
                  "transformedPerspective": {
                    "id": "cross-development-lineage-replayer",
                    "bearer": "an agent replaying several independently developed trust, work, authority, and state-change views",
                    "role": "Primitive recognition across implementation boundaries",
                    "proximity": "inside the public development sequence and the later KFD allocation problem",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears false origin attribution, duplicated standards, hidden responsibility fusion, and unsafe successor state"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "Claim",
                      "purpose-bound Assessment",
                      "Warrant-bound Decision",
                      "Admission outcome",
                      "successor Fact cut"
                    ]
                  },
                  "transformation": "The observer moved from assigning KFD numbers to visible nouns to replaying the Agent-generated development lines that had separately made trust judgment, continuation authority, and admitted successor state operational.",
                  "newlyVisibleNeed": "Claim, Assessment, Decision, and Admission must remain distinct, while their portable unit is one four-responsibility settlement procedure rather than unrelated implementation features or three additional noun decisions.",
                  "replayBasis": {
                    "replayRecord": {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/development-lineage.md",
                      "observer": "public reconstruction over dated repository coordinates and bounded private attribution evidence"
                    },
                    "sourceViewIds": [
                      "fact-admission-designer",
                      "claim-assessment-designer",
                      "mission-control-coordinator",
                      "successor-agent-reviewer",
                      "action-loop-settlement-authority"
                    ],
                    "sharedContext": "The replay binds public Kungfu PRs 542, 545, 585, 958, 969, 980, and 1120 to the later KFD allocation discussion without treating Git authorship as conversational authorship.",
                    "preservationClaim": "Each public coordinate preserves the semantics and implementation visible at that cut; the reconstruction does not rewrite earlier artifacts to use the final KFD-11 vocabulary.",
                    "degradedState": "The maintainer-held task transcript is not part of the public KFD package, so public readers can audit semantic chronology but not every private utterance."
                  },
                  "methodNotes": "The maintainer supplied reality pressure, desired outcomes, authorization, dogfood, and final value judgment. Agents supplied the Claim/Assessment/Decision intermediate model, its implementation, and the later cross-domain compression with Admission."
                },
                "boundaryPressure": {
                  "contactSides": [
                    "participants and assessors that produce propositions and purpose-bound trust judgments",
                    "decision and state authorities that authorize and admit consequential effects"
                  ],
                  "implicitHandling": "Approval, merge, transaction, publication, and state change are often treated as one success event, with failure and responsibility reconstructed from logs or participant memory.",
                  "pressureChanges": [
                    {
                      "kind": "new-participant",
                      "description": "Agents can produce, assess, decide, and apply work across boundaries without sharing transient context."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "authority",
                      "description": "Assessment authority, decision authority, and state admission authority may belong to different participants or systems."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "consequence",
                      "description": "Treating authorization as successful admission can fabricate successor state or hide partial and failed effects."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "heterogeneity",
                      "description": "Repositories, runtimes, databases, organizations, and regulated domains use different disposition and transaction mechanisms."
                    }
                  ],
                  "observedFailures": [
                    "A passing assessment is mistaken for permission to act.",
                    "An approval or decision is reported as completion before the owning authority admits the effect.",
                    "Stale basis, conflicts, denial, partial application, and retry state are hidden.",
                    "A successor Fact is inferred from process success or persuasive explanation."
                  ],
                  "mediationClaim": "A portable settlement procedure may let heterogeneous domains preserve trust, authority, and admission boundaries without sharing one transaction implementation.",
                  "internalObjectAlternative": "An existing approval, transaction, mandate, merge, or publication protocol may satisfy the candidate if it preserves equivalent Claim, Assessment, Decision, Admission, receipt, and successor-state semantics."
                },
                "grounding": {
                  "pressure": [
                    "KFD-2 already separates Claim from purpose-bound Assessment.",
                    "KFD-10 requires bounded authority for consequential Decision.",
                    "KFD-7 requires admitted Fact state to remain distinct from occurrence and requested effect.",
                    "Software work, release, and agent workflows can authorize an effect that later conflicts, fails, or is denied."
                  ],
                  "factSources": [
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/542",
                      "observer": "Fact Admission architecture"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/545",
                      "observer": "claim-triggered Assessment architecture"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/585",
                      "observer": "Mission Control Claim and Assessment implementation"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/980",
                      "observer": "independent Decision and continuation implementation"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/pull/1120",
                      "observer": "recoverable settlement and successor-state evidence"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/commit/ebb29ef63b19da967d9b0629449db85817b769a7",
                      "observer": "KFD-11 and Foundation Revision formalization"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/230",
                      "observer": "independent responsibility review"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/distinguishability.md",
                      "observer": "KFD-5 deletion and fuse analysis"
                    }
                  ],
                  "evidenceBoundary": "The repositories prove a dated Agent-developed semantic sequence, executable implementations, a closed draft contract, schema, checks, a formalizing commit that declares Agent: Codex, and independent review. A retained maintainer-held task transcript plus maintainer testimony support conversational attribution. Independent cross-domain implementations and product-cost evidence remain absent.",
                  "knownGaps": [
                    "No independent non-Kungfu cross-domain implementation",
                    "The retained genesis transcript is not independently available in the public package",
                    "No KFD-11 activation decision",
                    "No universal minimality or historical novelty proof",
                    "Operational and participant-friction cost remains incompletely measured"
                  ]
                },
                "participants": [
                  {
                    "id": "human-maintainer-pressure-authorization-and-judgment",
                    "kind": "human",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "evidence-custody",
                      "decision"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "agent-candidate-generator",
                    "kind": "agent",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "scalable-reasoning"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "repository-independent-review",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "evidence-custody",
                      "verification"
                    ]
                  }
                ],
                "alternatives": [
                  {
                    "name": "Separate KFDs for Claim, Assessment, and Decision",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "KFD-2 already owns Claim and Assessment; the load-bearing distinction is the procedure from trust through authority to admission."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Keep the roles inside software work",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "Decision and Admission remain distinct in other consequential domains and should precede their first software application."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Fuse Decision and Admission",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "The same authorized Decision may be admitted, stale, conflicted, denied, partially applied, or fail without changing its authority basis."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Existing approval or transaction protocol",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "It may implement equivalent KFD-11 semantics when proposition, assessment purpose, authority, admission outcome, receipt, and successor state remain inspectable."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "No new cross-domain procedure",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "Deleting Admission makes distinct successor-state histories observationally equal at the Decision layer."
                  }
                ],
                "contractModel": {
                  "identity": "One settlement attempt identified by exact Claim, Assessment, Decision, Warrant, basis Fact cut, admission authority, and requested-effect roots.",
                  "boundary": "The procedure begins with an exact proposition and ends with a recorded Admission outcome; a successor Fact cut exists only after successful Admission.",
                  "authority": "KFD-2 owns trust judgment, Warrant bounds Decision authority, and the target Fact authority independently owns Admission and successor publication.",
                  "lifecycle": "claim declared -> assessment issued -> decision authorized -> admission requested -> admitted, denied, stale, conflicted, failed, partially applied, compensated, or retried with preserved lineage",
                  "operations": [
                    "claim",
                    "assess",
                    "decide",
                    "request-admission",
                    "admit",
                    "deny",
                    "record-failure",
                    "retry",
                    "compensate",
                    "publish-successor",
                    "inspect"
                  ]
                },
                "tests": {
                  "minimumClosure": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/230"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "schemas/kfd-11/decision-admission.schema.json"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "KFD-11 and its schema define exact Claim, purpose-bound Assessment, Warrant-bound Decision, Admission outcome, receipt, and successor lineage."
                  },
                  "deletion": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/distinguishability.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Holding Claim, Assessment, Decision, and requested effect fixed while varying Admission changes whether a successor Fact exists."
                  },
                  "fuse": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/ontology-split.md"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/230"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Fusing Assessment with authority or Decision with Admission hides independently variable responsibility and failure state."
                  },
                  "falsifiers": [
                    "Relevant adopter domains cannot preserve one portable meaning for the four responsibilities.",
                    "Decision and Admission can always be fused without losing state, responsibility, failure, retry, or successor semantics.",
                    "An existing portable contract preserves every required distinction with lower total burden.",
                    "The procedure creates unacceptable participant friction that progressive disclosure cannot remove.",
                    "Independent implementations cannot interoperate on basis, outcome, receipt, and successor-state semantics."
                  ],
                  "dogfood": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/230"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/231"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "KFD's own reviewed Foundation Revision exercises claim, assessment, authorized decision, and merge admission, but correlated first-party evidence is insufficient for cross-domain acceptance."
                  }
                },
                "decision": {
                  "outcome": "provisional",
                  "owner": "KFD maintainers under repository review",
                  "reason": "The Agent-generated intermediate ontology and later cross-domain compression pass contract-level deletion and fuse tests, close a missing dependency between KFD-2, KFD-10, and KFD-7, and support a numbered draft; independent cross-domain qualification and activation remain open.",
                  "residualRisks": [
                    "The procedure may restate an existing transaction, authorization, provenance, or workflow standard under new vocabulary.",
                    "The founding evidence is first-party and software-heavy.",
                    "The retained private Agent-origin transcript is not independently available in the public package.",
                    "Four responsibilities may be misread as four mandatory physical objects or user steps.",
                    "KFD-11 activation and interoperability evidence remain absent."
                  ]
                }
              }
            },
            "claimBoundary": "Provisional under draft KFD-11. The successor cut records Agent generation of the intermediate ontology through retained private transcript evidence and a dated public implementation sequence; it does not activate KFD-11, prove universal minimality or novelty, require four physical objects, or establish independent cross-domain adoption."
          }
        ],
        "path": "/cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/cases/live/decision-admission-settlement/README.md",
        "candidates": []
      },
      {
        "id": "federated-work-continuity",
        "title": "Federated Work Continuity",
        "kind": "primitive-discovery-case",
        "status": "active",
        "standard": "kfd-5",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/federated-work-continuity/",
        "relationship": "provisional-live-case",
        "claimBoundary": "This case preserves the Work hypothesis, its first cut, and a lineage-bound successor under current implementation pressure. It does not allocate a KFD number, qualify Work, claim cross-domain transfer, or create global fact authority.",
        "humanEntry": {
          "path": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Federated Work Continuity\n\nThis live case tracks a provisional question exposed by multi-workspace agent\ncoordination:\n\n> Is Work an independently necessary higher-layer object, a perspective-bound\n> view over existing objects, or only ordinary product vocabulary?\n\nThe candidate appeared when the observer changed from the developer managing\nrepositories and Assignment records to the person responsible for one real\noutcome. From that position, execution location became secondary. The primary\nquestion became whether the whole body of work is advancing, where judgment is\npending, and what may happen next.\n\n## Current result\n\n```text\ncandidate: Work\nstatus: provisional\nminimum closure: inconclusive\ndeletion test: analytic hypothesis only\nfuse test: inconclusive\ndogfood: founding Work Control implementation exists; comparative KFD-5 dogfood remains inconclusive\n```\n\nSince the first cut, Kungfu has implemented Initiative, Assignment, WorkRef,\nPortfolio, independent review, continuation, and Project Cut settlement, and\nits derived Primitive Catalog exposes Work with experimental admission. That\nis new implementation pressure, not qualification. The strongest\ncounterevidence remains present in KFD: Initiative is an\naccepted software-domain Primitive for one continuing coordinated body of\nwork. Work must therefore demonstrate a decision-relevant responsibility that\ncannot be represented by one Initiative, several related Initiatives, or an\nordinary cut-bound query.\n\n## Candidate shape\n\nThe initial engineering hypothesis is:\n\n```text\nworkspace-qualified WorkRef\n  + typed Assignment Graph\n  + component cuts and proofs\n  + declared observer and traversal policy\n  + current action frontier\n  = perspective-bound Work view\n```\n\nThis shape preserves autonomous fact worlds. It does not create a central Work\ndatabase, global clock, or global atomic Cut.\n\n## Case surfaces\n\n- [Genesis](genesis.md)\n- [Ontology alternatives](ontology-split.md)\n- [Conditional distinguishability](distinguishability.md)\n- [KFD method trace](kfd-method-trace.md)\n- [Propagation boundary](propagation-hypothesis.md)\n- [Current KFD-5 successor cut](cuts/0002-work.json)\n- [Preserved first cut](cuts/0001-work.json)\n- [Qualification reviews](reviews/README.md)\n- [Live case registry](../../registry.json)\n\n## Claim boundary\n\nThis case does not establish Work as a Primitive, allocate a KFD number,\nqualify the founding implementation, prove cross-domain transfer, or show that\nan independent Work entity is preferable to Initiative plus a derived graph\nview. Those are explicit open tests."
        },
        "genesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/genesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Genesis: From Cards to the Work That Matters\n\n## Initial observer\n\nThe initial observer was implementing local-first agent work management. The\nnatural objects were repositories, workspaces, Initiative and Assignment\nrecords, parent-child cards, runtime Episodes, and Project Cuts.\n\nFrom that position, the problem appeared to be better routing and a richer\ncross-workspace Assignment graph.\n\n## Perspective transformation\n\nThe observer changed to the person who initiated a group of related cards. That\nperson did not primarily care which repository contained each card. The\nconsequence-bearing question was:\n\n```text\nWhat is the state of the one thing these cards are jointly advancing?\n```\n\nThe relation graph remained necessary, but became implementation structure\nbeneath a possible user-level object: Work.\n\n## Why genesis is not qualification\n\nKFD already contains a strong adjacent object. Initiative preserves one\ncontinuing coordinated software-work context across Pursuits, Assignments,\nparticipants, lineage, and settlement. The new observation may therefore be:\n\n- a newly visible higher-layer Primitive;\n- a useful federated projection over one or more Initiatives;\n- a product-level name for Initiative;\n- or no new object at all.\n\nThe live case freezes the question before implementation and dogfood can make\nthe outcome look inevitable.\n\n## Successor evidence boundary\n\nThe first cut consisted of situated maintainer judgment, existing public KFD\nInitiative/Assignment/Project Cut cuts, and public Kungfu workspace and WorkRef\ncontracts. The 2026-08-03 successor adds Kungfu's current Work Control Profile\nand experimental Work catalog entry at exact commit\n`a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54`. The implementation does not supply\na fixed-root comparison against Initiative, derived view, Portfolio, Profile\nvocabulary, and no-new-Primitive outcomes; it also supplies no independent\nreview or non-software transfer case."
        },
        "methodTrace": {
          "path": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/kfd-method-trace.md",
          "markdown": "# KFD Method Trace\n\n## KFD-1: preserve the unresolved cut\n\nThe candidate, alternatives, current evidence, and missing qualification are\npublished before implementation can rewrite the story into a success\nnarrative.\n\n## KFD-2: keep confidence bounded\n\nThe current claim is only that Work deserves explicit investigation. It is not\nan accepted Primitive, a numbered KFD, or a qualified product capability.\n\n## KFD-3: preserve participant value\n\nThe product motivation is to let humans and agents manage the same work without\nforcing either to learn repository topology or hidden workflow rules. Exact\nauthority and lower objects remain available rather than being concealed by a\nsimple user view.\n\n## KFD-4: change the consequence-bearing observer\n\nThe developer saw repositories, workspaces, cards, and graph edges. The person\nresponsible for the outcome saw one body of work and asked for its state and\nnext action. That transformation generated the candidate.\n\n## KFD-5: retain no-new-Primitive\n\nThe same transformation may merely reveal Initiative or a derived query from a\nnew angle. KFD-5 therefore requires a shared evidence cut comparing an\nindependent Work object, a derived Work view, Initiative, and no new Primitive.\nThe 2026-08-03 successor adds Work Control and Primitive Catalog implementation\nevidence while preserving every alternative and the provisional result.\n\n## KFD-6 boundary\n\nNo autonomous discovery claim is made. Human situated judgment supplied the\nperspective change; agents helped reconstruct adjacent contracts and explicit\nfalsifiers. Future Episodes may support later replay and qualification."
        },
        "propagationHypothesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/propagation-hypothesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Propagation Boundary\n\nIf Work qualifies, it may lower adoption friction by letting a participant\nstart from one understandable question while agents traverse the exact lower\ncontracts:\n\n```text\nshow this Work\n  -> inspect component authority and current frontier\n  -> act on one exact owning Assignment\n  -> admit evidence and settlement locally\n  -> refresh the federated view\n```\n\nThis could let products expose KFD-shaped responsibility without requiring a\nnew user to learn every lower Primitive first.\n\nThe hypothesis remains unverified. A simpler Initiative or Portfolio view may\nprovide the same value. Hidden routing, forced centralization, unexplained\naggregation, or completion inferred from child activity would contradict KFD-3\neven if the interface appeared convenient."
        },
        "reviewIndex": {
          "path": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/reviews/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Federated Work Continuity Reviews\n\nNo independent qualification review has been completed.\n\nA review should evaluate:\n\n1. whether Work changes a real decision beyond Initiative and query semantics;\n2. whether entity and derived-view hypotheses receive equal treatment;\n3. whether deletion and fuse tests use fixed component roots;\n4. whether federation preserves owning authority and component cuts;\n5. whether reconstruction cost is measured rather than asserted;\n6. whether non-software transfer or counterevidence changes the boundary;\n7. whether the correct result is promotion, revision, subsumption, rejection,\n   or no new Primitive."
        },
        "ontologySplit": {
          "path": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/ontology-split.md",
          "markdown": "# Ontology Alternatives\n\nThe current question is not whether users benefit from a Work view. It is which\nobject, if any, must own its semantics.\n\n## Existing layers\n\n```text\nFact and Episode\n  -> Pursuit, Atlas, Warrant\n  -> Initiative and Assignment\n  -> Claim, Assessment, Decision, Admission\n  -> Project Cut\n```\n\n## Candidate boundary\n\nWork would answer:\n\n```text\nWhich coordinated whole is this observer advancing across independently owned\nworkspaces, and what is its current action frontier?\n```\n\nIt would not answer the narrower questions already owned by the objects above.\n\n## Three live hypotheses\n\n| Hypothesis | Identity | Authority | Main risk |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Independent Work | Stable Work identity and versions | Own declaration only; component authority remains external | Duplicates Initiative or becomes a global database |\n| Derived Work view | Root WorkRef plus observer, relation policy, and component cuts | No new semantic writer | Too unstable to deserve Primitive status |\n| No new Primitive | Initiative and Assignment Graph | Existing owners only | Leaves material reconstruction burden hidden |\n\n## Forbidden fusion\n\nEven if Work qualifies, it may not absorb:\n\n- Pursuit direction;\n- Atlas perspective and freshness;\n- Warrant authority;\n- Episode occurrence;\n- Assignment responsibility;\n- Assessment or Decision;\n- Project Cut settlement;\n- workspace-local Fact authority.\n\nThe candidate is valuable only if it coordinates these boundaries while\nkeeping them independently inspectable."
        },
        "distinguishabilityArgument": {
          "path": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/distinguishability.md",
          "markdown": "# Conditional Distinguishability\n\n## Deletion experiment\n\nHold fixed every component workspace cut, Initiative, Assignment, typed edge,\nEpisode, Claim, Assessment, Decision, and Project Cut. Remove only the proposed\nWork identity or view.\n\nThe deletion matters only if a participant must materially reconstruct one or\nmore of:\n\n- which component objects jointly advance one declared whole;\n- which pending judgments block that whole;\n- which degraded or unavailable components change safe continuation;\n- which exact next actions remain available across authority boundaries.\n\nAn attractive dashboard is not enough. The deletion must change a bounded\ndecision or impose measurable reconstruction cost.\n\n## Initiative comparison\n\nThe primary falsifier is:\n\n```text\none Initiative + typed Assignment relations + ordinary query\n  == proposed Work semantics\n```\n\nIf this equivalence holds for consequential cases at lower total cost, Work is\nsubsumed or rejected. A Work view spanning several Initiatives does not by\nitself defeat the alternative; an Initiative-of-Initiatives or Portfolio query\nmay still be equivalent.\n\n## Fuse experiment\n\nPotential evidence for separation would require cases where:\n\n- one Initiative participates in more than one Work view without changing its\n  own identity;\n- one Work view spans several Initiatives whose lifecycles remain independent;\n- changing Work membership changes coordination or settlement scope while all\n  Initiative and Assignment roots remain fixed;\n- two observers derive different valid Work views from the same component\n  facts and preserve the difference rather than merging it.\n\nKungfu's current Work Control and Portfolio implementation makes this test\nexecutable, but no retained fixed-root result currently satisfies it.\n\n## Current verdict\n\nThe candidate is analytically distinguishable enough to incubate and now has\nfounding implementation pressure, but it is not qualified. Minimum closure,\nfuse, deletion, independent implementation value, and cross-domain transfer\nremain inconclusive."
        },
        "candidateTracks": [
          {
            "id": "work",
            "title": "Work",
            "status": "provisional",
            "definition": "A possible higher-layer, perspective-bound coordinated action whole that preserves component authority, cuts, typed relations, proof state, degradation, and the current action frontier across workspaces.",
            "currentCut": {
              "path": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/cuts/0002-work.json",
              "sha256": "ef73aa8b71af65db49ed5deb69606ac96c69c742d887271d8192aee537b4c8e2",
              "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json",
              "schemaVersion": 3,
              "record": {
                "schemaVersion": 3,
                "contract": "kfd-5-primitive-discovery",
                "standard": "kfd-5",
                "candidate": {
                  "id": "work",
                  "title": "Work",
                  "problemStatement": "People responsible for one real outcome must still reconstruct its state and safe next action across Initiatives, Assignments, WorkRefs, Portfolio observations, workspaces, and Project Cuts even though Kungfu now implements and catalogs Work Control vocabulary.",
                  "scope": "Successor cut for a provisional higher-layer or perspective-bound Work candidate under current implementation pressure; independent identity, cross-domain transfer, product qualification, numbering, and universal necessity are not claimed."
                },
                "genesis": {
                  "methods": [
                    "direct-situated-judgment",
                    "perspective-transformation",
                    "reconstruction-pressure",
                    "structural-compression"
                  ],
                  "observationPerspective": {
                    "id": "work-control-implementer",
                    "bearer": "human and agent participants implementing Initiative, Assignment, WorkRef, Portfolio, review, continuation, and Project Cut settlement",
                    "role": "product and protocol implementer",
                    "proximity": "inside Work Control identity, authority, lifecycle, query, federation, and settlement behavior",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears routing, stale observation, hidden authority, premature completion, and continuation defects"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "Initiative",
                      "Assignment",
                      "WorkRef",
                      "Portfolio",
                      "workspace",
                      "Project Cut"
                    ]
                  },
                  "currentOntology": [
                    "Fact",
                    "Episode",
                    "Pursuit",
                    "Atlas",
                    "Warrant",
                    "Initiative",
                    "Assignment",
                    "WorkRef",
                    "Portfolio",
                    "Project Cut",
                    "workspace"
                  ],
                  "observation": "Kungfu now implements Work Control and exposes an experimental Work entry in its derived Primitive Catalog, but the user-level coordinated whole can still be either an independent object, a derived view, Profile vocabulary, Initiative semantics, or no new Primitive.",
                  "candidateObject": "Work may be a perspective-bound coordinated action whole whose identity or view preserves component authority, immutable cuts, typed relations, proof state, degradation, and current action frontier across independently owned workspaces.",
                  "claimBoundary": "This successor records implementation pressure without changing the provisional decision or deciding between independent entity, derived view, Initiative or Portfolio semantics, product-profile vocabulary, and no new Primitive.",
                  "methodEvidence": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/cuts/0001-work.json",
                      "observer": "prior immutable KFD-5 cut"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54",
                      "observer": "Kungfu founding-adopter source cut"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/genesis.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    }
                  ],
                  "transformedPerspective": {
                    "id": "real-work-owner-after-work-control",
                    "bearer": "a person or agent responsible for one real outcome that spans independently owned workspaces",
                    "role": "work initiator and consequence bearer",
                    "proximity": "inside progress, pending judgment, degradation, settlement, and continuation consequences but outside repository topology",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears fragmented progress, missed judgment, unsafe continuation, and false completion"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "the work that matters",
                      "current trusted state",
                      "blocking judgment",
                      "safe next action",
                      "settled outcome"
                    ]
                  },
                  "transformation": "The observer moved from the implemented component ontology to the participant who must understand and continue the coordinated whole without treating product vocabulary as qualification.",
                  "newlyVisibleNeed": "The participant needs one inspectable action whole or reproducible view while exact Initiative, Assignment, WorkRef, Portfolio, workspace, and Project Cut authorities remain independently visible.",
                  "methodNotes": "Implementation narrows some evidence gaps but strengthens the derived-view and Profile-vocabulary alternatives as much as the independent-Primitive hypothesis."
                },
                "boundaryPressure": {
                  "contactSides": [
                    "independently authoritative Work Control objects, workspace observations, and settlement cuts",
                    "the participant responsible for understanding and continuing one real outcome"
                  ],
                  "implicitHandling": "The whole is reconstructed from Initiative grouping, Assignment relations, WorkRefs, Portfolio rows, repository context, Project Cuts, and human or agent summaries.",
                  "pressureChanges": [
                    {
                      "kind": "scale",
                      "description": "One outcome can span several workspaces, Assignments, agents, reviews, and settlements."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "heterogeneity",
                      "description": "Portfolio observations remain authority-distinct and may be stale, degraded, partial, or unavailable."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "consequence",
                      "description": "Premature completion or hidden missing evidence changes what may safely continue."
                    }
                  ],
                  "observedFailures": [
                    "Stage-ready or source completion may be mistaken for independently accepted and settled completion.",
                    "Presentation grouping may be mistaken for replica equivalence or shared authority.",
                    "A user may still traverse component topology to reconstruct blocking judgment and next action.",
                    "A product-level Work label may hide whether the semantics are entity, view, Initiative, or Portfolio."
                  ],
                  "mediationClaim": "A perspective-bound Work identity or view may preserve one coherent action whole and frontier without centralizing component authority.",
                  "internalObjectAlternative": "Initiative plus typed Assignment relations, exact WorkRefs, Portfolio, and ordinary cut-bound queries may provide equivalent semantics."
                },
                "grounding": {
                  "pressure": [
                    "Work Control now provides concrete component identities and a read-only federated Portfolio.",
                    "The Primitive Catalog declares Work experimental rather than admitted or shipped.",
                    "Authority-distinct observations and Project Cut settlement must remain independently visible.",
                    "Existing Initiative semantics remain the strongest accepted KFD alternative."
                  ],
                  "factSources": [
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/blob/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54/docs/profiles/work-control.md",
                      "observer": "Kungfu Work Control Profile"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/blob/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54/framework/primitive/kungfu-primitive-catalog.contract.json",
                      "observer": "Kungfu derived Primitive Catalog"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/distinguishability.md",
                      "observer": "KFD candidate qualification"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/cuts/0001-initiative.json",
                      "observer": "accepted software-domain Initiative qualification"
                    }
                  ],
                  "evidenceBoundary": "This successor adds public Work Control and derived-catalog evidence at one exact Kungfu commit. It does not convert the product's Work vocabulary into KFD qualification, prove independent identity, measure deletion cost, complete a fixed-root fuse test, demonstrate cross-domain transfer, or supply independent review.",
                  "knownGaps": [
                    "No completed fixed-root comparison between independent Work, derived view, Initiative, Portfolio, and no-new-Primitive outcomes",
                    "No measured reconstruction cost for a consequence-bearing user journey",
                    "No independent Work lifecycle witness outside the founding product",
                    "No non-software transfer",
                    "No independent qualification review",
                    "No retained decision showing that Work changes coordination or settlement while all component roots remain fixed"
                  ]
                },
                "participants": [
                  {
                    "id": "kungfu-work-control-source",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "evidence-custody"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "kfd-analysis-participant",
                    "kind": "agent",
                    "functions": [
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "scalable-reasoning"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "future-independent-review",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "verification"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "maintainer-decision-owner",
                    "kind": "human",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "decision"
                    ]
                  }
                ],
                "alternatives": [
                  {
                    "name": "Independent Work Primitive",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "A stable identity may be needed when membership, frontier, or settlement scope changes while component roots remain fixed."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Perspective-bound derived Work view",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "Work may be a reproducible query over WorkRefs, observer, relation policy, component cuts, and availability without a new semantic writer."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Initiative plus typed Assignment relations",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "KFD already accepts Initiative as a continuing coordinated software-work context."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Portfolio or product-profile vocabulary",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "Kungfu may need a useful Work presentation without establishing a portable Primitive."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "No new Primitive",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "Existing objects and ordinary queries may preserve every consequential decision at lower ontology cost."
                  }
                ],
                "contractModel": {
                  "identity": "Unresolved between stable Work identity and a root WorkRef plus observer, relation policy, and component cuts.",
                  "boundary": "One perspective-bound coordinated whole and current frontier across independently authoritative components.",
                  "authority": "May declare membership or view policy only; may not rewrite Initiative, Assignment, WorkRef, Portfolio observation, Episode, review, Decision, Admission, Project Cut, or workspace facts.",
                  "lifecycle": "Proposed, observed, active, blocked, degraded, under review, continued, settled, or superseded with component state preserved independently.",
                  "operations": [
                    "declare-or-derive",
                    "inspect-components",
                    "inspect-frontier",
                    "inspect-degradation",
                    "route-to-owning-assignment",
                    "refresh-view",
                    "settle-or-supersede"
                  ]
                },
                "tests": {
                  "minimumClosure": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/blob/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54/docs/profiles/work-control.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Work Control closes a product Profile, but portable minimum fields and independent object necessity remain unproved."
                  },
                  "deletion": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/distinguishability.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Implementation creates a runnable experiment; decision change and reconstruction cost have not yet been measured under fixed component roots."
                  },
                  "fuse": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/federated-work-continuity/ontology-split.md"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/software-work-perspective-settlement/cuts/0001-initiative.json"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Initiative, derived-view, Portfolio, Profile-vocabulary, and no-new-Primitive alternatives remain live."
                  },
                  "falsifiers": [
                    "Initiative plus typed Assignment relations and an ordinary query preserves every Work decision at lower cost.",
                    "Portfolio provides the same participant value without stable Work identity or new authority.",
                    "Changing Work membership or view policy never changes coordination or settlement while component roots remain fixed.",
                    "Independent adopters do not reproduce the reconstruction burden.",
                    "The Work catalog entry remains only product vocabulary and supplies no retained qualification evidence."
                  ],
                  "dogfood": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "A current founding-product implementation and experimental catalog entry exist; comparative KFD-5 dogfood, negative outcomes, and independent review are still absent."
                  }
                },
                "decision": {
                  "outcome": "provisional",
                  "owner": "KFD maintainers",
                  "reason": "Current Work Control and Primitive Catalog evidence make the pressure operational rather than purely analytic, but they do not decide whether Work is an independent Primitive, derived view, Initiative or Portfolio semantics, product vocabulary, or no new Primitive.",
                  "residualRisks": [
                    "Product vocabulary may be mistaken for KFD qualification.",
                    "Independent Work may duplicate Initiative or centralize autonomous fact worlds.",
                    "A derived view may hide observer policy, staleness, or unavailable components.",
                    "One founding implementation may overfit the candidate boundary.",
                    "Presentation grouping may be mistaken for shared authority or completion."
                  ]
                }
              }
            },
            "claimBoundary": "Provisional only. The successor cut binds current founding-product Work Control and experimental Primitive Catalog evidence while leaving independent entity, derived view, Initiative, Portfolio, Profile vocabulary, and no-new-Primitive outcomes unresolved; comparative dogfood, transfer, and independent review remain open."
          }
        ],
        "path": "/cases/live/federated-work-continuity/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/cases/live/federated-work-continuity/README.md",
        "candidates": [
          {
            "id": "federated-work-continuity",
            "title": "Federated Work Continuity",
            "path": "/drafts/federated-work-continuity/",
            "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/federated-work-continuity/"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "product-release-cut-transition",
        "title": "Product Release Cut and Cut Transition",
        "kind": "primitive-discovery-case",
        "status": "active",
        "standard": "kfd-5",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/",
        "relationship": "provisional-live-case",
        "claimBoundary": "This case preserves two independently provisional tracks from one founding-adopter implementation cut. It does not accept either candidate, activate KFD-13, certify a product release, make Kungfu vocabulary universal, or prevent a no-new-Primitive decision.",
        "humanEntry": {
          "path": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Product Release Cut and Cut Transition\n\nThis live case tracks two provisional objects exposed by Kungfu's release and\nupdater work:\n\n> Does exact product-world identity require a Product Release Cut, and does\n> authorized movement between two such worlds require a distinct Cut\n> Transition?\n\nThe implementation separates exact identity from movement. KFD-5 must still\ndetermine whether either responsibility is independently necessary or whether\nexisting Project Cut, Warrant, Decision, Admission, release-passport, manifest,\nand SemVer semantics already close the problem.\n\n## Current result\n\n```text\ncandidate: Product Release Cut\nstatus: provisional\nminimum closure: inconclusive\ndogfood: implementation witness exists; qualification not run\n\ncandidate: Cut Transition\nstatus: provisional\nminimum closure: inconclusive\ndogfood: implementation witness exists; qualification not run\n```\n\nThe source evidence is Kungfu commit\n[`a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54`](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54),\nespecially `framework/upgrade/kungfu-product-release-cut.contract.json` and\n`docs/evolution/stages/10-product-release-cut-updater.md`.\n\n## Case surfaces\n\n- [Genesis](genesis.md)\n- [Ontology alternatives](ontology-split.md)\n- [Conditional distinguishability](distinguishability.md)\n- [KFD method trace](kfd-method-trace.md)\n- [Propagation boundary](propagation-hypothesis.md)\n- [Product Release Cut KFD-5 cut](cuts/0001-product-release-cut.json)\n- [Cut Transition KFD-5 cut](cuts/0001-cut-transition.json)\n- [Qualification reviews](reviews/README.md)\n- [Live case registry](../../registry.json)\n\n## Claim boundary\n\nThis case allocates no KFD number and accepts neither candidate. It does not\nactivate KFD-13, make Kungfu product terminology universal, prove historical\nnovelty, certify a release, or establish independent adoption. A\n`no-new-primitive` outcome remains first-class for both tracks."
        },
        "genesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/genesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Genesis: Exact Product Worlds and Authorized Movement\n\n## Initial observer\n\nThe initial observer was implementing release selection and upgrade behavior.\nThe natural objects were versions, manifests, platform artifacts, signatures,\nchannels, installers, and rollback records.\n\nThat ontology made SemVer appear to be product identity and made updater\nselection appear to authorize movement.\n\n## Pressure and perspective change\n\nEqual-SemVer successors, local dogfood artifacts, signed public supersession,\nrollback, conflict, and offline installation changed the consequence-bearing\nquestion:\n\n```text\nWhich exact qualified product world is this?\nWhat exact evidence authorizes movement to or from it?\n```\n\nKungfu's implementation answered with two roots: `releaseCutRoot` for one\nproduct world and `cutTransitionRoot` for movement between worlds.\n\n## Why implementation is not qualification\n\nThe split may reflect two durable responsibilities. It may also be a local\ncontract decomposition of existing KFD objects:\n\n- Product Release Cut may be a KFD-13 Project Cut specialization;\n- Cut Transition may be Warrant-bound Decision plus Admission;\n- release passports and manifests may already carry the evidence;\n- SemVer plus artifact digests may be sufficient in less demanding systems;\n- neither candidate may justify a new Primitive.\n\nThis case freezes those alternatives before successful release dogfood can\nturn one implementation into an inevitability narrative."
        },
        "methodTrace": {
          "path": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/kfd-method-trace.md",
          "markdown": "# KFD Method Trace\n\n## KFD-1: freeze the exact source and alternatives\n\nThe two candidates are bound to an exact Kungfu commit and immutable KFD-5\ncuts. Later release success cannot rewrite their genesis or erase a\n`no-new-primitive` result.\n\n## KFD-2: separate evidence from confidence\n\nAn executable contract is an implementation witness. It is not independent\nadoption, release certification, Primitive qualification, or proof that the\nsplit is minimal.\n\n## KFD-3: preserve participant value\n\nOperators, release owners, installed products, and independent verifiers need\nthe same exact identity and transition evidence without one participant's\ncache, version label, or network view becoming universal authority.\n\n## KFD-4: transform the observer\n\nThe release producer sees manifests and channels. The installed product and\noperator bear consequences of exact identity, conflict, upgrade, recovery,\nand rollback. That perspective change exposes the two candidate\nresponsibilities.\n\n## KFD-5: keep alternatives and negative outcomes live\n\nEach candidate retains Project Cut, generic Cut, Warrant/Decision/Admission,\nrelease passport, manifest, SemVer, and no-new-Primitive alternatives. Deletion\nand fuse tests must hold all other roots fixed.\n\n## KFD-6 boundary\n\nNo autonomous discovery claim is made. Humans and agents reconstructed the\nimplementation pressure and opened provisional tracks. There was no plural\nmethod experiment, fixed-ontology baseline, held-out promotion set, or transfer\nevaluation."
        },
        "propagationHypothesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/propagation-hypothesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Propagation Hypothesis\n\nIf the candidates qualify, a product could preserve one common identity and\nmovement boundary across build, publication, installation, activation,\nrecovery, and rollback:\n\n```text\nqualified product inputs\n  -> Product Release Cut\n  -> separately authorized Cut Transition\n  -> verified installation or rollback\n  -> retained successor identity and movement receipt\n```\n\nThis might transfer beyond Kungfu wherever a version label is insufficient to\nidentify exact deployed reality and movement has consequences distinct from\nidentity.\n\nThe hypothesis is unverified. A Project Cut Domain Profile plus existing\ndecision and admission semantics may provide the same value at lower ontology\ncost. A product with immutable version-to-artifact mapping may need neither\ncandidate. Propagation that hides local trust, compatibility, rollback, or\nparticipant authority would contradict KFD-3 even if deployment succeeded."
        },
        "reviewIndex": {
          "path": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/reviews/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Product Release Cut and Cut Transition Reviews\n\nNo independent qualification review has been completed.\n\nA review should evaluate:\n\n1. whether each candidate changes a consequential decision beyond its retained\n   alternatives;\n2. whether source settlement and installed product identity remain distinct;\n3. whether movement authority is already closed by Warrant, Decision, and\n   Admission;\n4. whether deletion and fuse tests hold all other roots fixed;\n5. whether negative equal-SemVer, conflict, local-trust, recovery, and rollback\n   cases are retained;\n6. whether public and local trust domains remain independently owned;\n7. whether the correct result is promotion, revision, subsumption, rejection,\n   or no new Primitive for each track independently."
        },
        "ontologySplit": {
          "path": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/ontology-split.md",
          "markdown": "# Ontology Alternatives\n\n## Proposed split\n\n| Responsibility | Candidate identity | Candidate authority |\n|---|---|---|\n| Exact qualified product world | Product Release Cut root | Declared product-profile composition only; source, artifact, signing, and qualification authorities remain external |\n| Authorized movement between two exact worlds | Cut Transition root | Declared relation, compatibility, migration, rollback, trust, and evidence binding only |\n\n## Retained alternatives\n\n| Alternative | Compression claim | Main test |\n|---|---|---|\n| Generic Cut | One fact-coordinate abstraction is sufficient | Can it preserve product qualification and platform slices without product-specific identity? |\n| KFD-13 Project Cut specialization | Release identity is one software-project settlement profile | Does it cover installed product worlds without confusing source settlement and runtime identity? |\n| Release passport or manifest | Existing evidence containers already identify the product | Can identity remain exact across equal-SemVer successors, local trust domains, and rollback? |\n| SemVer plus artifact digest | Version and bytes are sufficient | Can movement authority and compatibility remain inspectable without another object? |\n| Warrant + Decision + Admission | Existing authority objects already own movement | Does a transition add durable semantics beyond a bound decision and admitted action? |\n| No new Primitive | Both names remain Kungfu Profile vocabulary | Does deletion change any consequential decision outside the local contract? |\n\n## Forbidden fusion\n\nNeither candidate may absorb source facts, artifact bytes, signature authority,\nqualification evidence, Warrant, Decision, Admission, installer execution,\nparticipant policy, or rollback occurrence. Qualification requires useful\ncoordination while those owners remain independently inspectable."
        },
        "distinguishabilityArgument": {
          "path": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/distinguishability.md",
          "markdown": "# Conditional Distinguishability\n\n## Product Release Cut deletion test\n\nHold source, artifacts, platform manifests, signatures, qualification, SemVer,\nchannel, and trust domain fixed. Remove only Product Release Cut identity.\n\nDeletion matters only if a participant can no longer answer which exact\nqualified product world is current, distinguish equal-SemVer successors, or\nbind rollback to the exact prior world without reconstructing the same object\nad hoc. A convenient aggregate hash is not enough.\n\n## Cut Transition deletion test\n\nHold the two product worlds, Warrant, Decision, Admission, compatibility,\nmigration, rollback, and evidence fixed. Remove only Cut Transition.\n\nDeletion matters only if authorized movement, conflict, recovery, or rollback\nbecomes ambiguous or requires repeated reconstruction not already owned by the\nfixed authority objects.\n\n## Fuse tests\n\nProduct Release Cut is not separate if a generic Cut or Project Cut profile\npreserves identical decisions at lower ontology cost. Cut Transition is not\nseparate if Warrant-bound Decision plus Admission preserves identical movement\nand rollback consequences without hidden reconstruction.\n\nConversely, separation gains evidence if one exact product world participates\nin several valid transitions, one transition can be assessed independently of\neither endpoint's identity, and endpoint identity remains unchanged when\nmovement authorization is denied, replaced, or rolled back.\n\n## Required negative cases\n\n- same SemVer, identical Cut;\n- same SemVer, verified successor;\n- same SemVer, unsigned conflicting public Cut;\n- local dogfood Cut that is publication-ineligible;\n- diverged or unknown relation;\n- rollback to an exact prior Cut;\n- valid endpoint Cuts with an invalid or revoked transition;\n- valid transition evidence with a missing or mismatched endpoint.\n\n## Current verdict\n\nBoth candidates are analytically distinguishable enough to incubate but remain\nprovisional. Minimum closure, deletion, fuse, independent adoption, and\ncross-domain transfer are inconclusive."
        },
        "candidateTracks": [
          {
            "id": "product-release-cut",
            "title": "Product Release Cut",
            "status": "provisional",
            "definition": "A possible product-domain Primitive or KFD-13 specialization that identifies one exact qualified product world while preserving source, artifact, signing, qualification, platform, and trust-domain authorities.",
            "currentCut": {
              "path": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/cuts/0001-product-release-cut.json",
              "sha256": "ebc6513e3d1b3c5c2edb2b0c497d7ab3a9f6f844fb7608b909cf862b554f9d6b",
              "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json",
              "schemaVersion": 3,
              "record": {
                "schemaVersion": 3,
                "contract": "kfd-5-primitive-discovery",
                "standard": "kfd-5",
                "candidate": {
                  "id": "product-release-cut",
                  "title": "Product Release Cut",
                  "problemStatement": "Version labels, manifests, artifacts, signatures, qualification, and channels may each remain valid while participants still lack one exact identity for the qualified product world that is current, installable, or recoverable.",
                  "scope": "Provisional product-domain candidate for exact qualified released-world identity; KFD-13 specialization, cross-product transfer, independent adoption, numbering, and universal necessity are not claimed."
                },
                "genesis": {
                  "methods": [
                    "direct-situated-judgment",
                    "perspective-transformation",
                    "structural-compression"
                  ],
                  "observationPerspective": {
                    "id": "release-producer",
                    "bearer": "human and agent participants producing release manifests, channels, artifacts, and evidence",
                    "role": "release producer",
                    "proximity": "inside source, build, signing, qualification, publication, and channel state",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears release assembly, publication, compatibility, and provenance defects"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "SemVer",
                      "manifest",
                      "artifact",
                      "signature",
                      "qualification",
                      "channel"
                    ]
                  },
                  "currentOntology": [
                    "Fact",
                    "Cut",
                    "Warrant",
                    "Decision",
                    "Admission",
                    "Project Cut",
                    "release passport",
                    "manifest",
                    "SemVer"
                  ],
                  "observation": "Equal-SemVer successors, local dogfood artifacts, public signing, offline installation, and rollback made version and manifest coordinates insufficient as one consequence-bearing product identity.",
                  "candidateObject": "Product Release Cut may be an independently addressable root for one exact qualified product world while preserving source, artifact, signing, qualification, platform, and trust-domain authorities.",
                  "claimBoundary": "The cut opens qualification and does not decide whether the candidate is an independent Primitive, a KFD-13 Project Cut specialization, a release passport or manifest projection, or no new Primitive.",
                  "methodEvidence": [
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/genesis.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    }
                  ],
                  "transformedPerspective": {
                    "id": "installed-product-operator",
                    "bearer": "an installed product, operator, or verifier deciding what exact world is current or recoverable",
                    "role": "consequence bearer",
                    "proximity": "inside installation, activation, conflict, recovery, and rollback consequences but outside release assembly",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears wrong-world activation, equal-version conflict, unverifiable recovery, and rollback ambiguity"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "exact current product world",
                      "verified successor",
                      "conflict",
                      "recoverable prior world"
                    ]
                  },
                  "transformation": "The observer moved from release assembly to the installed participant that must identify exact product reality independently of labels and producer-local state.",
                  "newlyVisibleNeed": "One exact product-world identity may be needed across publication, installation, verification, and rollback without absorbing their authorities.",
                  "methodNotes": "The existing implementation is evidence for qualification, not proof of minimum closure or independent Primitive identity."
                },
                "boundaryPressure": {
                  "contactSides": [
                    "release production, publication, and qualification authorities",
                    "installed products and operators bearing activation, conflict, recovery, and rollback consequences"
                  ],
                  "implicitHandling": "Participants reconstruct product identity from SemVer, channel position, manifest paths, artifact digests, timestamps, and cache state.",
                  "pressureChanges": [
                    {
                      "kind": "heterogeneity",
                      "description": "Public and local trust domains can contain different publication-eligible product worlds."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "consequence",
                      "description": "An incorrect identity can activate, retain, or roll back the wrong product world."
                    }
                  ],
                  "observedFailures": [
                    "Equal SemVer does not prove identical product reality.",
                    "A mutable source cache cannot remain installed identity or rollback authority.",
                    "Separate platform artifacts can drift from the intended product-world composition.",
                    "Local dogfood evidence may be mistaken for public release qualification."
                  ],
                  "mediationClaim": "A Product Release Cut may bind one exact product world while preserving every contributing authority and trust domain.",
                  "internalObjectAlternative": "A KFD-13 Project Cut Domain Profile, release passport, manifest, or SemVer plus artifact digest may provide equivalent identity at lower ontology cost."
                },
                "grounding": {
                  "pressure": [
                    "Equal-SemVer worlds may be identical, valid successors, or conflicts.",
                    "Public and local trust domains have different publication authority.",
                    "Installed identity and rollback must survive source-cache loss.",
                    "Platform slices must remain bound to one exact product composition."
                  ],
                  "factSources": [
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/blob/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54/framework/upgrade/kungfu-product-release-cut.contract.json",
                      "observer": "Kungfu product implementation"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/distinguishability.md",
                      "observer": "KFD candidate qualification"
                    }
                  ],
                  "evidenceBoundary": "The cut records one founding-adopter executable contract and public architecture at one exact Git cut. It contains no independent adopter, completed comparative deletion test, cross-product transfer, or proof that Project Cut and release-passport alternatives are insufficient.",
                  "knownGaps": [
                    "No independent adopter",
                    "No completed public and local campaign comparison",
                    "No measured reconstruction-cost deletion test",
                    "No cross-product transfer",
                    "No independent qualification review",
                    "No decision between Primitive, Project Cut specialization, manifest, and no-new-Primitive outcomes"
                  ]
                },
                "participants": [
                  {
                    "id": "kungfu-implementation-source",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "evidence-custody"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "kfd-analysis-participant",
                    "kind": "agent",
                    "functions": [
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "scalable-reasoning"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "maintainer-decision-owner",
                    "kind": "human",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "decision"
                    ]
                  }
                ],
                "alternatives": [
                  {
                    "name": "KFD-13 Project Cut specialization",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "A product release may be one software-project settlement profile with installed-product fields rather than a new Primitive."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Release passport or manifest",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "Existing evidence containers may already bind exact product identity if their roots and trust domains remain immutable."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "SemVer plus artifact digest",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "Systems with immutable version-to-artifact mapping may need no additional identity."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "No new Primitive",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "Product Release Cut may remain Kungfu Profile vocabulary if deletion changes no decision outside the implementation."
                  }
                ],
                "contractModel": {
                  "identity": "One content-addressed root over a declared Product Release Cut preimage.",
                  "boundary": "Exact product composition and platform slices, excluding source, artifact, signing, qualification, and participant authorities.",
                  "authority": "May identify one product world; may not authorize movement, certify inputs, publish, install, activate, or roll back it.",
                  "lifecycle": "Proposed, assembled, qualified, published or local-only, installed, active, retained for recovery, or superseded without root mutation.",
                  "operations": [
                    "compose",
                    "verify",
                    "compare-identity",
                    "inspect-platform-slice",
                    "retain-for-recovery"
                  ]
                },
                "tests": {
                  "minimumClosure": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [],
                    "notes": "The contract closes one implementation but Project Cut and manifest alternatives have not been held fixed and compared."
                  },
                  "deletion": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/distinguishability.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Equal-version and recovery pressure is explicit; consequential reconstruction cost has not been measured."
                  },
                  "fuse": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/ontology-split.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Fusion with Project Cut, release passport, manifest, and SemVer remains unresolved."
                  },
                  "falsifiers": [
                    "A Project Cut Domain Profile preserves every identity decision at lower ontology cost.",
                    "Immutable SemVer-to-artifact mapping makes equal-version conflict and reconstruction impossible.",
                    "The Release Cut root adds no decision-relevant information beyond an existing manifest or passport root.",
                    "Independent adopters do not reproduce the identity problem."
                  ],
                  "dogfood": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "A public implementation witness exists, but comparative KFD-5 qualification and independent review have not run."
                  }
                },
                "decision": {
                  "outcome": "provisional",
                  "owner": "KFD maintainers",
                  "reason": "Exact product-world identity is operationally explicit and analytically distinguishable, but minimum closure against Project Cut, passport, manifest, SemVer, and no-new-Primitive alternatives remains unproved.",
                  "residualRisks": [
                    "Product terminology may be mistaken for a universal Primitive.",
                    "The candidate may duplicate KFD-13 Project Cut.",
                    "One implementation may overfit the candidate boundary.",
                    "A root aggregate may hide rather than preserve contributing authority."
                  ]
                }
              }
            },
            "claimBoundary": "Provisional only. Project Cut specialization, release passport, manifest, SemVer plus artifact digest, and no-new-Primitive outcomes remain live; independent adoption, transfer, numbering, and release qualification are not claimed."
          },
          {
            "id": "cut-transition",
            "title": "Cut Transition",
            "status": "provisional",
            "definition": "A possible product-domain Primitive or typed authority relation that binds exact endpoint Cuts, compatibility, migration, rollback, trust, and evidence for movement without absorbing endpoint identity or action execution.",
            "currentCut": {
              "path": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/cuts/0001-cut-transition.json",
              "sha256": "a2b658c8658c266cc9ec2614834efe2e5bc4425c7877c39fe0833d8a5afee4d7",
              "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json",
              "schemaVersion": 3,
              "record": {
                "schemaVersion": 3,
                "contract": "kfd-5-primitive-discovery",
                "standard": "kfd-5",
                "candidate": {
                  "id": "cut-transition",
                  "title": "Cut Transition",
                  "problemStatement": "Two exact product-world identities do not by themselves establish whether movement is authorized, compatible, recoverable, or safe, and updater-local selection may silently become movement authority.",
                  "scope": "Provisional product-domain candidate for independently inspectable movement between exact Product Release Cuts; universal transition vocabulary, independent adoption, numbering, and separation from Warrant-bound Decision and Admission are not claimed."
                },
                "genesis": {
                  "methods": [
                    "direct-situated-judgment",
                    "perspective-transformation",
                    "reconstruction-pressure"
                  ],
                  "observationPerspective": {
                    "id": "updater-implementer",
                    "bearer": "human and agent participants implementing selection, installation, activation, and rollback",
                    "role": "updater implementer",
                    "proximity": "inside version comparison, manifest validation, artifact selection, and installer execution",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears selection, compatibility, migration, and rollback defects"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "upgrade available",
                      "version precedence",
                      "installer",
                      "rollback",
                      "channel"
                    ]
                  },
                  "currentOntology": [
                    "Product Release Cut",
                    "Warrant",
                    "Decision",
                    "Admission",
                    "compatibility policy",
                    "migration",
                    "rollback receipt"
                  ],
                  "observation": "Exact endpoint identities left movement unresolved: identical, verified-successor, ancestor, recovery, diverged, and unknown relations require different decisions that cannot be inferred from root text, timestamps, SemVer, or network recency.",
                  "candidateObject": "Cut Transition may be an independently addressable evidence-bearing relation that binds exact endpoints, compatibility, migration, rollback, trust, and movement authority without absorbing either endpoint or action execution.",
                  "claimBoundary": "The cut opens qualification and does not decide whether Cut Transition is a Primitive, a typed Warrant/Decision/Admission record, an upgrade manifest section, or no new Primitive.",
                  "methodEvidence": [
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/genesis.md",
                      "observer": "KFD maintainers"
                    }
                  ],
                  "transformedPerspective": {
                    "id": "movement-consequence-bearer",
                    "bearer": "an operator or installed product deciding whether to move, remain, recover, or roll back",
                    "role": "movement consequence bearer",
                    "proximity": "inside service continuity and rollback consequences but outside updater-local selection rules",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears unauthorized movement, incompatible activation, conflict, failed recovery, and unrecoverable rollback"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "authorized transition",
                      "denied transition",
                      "recovery path",
                      "rollback path",
                      "conflict"
                    ]
                  },
                  "transformation": "The observer moved from choosing an artifact to bearing the consequences of movement between exact product worlds.",
                  "newlyVisibleNeed": "Movement may require its own inspectable identity and evidence even when both endpoint Cuts remain valid and unchanged.",
                  "methodNotes": "The strongest alternative is a Warrant-bound Decision followed by independent Admission; the implementation name does not defeat that alternative."
                },
                "boundaryPressure": {
                  "contactSides": [
                    "exact source and target product worlds",
                    "participants authorizing and bearing upgrade, recovery, and rollback consequences"
                  ],
                  "implicitHandling": "Movement is inferred from SemVer precedence, channel order, timestamps, updater rules, network recency, or the presence of a newer artifact.",
                  "pressureChanges": [
                    {
                      "kind": "authority",
                      "description": "Artifact availability and updater selection do not by themselves authorize product movement."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "consequence",
                      "description": "Movement may require migration, recovery, rollback, trust, and compatibility decisions."
                    }
                  ],
                  "observedFailures": [
                    "Unequal roots are incorrectly ordered by version, timestamp, directory order, or recency.",
                    "An equal-SemVer conflict is mistaken for an update.",
                    "Rollback depends on a mutable source cache instead of exact retained evidence.",
                    "Valid endpoint identities are mistaken for authorization to move between them."
                  ],
                  "mediationClaim": "A Cut Transition may keep exact endpoints and movement authority separately inspectable across update, recovery, and rollback.",
                  "internalObjectAlternative": "Warrant-bound Decision plus independent Admission and a typed upgrade manifest may provide equivalent movement semantics."
                },
                "grounding": {
                  "pressure": [
                    "Endpoint identity does not imply a safe or authorized relation.",
                    "Equal-SemVer worlds may be identical, successors, or conflicts.",
                    "Rollback and recovery require exact prior and target roots.",
                    "Updater execution must not create its own authority."
                  ],
                  "factSources": [
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/blob/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54/framework/upgrade/kungfu-product-release-cut.contract.json",
                      "observer": "Kungfu product implementation"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/distinguishability.md",
                      "observer": "KFD candidate qualification"
                    }
                  ],
                  "evidenceBoundary": "The cut records one founding-adopter transition contract and public architecture at one exact Git cut. It contains no independent adopter, completed comparison with Warrant/Decision/Admission, cross-product transfer, or proof that a typed manifest relation is insufficient.",
                  "knownGaps": [
                    "No independent adopter",
                    "No fixed-endpoint deletion benchmark",
                    "No completed Warrant/Decision/Admission comparison",
                    "No cross-product transfer",
                    "No independent qualification review",
                    "No decision between Primitive, typed authority record, manifest relation, and no-new-Primitive outcomes"
                  ]
                },
                "participants": [
                  {
                    "id": "kungfu-implementation-source",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "evidence-custody"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "kfd-analysis-participant",
                    "kind": "agent",
                    "functions": [
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "scalable-reasoning"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "maintainer-decision-owner",
                    "kind": "human",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "decision"
                    ]
                  }
                ],
                "alternatives": [
                  {
                    "name": "Warrant-bound Decision plus Admission",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "Existing KFD authority and settlement responsibilities may already express movement without a new Primitive."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Typed upgrade manifest relation",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "A bounded relation inside an existing manifest may preserve exact endpoints, compatibility, migration, and rollback."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "SemVer and channel precedence",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "Products with immutable version mapping and simple trust may not need a separate transition object."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "No new Primitive",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "Cut Transition may remain Kungfu Profile vocabulary if deletion changes no decision beyond existing authority records."
                  }
                ],
                "contractModel": {
                  "identity": "One content-addressed root over exact source and target Cuts plus declared relation, compatibility, migration, rollback, trust, and evidence.",
                  "boundary": "Movement semantics between immutable endpoint Cuts; endpoint identity and installer occurrence remain separately owned.",
                  "authority": "May bind already granted movement authority; may not mint Warrant, make a Decision, admit an action, execute installation, or certify endpoints.",
                  "lifecycle": "Proposed, assessed, authorized or denied, executed or failed, observed, superseded, revoked, recovered, or rolled back without root mutation.",
                  "operations": [
                    "propose",
                    "verify-endpoints",
                    "assess-relation",
                    "bind-authority",
                    "observe-execution",
                    "recover",
                    "roll-back"
                  ]
                },
                "tests": {
                  "minimumClosure": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [],
                    "notes": "The contract closes one updater implementation, but existing authority and manifest alternatives have not been compared under fixed endpoints."
                  },
                  "deletion": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/distinguishability.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Movement ambiguity is explicit; the incremental value beyond Warrant, Decision, Admission, and manifest relations remains unmeasured."
                  },
                  "fuse": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/ontology-split.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Fusion with existing authority objects and manifest relations remains unresolved."
                  },
                  "falsifiers": [
                    "Warrant-bound Decision plus independent Admission preserves every movement consequence at lower ontology cost.",
                    "A typed manifest relation provides identical verification, recovery, and rollback behavior.",
                    "Products with immutable version mapping never need a separately addressable transition.",
                    "Independent adopters do not reproduce the movement-authority problem."
                  ],
                  "dogfood": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kungfu/commit/a2967f22d0d23766eb887168e8fffc41251bad54"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "A public implementation witness exists, but fixed-endpoint comparison and independent KFD-5 review have not run."
                  }
                },
                "decision": {
                  "outcome": "provisional",
                  "owner": "KFD maintainers",
                  "reason": "Movement is operationally distinct from endpoint identity in one implementation, but minimum closure against Warrant-bound Decision, Admission, manifest relation, SemVer, and no-new-Primitive alternatives remains unproved.",
                  "residualRisks": [
                    "The candidate may duplicate existing KFD authority and settlement objects.",
                    "Updater implementation details may be mistaken for universal transition semantics.",
                    "A transition record may launder unavailable or invalid endpoint evidence.",
                    "One implementation may overfit relation and rollback fields."
                  ]
                }
              }
            },
            "claimBoundary": "Provisional only. Warrant-bound Decision plus Admission, typed upgrade-manifest relation, SemVer and channel precedence, and no-new-Primitive outcomes remain live; independent adoption, transfer, numbering, and movement authority are not claimed."
          }
        ],
        "path": "/cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/cases/live/product-release-cut-transition/README.md",
        "candidates": []
      },
      {
        "id": "recursive-normative-self-conformance",
        "title": "Recursive normative self-conformance",
        "kind": "primitive-discovery-case",
        "status": "closed",
        "standard": "kfd-5",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/",
        "relationship": "provisional-live-case",
        "claimBoundary": "This closed case retains the no-new-kfd result and its reopening conditions. It does not infer historical Profile conformance, allocate a number, activate a KFD, certify the Profile, or authorize release.",
        "humanEntry": {
          "path": "cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Recursive normative self-conformance live case\n\nThis case asks KFD's published Self-Conformance Profile to process the next\npre-number Candidate about recursive normative self-application. It is a\nqualification case, not proof that a new Primitive exists.\n\n## Fixed inputs\n\n- Candidate: [`drafts/recursive-normative-self-conformance.md`](../../../drafts/recursive-normative-self-conformance.md)\n- Genesis: [`genesis.md`](genesis.md)\n- KFD-5 cut: [`cuts/0001-recursive-normative-self-conformance.json`](cuts/0001-recursive-normative-self-conformance.json)\n- Terminal KFD-5 cut: [`cuts/0002-no-new-kfd.json`](cuts/0002-no-new-kfd.json)\n- Method trace: [`kfd-method-trace.md`](kfd-method-trace.md)\n- Ontology split: [`ontology-split.md`](ontology-split.md)\n- Distinguishability: [`distinguishability.md`](distinguishability.md)\n- Historical replay: [`evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.replay.json`](../../../evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.replay.json)\n- Review boundary: [`reviews/README.md`](reviews/README.md)\n\n## Current state\n\nThe terminal KFD-5 cut is `no-new-primitive`, and the Candidate lifecycle\nrecords `no-new-kfd` as a non-promotion outcome after exact-cut independent\nreview. Candidate registration allocates no number, and the structural verifier\ndid not select or apply the disposition.\n\n## Qualification question\n\nDoes recursive normative self-conformance carry a responsibility not already\nrecoverable from KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-5, KFD-11, and the fixed\n`kfd-self-conformance@1.0.0-alpha.1` Profile?\n\nThe reviewed result is that the procedure is valuable but derivable. It remains\npublic as an explicit composition and reopening target rather than a numbered\nKFD.\n\n## Claim boundary\n\nThis case records one first-party recursive dogfood exercise and its reviewed\nnon-promotion result. It does not prove universal necessity, historical\nconformance before the Profile existed, an independent implementation, a KFD\nnumber, activation, certification, merge, or release authority."
        },
        "genesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/genesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Genesis\n\n## Perspective\n\nThe observer is a successor KFD steward attempting to change the normative\nsystem after the Self-Conformance Profile became a published contract. From\nthis position, adopter-facing conformance rules and KFD's own governance can\ndrift apart unless the same exact-root obligations remain inspectable.\n\n## Current ontology\n\nThe installed ontology already contains immutable Fact cuts, fact-bound trust,\nparticipant-visible constraints, perspective, KFD-5 Candidate genesis and\nqualification, Claim/Assessment/Decision/Admission separation, and the\nSelf-Conformance Profile's transition bundles and lifecycle gate.\n\n## Methods\n\nGenesis combines reconstruction pressure and structural compression. The\npressure is repeated reconstruction of how a normative system applies its own\nrules. The compression hypothesis is that one named procedure could make the\nrecursive path legible. Neither method receives authority to qualify the\nresult.\n\n## Evidence cut\n\nThe machine cut binds the current KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-5, KFD-11, Profile\nbootstrap anchor, Profile manifest, historical activation and Foundation\nRevision records, this case, and the pre-number Candidate. Later evidence may\ncite the containing Git commit without putting that commit into its own\npreimage.\n\n## Candidate object\n\n`recursive-normative-self-conformance` is a proposed procedure requiring a\nnormative system's load-bearing self-change to traverse fixed-root genesis,\nqualification, independent review, separate disposition, and explicit\nadmission or non-promotion.\n\n## Claim boundary\n\nThe genesis claims that the composition is worth testing. It does not claim a\nnew irreducible Primitive, historical execution before the Profile existed,\nsemantic truth, successful qualification, numbering, or governance authority."
        },
        "methodTrace": {
          "path": "cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/kfd-method-trace.md",
          "markdown": "# KFD method trace\n\n1. KFD-1 fixes the normative and package coordinates.\n2. KFD-2 turns the Candidate and replay claims into assessable statements with\n   gaps and counterevidence.\n3. KFD-4 declares the successor-steward perspective; no historical actor's\n   perspective is synthesized.\n4. KFD-5 records genesis, alternatives, minimum closure, deletion, fuse,\n   falsifiers, dogfood, and an explicit no-new-Primitive outcome option.\n5. KFD-11 keeps the generated claim, structural assessment, independent\n   review, disposition, and repository admission separate.\n6. The Self-Conformance Profile verifies exact transition structure from its\n   unchanged bootstrap anchor and fixed package root.\n\nHistorical statements are typed as `historical-fact`,\n`retrospective-reconstruction`, or `counterfactual-replay`. A later Profile\ncannot retroactively turn earlier governance into a conforming Profile run.\n\nThe method terminates only with an authority-separated disposition. A valid\nstructural report remains necessary but insufficient."
        },
        "propagationHypothesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/propagation-hypothesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Propagation hypothesis\n\nThe procedure may transfer to standards, policy repositories, schema\nregistries, and governance systems that impose conformance on adopters while\nchanging their own rules. Transfer would require a non-KFD implementation to\nretain exact normative cuts, independent verification, review and decision\nauthority, non-retroactivity, and a visible non-promotion outcome.\n\nNo cross-domain adopter is retained in this cut. Transfer therefore remains a\nfalsifiable hypothesis and cannot support qualification by itself."
        },
        "reviewIndex": {
          "path": "cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/reviews/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Review index\n\nThe genesis cut was approved at exact commit\n`7fb4c67718807856bd001dd7bf3c64bd32189827` by review\n`PRR_kwDOTLH7GM8AAAABIyjELg`.\n\nThe terminal assessment was independently approved at exact commit\n`5791476b226b0ce26f98538704e71f7e29e04956` by review\n`PRR_kwDOTLH7GM8AAAABIy0qZA`. That review inspected the redundancy result,\nhistorical labels, KFD-6 gap, package-only replay, fail-closed substitutions,\nand retained Candidate native/WASM parity, and accepted `no-new-kfd` as the\nsemantic recommendation.\n\nThe author, structural verifier, reviewer, disposition authority, repository\nadmission, and release authority remain distinct. The assessment review does\nnot automatically approve later envelope bytes, so the terminal repository\nhead still requires its own exact-commit review before merge."
        },
        "ontologySplit": {
          "path": "cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/ontology-split.md",
          "markdown": "# Ontology split\n\n| Alternative | Smallest responsibility | What remains independently addressable |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| New KFD procedure | Recursive self-application as its own normative object | identity, lifecycle, review and disposition |\n| KFD-1 + KFD-2 + KFD-5 + KFD-11 closure | Composition of existing responsibilities | exact cuts, trust claim, genesis/qualification, decision/admission |\n| Self-Conformance Profile only | Repository-native implementation contract | package root, verifier, receipts, transition chain |\n| Governance prose | Maintainer convention | no machine closure; repeated reconstruction remains |\n| No action | Existing rules remain distributed | no new surface and no explicit composition |\n\nThe Profile is an implementation contract, while numbered KFDs are normative\ndecisions. That distinction prevents the Profile from silently becoming its\nown semantic authority. The central qualification test is whether the proposed\nCandidate adds a new responsibility beyond the existing normative closure, not\nwhether the Profile is useful."
        },
        "distinguishabilityArgument": {
          "path": "cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/distinguishability.md",
          "markdown": "# Distinguishability and redundancy\n\n## Minimum closure\n\nThe useful recursive path needs an exact predecessor, a candidate genesis, a\nfact-bound assessment, a verifier independent of the generator, a review role\nindependent of the author, a disposition authority, and explicit admission or\nretained non-promotion.\n\n## Deletion test\n\nDelete the Candidate while retaining KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-5, KFD-11, and the\nSelf-Conformance Profile. Every decision-relevant observation remains\nexpressible: roots cannot drift; claims remain assessable; genesis remains\nseparate from qualification; decision remains separate from admission; and the\nProfile retains candidate, qualification, rejection, provisional, and\n`no-new-kfd` transitions.\n\nThe deletion therefore removes a convenient name but does not yet remove an\nindependent responsibility.\n\n## Fuse test\n\nFuse the Candidate into KFD-5 as “apply this procedure to KFD itself.” The\nfixed-root and trust duties remain supplied by KFD-1 and KFD-2, while KFD-11\nsupplies the authority-separated terminal path. No contradiction or hidden\nauthority appears. Fuse into the Profile instead and the normative claim\nbecomes implementation-specific, so the Profile cannot be the sole authority.\n\n## Cross-domain test\n\nThe same composition is plausible outside KFD but no independent adopter cut\nis retained. This is a gap for a new universal procedure, but not a gap in the\nclaim that KFD can dogfood its existing rules.\n\n## Falsifiers\n\n- An independently reproduced case needs recursive authority or lifecycle\n  semantics that cannot be represented by KFD-1/KFD-2/KFD-5/KFD-11.\n- Deleting the Candidate changes a bounded governance decision despite all\n  existing roots and receipts remaining fixed.\n- Fusing the Candidate into existing KFDs creates an unavoidable ambiguity or\n  grants an authority those KFDs cannot safely represent.\n- A non-KFD adopter requires the same new object and cannot implement the\n  closure without repeatedly reconstructing it.\n- The fixed package cannot reject substituted roots, predecessors, authority,\n  review, or claim overreach without extending its normative contract.\n\n## Provisional reading\n\nThe current analytic result favors derivability and eventual `no-new-kfd`, but\nthis document has no disposition authority. Independent review may qualify,\nretain, reject, or confirm the no-new result against the exact evidence cut."
        },
        "candidateTracks": [
          {
            "id": "recursive-normative-self-conformance",
            "title": "Recursive normative self-conformance",
            "status": "no-new-primitive",
            "definition": "A proposed procedure requiring a normative system's load-bearing self-change to traverse exact-root genesis, fact-bound qualification, independent review, authority-separated disposition, and explicit admission or retained non-promotion.",
            "currentCut": {
              "path": "cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/cuts/0002-no-new-kfd.json",
              "sha256": "e702b61f424d1bb49c10f114ed8acac6a8321e056200e781033ceaa77f14b93e",
              "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json",
              "schemaVersion": 3,
              "record": {
                "schemaVersion": 3,
                "contract": "kfd-5-primitive-discovery",
                "standard": "kfd-5",
                "candidate": {
                  "id": "recursive-normative-self-conformance",
                  "title": "Recursive normative self-conformance",
                  "problemStatement": "A normative system can impose exact conformance on adopters while reconstructing or bypassing those duties when changing its own rules.",
                  "scope": "Pre-number KFD self-change from exact genesis through qualification, independent review, authority-separated disposition, and explicit admission or retained non-promotion; numbering, activation, merge, and release remain outside the candidate."
                },
                "genesis": {
                  "methods": [
                    "reconstruction-pressure",
                    "structural-compression"
                  ],
                  "observationPerspective": {
                    "id": "successor-kfd-steward",
                    "bearer": "successor KFD steward",
                    "role": "change the normative system after the Self-Conformance Profile became load-bearing",
                    "proximity": "direct repository and governance boundary",
                    "consequences": [
                      "must distinguish structural validity from semantic and governance authority",
                      "must preserve historical coordinates while admitting a successor cut",
                      "must avoid self-certification"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "normative cut",
                      "candidate genesis",
                      "qualification evidence",
                      "review receipt",
                      "terminal disposition",
                      "admission result"
                    ]
                  },
                  "currentOntology": [
                    "KFD-1 fact cuts and compatibility boundaries",
                    "KFD-2 claims and assessments",
                    "KFD-5 candidate genesis and qualification",
                    "KFD-11 claim, assessment, decision, and admission",
                    "Self-Conformance transition bundles and lifecycle gates"
                  ],
                  "observation": "The recursive path is useful but currently distributed across normative decisions and a repository Profile, creating repeated reconstruction pressure and a risk that Profile verification is mistaken for semantic or governance authority.",
                  "candidateObject": "A procedure requiring load-bearing normative self-change to use the same fixed-root, authority-separated conformance path required of adopters.",
                  "claimBoundary": "Genesis proposes a testable composition and does not claim irreducibility, universality, historical execution before the Profile existed, qualification, numbering, activation, merge, or release.",
                  "methodEvidence": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "drafts/recursive-normative-self-conformance.md",
                      "observer": "successor KFD steward"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/distinguishability.md",
                      "observer": "qualification author"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "profiles/self-conformance/lifecycle-gates.json",
                      "observer": "published profile"
                    }
                  ],
                  "methodNotes": "Reconstruction pressure generates the candidate; structural compression compares a new named procedure with the existing KFD-1/KFD-2/KFD-5/KFD-11 closure."
                },
                "boundaryPressure": {
                  "contactSides": [
                    "normative rules imposed on adopters",
                    "governance changes made by the normative system"
                  ],
                  "implicitHandling": "Maintainers and agents reconstruct the self-application path from multiple decisions, repository rules, review conventions, and verifier outputs.",
                  "pressureChanges": [
                    {
                      "kind": "new-participant",
                      "description": "Successor agents must recover authority boundaries without private maintainer context."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "authority",
                      "description": "A structural verifier can appear authoritative even though it cannot decide semantic truth, numbering, activation, merge, or release."
                    }
                  ],
                  "observedFailures": [
                    "Passing structural reports can be overstated as qualification.",
                    "Retrospective reconstruction can be mislabeled as historical execution.",
                    "One actor can be described under multiple role names and mistaken for independent review."
                  ],
                  "mediationClaim": "An explicit recursive path may keep fixed evidence, structural verification, review, disposition, and admission independently inspectable.",
                  "internalObjectAlternative": "Treat the path as the composed application of KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-5, KFD-11, and the Self-Conformance Profile without a new KFD."
                },
                "grounding": {
                  "pressure": [
                    "The Self-Conformance Profile already processes KFD lifecycle changes but cannot supply semantic or governance authority.",
                    "Historical KFD changes predate the Profile and require typed non-retroactive replay.",
                    "The proposed procedure may duplicate the existing normative closure."
                  ],
                  "factSources": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "profiles/self-conformance/manifest.json"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "profiles/self-conformance/bootstrap-anchor.json"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "evidence/kfd-7/activation-record.json"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "docs/foundation-revision-2026-07-21-decision-admission.json"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.assessment.json"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.counterevidence.json"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.verification.json"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "receipt",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/326#pullrequestreview-4885129828"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "evidence/self-conformance/transitions/recursive-normative-self-conformance-terminal.request.json"
                    }
                  ],
                  "evidenceBoundary": "Exact genesis inputs, assessment commit 5791476b226b0ce26f98538704e71f7e29e04956, public review PRR_kwDOTLH7GM8AAAABIy0qZA, and the fixed alpha.1 package; later merge and release state are excluded.",
                  "knownGaps": [
                    "No independent non-KFD adopter has tested cross-domain transfer.",
                    "The useful procedure name could be mistaken for a new normative Primitive after a no-new-KFD disposition.",
                    "Structural validity could be overstated as semantic qualification unless the terminal receipt retains its non-authority boundary."
                  ]
                },
                "participants": [
                  {
                    "id": "qualification-author",
                    "kind": "agent",
                    "functions": [
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "scalable-reasoning"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "kfd-repository",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "evidence-custody"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "kungfu-origin",
                    "kind": "other",
                    "functions": [
                      "verification"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "dongkeren",
                    "kind": "human",
                    "functions": [
                      "decision"
                    ]
                  }
                ],
                "alternatives": [
                  {
                    "name": "New numbered KFD procedure",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "The reviewed cut identifies no responsibility beyond the existing normative closure."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-5, and KFD-11 composition",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "The reviewed minimum-closure, deletion, and fuse results preserve every bounded responsibility."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Self-Conformance Profile only",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "Supplies deterministic structural machinery but cannot become normative, semantic, or governance authority."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "No explicit self-conformance path",
                    "disposition": "rejected",
                    "reason": "Leaves repeated reconstruction and authority confusion unaddressed even if no new KFD is ultimately justified."
                  }
                ],
                "contractModel": {
                  "identity": "One pre-number recursive normative self-conformance Candidate bound to an exact genesis cut.",
                  "boundary": "Normative self-change only; adopter implementations, numbering, activation, protected merge, and release remain under their own authorities.",
                  "authority": "Genesis author, structural verifier, independent reviewer, disposition authority, repository admission, and release authority remain distinct.",
                  "lifecycle": "absent -> candidate -> no-new-kfd non-promotion; reopening requires a new exact evidence cut",
                  "operations": [
                    "bind-genesis",
                    "replay-history",
                    "compare-redundancy",
                    "verify-structure",
                    "review-exact-cut",
                    "record-disposition",
                    "admit-or-retain-non-promotion"
                  ]
                },
                "tests": {
                  "minimumClosure": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.assessment.json"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.redundancy.json"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "The reviewed minimum closure is fully derivable from the existing normative decisions and fixed non-authoritative Profile."
                  },
                  "deletion": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.assessment.json"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.counterevidence.json"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Deleting the Candidate name preserves every bounded decision observation."
                  },
                  "fuse": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.assessment.json"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "evidence/self-conformance/qualification/recursive-normative-self-conformance.verification.json"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "The Candidate fuses into the existing closure without absorbing structural, review, disposition, admission, or release authority."
                  },
                  "falsifiers": [
                    "A fixed-root decision changes when the Candidate is deleted while KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-5, KFD-11, and the Profile remain available.",
                    "A non-KFD adopter requires an independent recursive identity, boundary, authority, lifecycle, or operation that the existing closure cannot express.",
                    "Fusing the Candidate into existing KFDs creates unavoidable authority ambiguity.",
                    "The fixed package cannot fail closed on root, predecessor, review, authority, package, or claim substitution without a new normative contract.",
                    "No new KFD is justified if deletion preserves every decision observation and the Candidate only names the existing composition."
                  ],
                  "dogfood": {
                    "result": "pass",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "receipt",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/326#pullrequestreview-4885129828"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "evidence/self-conformance/transitions/recursive-normative-self-conformance-terminal.report.json"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "The recursive run retains exact genesis, assessment, independent review, terminal non-promotion, and package-only replay evidence."
                  }
                },
                "decision": {
                  "outcome": "no-new-primitive",
                  "owner": "dongkeren-after-independent-review",
                  "reason": "The useful recursive procedure is the reviewed composition of KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-5, KFD-11, and the fixed Profile, not a new irreducible Primitive.",
                  "residualRisks": [
                    "No independent non-KFD adopter has tested cross-domain transfer.",
                    "The useful procedure name could be mistaken for a new normative Primitive after a no-new-KFD disposition.",
                    "Structural validity could be overstated as semantic qualification unless the terminal receipt retains its non-authority boundary."
                  ]
                }
              }
            },
            "claimBoundary": "The independently reviewed cut records no-new-primitive for KFD-5 and no-new-kfd for the Candidate. It preserves the useful procedure as explicit composition but allocates no number and changes no numbered KFD."
          }
        ],
        "path": "/cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/cases/live/recursive-normative-self-conformance/README.md",
        "candidates": [
          {
            "id": "recursive-normative-self-conformance",
            "title": "Recursive normative self-conformance",
            "path": "/drafts/recursive-normative-self-conformance/",
            "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/recursive-normative-self-conformance/"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "durable-result-identity-availability",
        "title": "Durable Result Identity and Availability Separation",
        "kind": "primitive-discovery-case",
        "status": "active",
        "standard": "kfd-5",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/",
        "relationship": "provisional-live-case",
        "claimBoundary": "This case preserves one exact product-generated hypothesis and its unresolved alternatives. It does not allocate a KFD number, make Stage Capsule normative, qualify cross-domain transfer, certify Buildchain v4, or enable production reuse.",
        "humanEntry": {
          "path": "cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Durable Result Identity and Availability Separation\n\nThis live case asks whether Buildchain v4 Stage Capsule exposed a portable\nprinciple or a strong product-specific composition:\n\n> When a durable result may be reused, must identity, retention commitment,\n> observed availability, transport, and qualification remain independently\n> addressable?\n\n## Current result\n\n```text\ncandidate: Durable Result Identity and Availability Separation\nstatus: provisional\nminimum closure: analytically plausible\ndeletion test: not run outside Buildchain\nfuse test: partial in Buildchain shadow qualification\ndogfood: six founding-ecosystem shadow campaigns; no production reuse\n```\n\nBuildchain's exact Wave 2 merge demonstrates that the separation is coherent,\nprovider-neutral, cross-process, and testable on three operating systems. It\ndoes not establish that the responsibility is irreducible from KFD-1, KFD-2,\nKFD-7, existing cache/provenance systems, or an adopter-owned Domain Profile.\n\n## Case surfaces\n\n- [Genesis](genesis.md)\n- [Ontology alternatives](ontology-split.md)\n- [Conditional distinguishability](distinguishability.md)\n- [KFD method trace](kfd-method-trace.md)\n- [Propagation boundary](propagation-hypothesis.md)\n- [Current KFD-5 cut](cuts/0001-durable-result-identity-availability.json)\n- [Qualification reviews](reviews/README.md)\n- [Candidate](../../../drafts/durable-result-identity-availability.md)\n\n## Claim boundary\n\nThis case opens qualification only. It does not allocate a KFD number, make\nBuildchain terminology normative, qualify cross-domain transfer, certify\nBuildchain v4, enable production Stage Capsule reuse, or select promotion over\nsubsumption, rejection, or `no-new-kfd`.\n\nThe case is limited to the cited public repository evidence; private\ndiscussion and unretained runner payloads are outside its evidence cut."
        },
        "genesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/genesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Genesis: From Cache Hit to Defensible Reuse\n\n## Initial observer\n\nThe initial observer was evaluating Buildchain v4 recovery after a late build\nstage failed. The familiar objects were an action key, cached bytes, an\nartifact locator, a retention policy, and a build result.\n\nFrom that position, the problem looked like reliable cross-run caching.\n\n## Perspective transformation\n\nThe observer changed to the successor process that must decide whether it may\nsafely reuse a retained result after time, process, platform, policy, and\nprovider state have changed.\n\nFrom that position, one apparent cache fact separated into several questions:\n\n```text\nWhat exact result is this?\nWas anyone committed to retain it?\nIs it available and intact now?\nWhere can it be retrieved?\nIs it still qualified for this exact purpose?\n```\n\nBuildchain Stage Capsule made those questions independently variable and\ncomputed reuse only from explicit roots and an explicit evaluation clock.\n\n## Why genesis is not qualification\n\nAction cache and content-addressed storage already separate action metadata\nfrom output bytes. Provenance already binds outputs to production inputs and\nprocesses. KFD-1, KFD-2, and KFD-7 already require non-drifting facts,\nfact-bound trust, and visible degraded coordinates.\n\nThe new observation may therefore be a portable principle, a direct\ncomposition of existing KFDs, a Buildchain-specific Domain Profile, or only a\nparticularly careful cache protocol. This cut preserves all four outcomes.\n\nThis reconstruction is limited to public repository evidence; private\ndiscussion and unretained hosted-runner payloads are outside the cut."
        },
        "methodTrace": {
          "path": "cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/kfd-method-trace.md",
          "markdown": "# KFD Method Trace\n\n## KFD-1\n\nThe Candidate preserves one exact Buildchain source cut and treats identity,\navailability observations, and future qualification cuts as welded surfaces\nthat cannot drift together silently.\n\n## KFD-2\n\nReuse is a claim assessed from exact roots and explicit current facts. A digest,\npromise, location, or prior pass cannot substitute for present evidence and\nresidual risk.\n\n## KFD-4\n\nThe observer changes from the producer that just completed a stage to the\nsuccessor process deciding whether the result remains usable after conditions\nchanged.\n\n## KFD-5\n\nBuildchain supplies genesis and founding dogfood, not promotion. Existing KFD\ncomposition, Buildchain Profile, prior-art composition, and no new KFD remain\nlive alternatives.\n\n## KFD-7 and KFD-13 boundaries\n\nStage Capsule records product-domain facts and supports recovery action; it is\nnot a new action coordinate or Project Cut. A future principle must preserve\nthose authorities rather than absorb them.\n\n## KFD-6 boundary\n\nNo autonomous discovery claim is made. Human judgment selected the pressure\nfield; the agent reconstructed public evidence, alternatives, and falsifiers."
        },
        "propagationHypothesis": {
          "path": "cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/propagation-hypothesis.md",
          "markdown": "# Propagation Boundary\n\nIf the principle transfers, one small decision surface could serve build\nstages, agent checkpoints, scientific pipelines, model or dataset custody, and\nbackup restoration:\n\n```text\nidentify exact result\n  -> inspect retention commitment\n  -> observe current availability and transport\n  -> assess qualification for this purpose and time\n  -> restore or rebuild without rewriting history\n```\n\nThe hypothesis remains unverified. Domains may have different custody,\nprivacy, authority, or liveness requirements; some have no meaningful\nretention promise. A general KFD must allow absent or unsupported coordinates\nto remain explicit instead of forcing Buildchain's schema onto them."
        },
        "reviewIndex": {
          "path": "cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/reviews/README.md",
          "markdown": "# Durable Result Identity and Availability Reviews\n\nAn independent exact-commit genesis review was completed by `kungfu-origin`\nfor commit `5b05f24f69ea2f293c21eec0b830d6e60eec7868` on\n[PR 337](https://github.com/kungfu-systems/kfd/pull/337#pullrequestreview-4891051647).\nIt approves retaining this exact incubating, pre-number Candidate genesis and\nits KFD-5 cut. It does not qualify or promote the Candidate, allocate a number,\nauthorize a terminal disposition, or make Buildchain normative.\n\nThe retained machine-readable review evidence and Self-Conformance lifecycle\npair are:\n\n- `evidence/self-conformance/reviews/durable-result-identity-availability.genesis.json`;\n- `evidence/self-conformance/transitions/durable-result-identity-availability-genesis.request.json`;\n- `evidence/self-conformance/transitions/durable-result-identity-availability-genesis.report.json`.\n\nNo independent qualification review has been completed. A later qualification\nreview should evaluate:\n\n1. whether the Candidate states a portable responsibility rather than a\n   Buildchain schema;\n2. whether KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-7, and KFD-13 redundancy is treated seriously;\n3. whether action cache, CAS, provenance, registry, and retention-policy prior\n   art can reproduce the same decisions;\n4. whether the Buildchain evidence is accurately bounded as shadow-only and\n   first-party;\n5. whether deletion and fuse tests demand changed decisions rather than model\n   elegance;\n6. whether non-build transfer and independent implementation are real gates;\n7. whether promotion, subsumption, rejection, and `no-new-kfd` remain equally\n   admissible outcomes."
        },
        "ontologySplit": {
          "path": "cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/ontology-split.md",
          "markdown": "# Ontology Alternatives\n\nThe question is not whether Stage Capsule is useful. It is where the durable\nseparation belongs.\n\n| Hypothesis | Normative owner | Main risk |\n|---|---|---|\n| New KFD principle | KFD defines the cross-domain separation; adopters map it | Promotes a build-cache pattern before transfer is proved |\n| Existing KFD composition | KFD-1, KFD-2, and KFD-7 already imply the rule | Leaves a repeatedly reconstructed responsibility unnamed |\n| Buildchain Domain Profile | Buildchain owns Stage Capsule and its exact fields | Similar failures recur in unrelated domains |\n| Infrastructure composition | Action cache, CAS, provenance, and storage policy | Locators or policy are still mistaken for current evidence |\n\n## Proposed semantic split\n\n```text\nresult identity\n  != retention commitment\n  != observed availability\n  != transport coordinate\n  != reuse assessment\n```\n\nQualification may be bound into result identity by exact root while remaining\nan independently inspectable authority. Physical co-location is allowed;\nsemantic substitution is not.\n\n## Forbidden fusion\n\n- A content root must not prove present availability.\n- A retention promise must not prove successful custody.\n- A transport locator must not become result or storage authority.\n- Historical qualification must not prove current purpose fitness.\n- One successful restore must not authorize provider or production effects."
        },
        "distinguishabilityArgument": {
          "path": "cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/distinguishability.md",
          "markdown": "# Conditional Distinguishability\n\n## Deletion experiment\n\nHold fixed the result content, action or transformation, qualification, store,\nprovider, and receiver purpose. Remove the explicit separation between\nidentity, retention, current availability, transport, and reuse assessment.\n\nDeletion matters only if a participant then makes a different unsafe decision\nor must materially reconstruct one of these facts from mutable provider state,\nlogs, convention, or operator memory. Cleaner schema design is not sufficient.\n\nBuildchain demonstrates likely deletion pressure through missing, expired,\npartial, corrupt, quarantined, root-mismatch, cross-platform, cross-stage, and\ndrift campaigns. A non-build fixed-root deletion witness remains absent.\n\n## Fuse experiment\n\nThe responsibilities are operationally distinguishable when, with the same\nresult identity:\n\n- a retention commitment expires without changing historical bytes;\n- availability changes from present to missing or corrupt;\n- a transport locator moves without changing result identity;\n- qualification becomes insufficient for a new purpose;\n- a receiver rejects reuse while preserving the historical result;\n- two stores report different availability without creating two results.\n\nBuildchain's shadow contract supports these variations. Qualification must\nshow that at least one unrelated adopter also needs them and cannot obtain the\nsame decisions from ordinary content-addressed storage plus policy.\n\n## Current verdict\n\nThe candidate is sufficiently distinguishable to incubate, not to number.\nProduct evidence is strong; cross-domain irreducibility and redundancy against\nexisting KFDs remain unresolved."
        },
        "candidateTracks": [
          {
            "id": "durable-result-identity-availability",
            "title": "Durable Result Identity and Availability Separation",
            "status": "provisional",
            "definition": "A possible cross-domain principle requiring reusable durable results to keep immutable identity, retention commitment, observed availability, transport coordinates, qualification, and reuse assessment independently addressable.",
            "currentCut": {
              "path": "cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/cuts/0001-durable-result-identity-availability.json",
              "sha256": "815855150156ab6870f2dd24c2ee57d49ea81422a439f028f90813ac259fe000",
              "schemaId": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/schemas/kfd-5/primitive-discovery.schema.json",
              "schemaVersion": 3,
              "record": {
                "schemaVersion": 3,
                "contract": "kfd-5-primitive-discovery",
                "standard": "kfd-5",
                "candidate": {
                  "id": "durable-result-identity-availability",
                  "title": "Durable Result Identity and Availability Separation",
                  "problemStatement": "Systems that reuse durable results across time or location can mistake an immutable result identity, a retention promise, a current availability observation, a transport locator, or prior qualification as proof of the others.",
                  "scope": "Incubating cross-domain principle generated from Buildchain v4 Stage Capsule; numbering, cross-domain transfer, independent implementation, production reuse, and universal necessity are not claimed."
                },
                "genesis": {
                  "methods": [
                    "direct-situated-judgment",
                    "perspective-transformation",
                    "reconstruction-pressure",
                    "structural-compression"
                  ],
                  "observationPerspective": {
                    "id": "build-recovery-producer",
                    "bearer": "Buildchain maintainers and agents implementing staged build recovery",
                    "role": "producer of retained build-stage results",
                    "proximity": "inside Stage Capsule contract, store, checkpoint, resume, and qualification implementation",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears false reuse, false rebuild, corrupted restore, provider coupling, and recovery defects"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "build stage",
                      "action key",
                      "output manifest",
                      "content-addressed store",
                      "provider artifact",
                      "resume plan"
                    ]
                  },
                  "currentOntology": [
                    "KFD-1 fact cut and welded surface",
                    "KFD-2 claim and trust assessment",
                    "KFD-7 Fact and Episode",
                    "KFD-13 Project Cut",
                    "action cache and action result",
                    "content-addressed store",
                    "artifact provenance",
                    "Buildchain Stage Capsule"
                  ],
                  "observation": "Buildchain recovery could not safely treat a digest, retained blob, provider locator, retention policy, or earlier qualification as one cache-hit fact. The successor process needed each coordinate to vary without rewriting the others.",
                  "candidateObject": "A portable separation principle may require reusable durable results to keep immutable identity, retention commitment, observed availability, transport coordinates, and qualification independently addressable.",
                  "claimBoundary": "The cut opens qualification of the separation and does not decide whether it is a new KFD, an existing-KFD composition, a Buildchain Domain Profile, an infrastructure composition, or no new Primitive.",
                  "methodEvidence": [
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/buildchain/commit/7499b8dc988af2f9f1cb1796230adf3bee33bac1",
                      "observer": "Buildchain v4 exact merge cut"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/buildchain/pull/2476",
                      "observer": "protected qualification and independent review"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "drafts/durable-result-identity-availability.md",
                      "observer": "KFD Candidate genesis"
                    }
                  ],
                  "transformedPerspective": {
                    "id": "successor-result-consumer",
                    "bearer": "a later process, agent, or operator deciding whether to reuse a durable result",
                    "role": "receiver and consequence bearer for restore or rebuild",
                    "proximity": "inside current purpose, time, availability, and recovery consequences but outside the original execution",
                    "consequences": [
                      "bears unsafe reuse, unnecessary rebuild, unavailable evidence, stale qualification, and hidden custody failure"
                    ],
                    "naturalObjects": [
                      "exact result",
                      "retention commitment",
                      "current availability",
                      "retrieval path",
                      "purpose-bound reuse decision"
                    ]
                  },
                  "transformation": "The observer moved from the producer that had just completed a stage to the successor process that must decide whether the result remains reusable after process, time, platform, policy, store, and provider state may have changed.",
                  "newlyVisibleNeed": "The successor needs to reject or permit reuse without inferring availability from identity, identity from location, custody from promise, or current qualification from a historical pass.",
                  "methodNotes": "The exact Buildchain cut is founding evidence only. Public prior art and existing KFD composition remain active alternatives."
                },
                "boundaryPressure": {
                  "contactSides": [
                    "immutable result identity and historical production evidence",
                    "a successor receiver observing mutable storage, transport, policy, and purpose conditions"
                  ],
                  "implicitHandling": "Systems commonly reconstruct the reuse decision from cache hits, provider IDs, mutable locators, retention configuration, logs, timestamps, and operator knowledge.",
                  "pressureChanges": [
                    {
                      "kind": "latency",
                      "description": "Reuse occurs after the producing process and its ambient state have disappeared."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "heterogeneity",
                      "description": "Results move across platforms, stores, providers, processes, and receiver policies."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "consequence",
                      "description": "False reuse can ship incorrect bytes while false rebuild wastes time and scarce compute."
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "authority",
                      "description": "Storage, transport, qualification, and production execution may have different owners."
                    }
                  ],
                  "observedFailures": [
                    "A provider artifact ID or locator is treated as immutable semantic identity.",
                    "A retention policy is treated as proof that bytes are present and intact.",
                    "A content digest is treated as proof that content remains retrievable.",
                    "Historical qualification is reused after source, platform, toolchain, policy, or purpose drift.",
                    "A cache hit silently grants provider or production stage-skipping authority."
                  ],
                  "mediationClaim": "Separating identity, retention, availability, transport, qualification, and reuse assessment may let successors restore or rebuild deterministically without rewriting history or importing provider authority.",
                  "internalObjectAlternative": "KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-7, action-cache/CAS contracts, provenance, and adopter-owned storage policy may provide equivalent closure without a new KFD."
                },
                "grounding": {
                  "pressure": [
                    "Buildchain v4 required three separate roots for identity, capsule retention, and current availability.",
                    "Its store and resume planner keep content, transport, qualification, and provider effects separate.",
                    "Six real-runner shadow campaigns and adversarial cases passed at one protected merge cut.",
                    "The implementation remains first-party, shadow-only, and production-reuse disabled.",
                    "Existing cache and provenance standards already cover major parts of the mechanism."
                  ],
                  "factSources": [
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/buildchain/blob/7499b8dc988af2f9f1cb1796230adf3bee33bac1/docs/v4-stage-capsule.md",
                      "observer": "Buildchain v4 contract guide"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/buildchain/blob/7499b8dc988af2f9f1cb1796230adf3bee33bac1/architecture/v4-stage-capsule-contract.json",
                      "observer": "Buildchain v4 executable architecture"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "git",
                      "coordinate": "https://github.com/bazelbuild/remote-apis",
                      "observer": "Remote Execution and caching prior art"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "other",
                      "coordinate": "https://slsa.dev/spec/v1.2/provenance",
                      "observer": "artifact provenance prior art"
                    },
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "coordinate": "cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/distinguishability.md",
                      "observer": "KFD Candidate qualification"
                    }
                  ],
                  "evidenceBoundary": "The cut retains exact public Buildchain contracts, PR review and hosted check outcomes, existing KFD decisions, and bounded public prior art. It contains no independent non-Buildchain implementation, production reuse, non-software transfer, exhaustive prior-art review, or authority-separated terminal KFD disposition.",
                  "knownGaps": [
                    "No independent implementation outside the Buildchain writer code",
                    "No structurally non-build transfer",
                    "No production reuse under a bounded rollback gate",
                    "No measured cross-domain deletion or fuse witness",
                    "No exhaustive prior-art comparison",
                    "No independent exact-cut KFD qualification review",
                    "No terminal promotion, subsumption, rejection, or no-new-kfd disposition"
                  ]
                },
                "participants": [
                  {
                    "id": "human-candidate-sponsor",
                    "kind": "human",
                    "functions": [
                      "perspective-declaration",
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "decision"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "agent-evidence-reconstructor",
                    "kind": "agent",
                    "functions": [
                      "candidate-generation",
                      "scalable-reasoning"
                    ]
                  },
                  {
                    "id": "future-independent-review",
                    "kind": "collective",
                    "functions": [
                      "evidence-custody",
                      "verification"
                    ]
                  }
                ],
                "alternatives": [
                  {
                    "name": "New portable KFD principle",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "The separation may change safe reuse decisions in domains beyond software builds, but no transfer witness exists."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "KFD-1, KFD-2, and KFD-7 composition",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "Non-drifting fact surfaces, fact-bound trust, and visible degraded coordinates may already imply the full responsibility."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Buildchain Domain Profile",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "Stage Capsule may be a product-specific realization whose exact fields should remain adopter-owned."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "Action cache, CAS, provenance, and retention policy composition",
                    "disposition": "retained",
                    "reason": "Established infrastructure may provide equivalent closure with less normative expansion."
                  },
                  {
                    "name": "No new Primitive",
                    "disposition": "unresolved",
                    "reason": "The current evidence is compatible with a useful explicit composition that deserves no KFD number."
                  }
                ],
                "contractModel": {
                  "identity": "A durable result binds exact inputs, transformation, environment or platform boundary, outputs, and referenced qualification roots without mutable provider or transport coordinates.",
                  "boundary": "Result identity, retention commitment, observed availability, transport coordinate, qualification, explicit evaluation cut, and receiver-owned reuse decision remain semantically distinguishable.",
                  "authority": "The principle would not create storage, transport, qualification, provider, production, or receiver authority; each remains independently owned and cited.",
                  "lifecycle": "A result identity remains immutable while commitments, availability observations, transport coordinates, qualifications, and reuse assessments gain successor cuts, expire, degrade, or are revoked without rewriting it.",
                  "operations": [
                    "identify",
                    "commit-retention",
                    "observe-availability",
                    "locate",
                    "verify-content",
                    "assess-qualification",
                    "decide-reuse",
                    "restore",
                    "rebuild",
                    "quarantine"
                  ]
                },
                "tests": {
                  "minimumClosure": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "drafts/durable-result-identity-availability.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Buildchain closes one product model, but the minimum portable vocabulary and optional-coordinate semantics remain unqualified."
                  },
                  "deletion": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/distinguishability.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Buildchain fault campaigns demonstrate local pressure, but no non-build fixed-root case shows a changed decision or measured reconstruction burden."
                  },
                  "fuse": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/buildchain/pull/2476"
                      },
                      {
                        "kind": "file",
                        "coordinate": "cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/ontology-split.md"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "The product contract varies responsibilities independently, but existing KFD and infrastructure compositions have not been shown insufficient."
                  },
                  "falsifiers": [
                    "Existing KFD decisions and an adopter Profile reproduce every bounded reuse decision at lower total cost.",
                    "Action cache, CAS, provenance, and ordinary retention policy supply equivalent closure.",
                    "The distinction fails to transfer to a structurally non-build domain.",
                    "Independent implementations cannot preserve the separation without importing Buildchain-specific fields.",
                    "Production use requires hidden provider identity, ambient state, or fused authority.",
                    "The model produces no measurable safety or reconstruction benefit."
                  ],
                  "dogfood": {
                    "result": "inconclusive",
                    "evidence": [
                      {
                        "kind": "git",
                        "coordinate": "https://github.com/kungfu-systems/buildchain/commit/7499b8dc988af2f9f1cb1796230adf3bee33bac1"
                      }
                    ],
                    "notes": "Buildchain self-dogfood and Kungfu shadow consumers passed three-platform campaigns, but production reuse, independent implementation, and cross-domain transfer were intentionally disabled or absent."
                  }
                },
                "decision": {
                  "outcome": "provisional",
                  "owner": "KFD maintainers subject to independent exact-cut review",
                  "reason": "The founding implementation demonstrates a coherent and consequential separation, while existing KFD and mature infrastructure alternatives prevent promotion without cross-domain deletion, fuse, production, and independent-implementation evidence.",
                  "residualRisks": [
                    "The Candidate may merely restate KFD-1, KFD-2, and KFD-7.",
                    "Buildchain terminology may leak into a supposedly portable principle.",
                    "First-party shadow evidence may be mistaken for independent or production qualification.",
                    "Additional coordinates may increase complexity without changing decisions.",
                    "Provider-neutral schemas may still encode build-specific assumptions.",
                    "A new KFD could duplicate mature cache, provenance, and custody standards."
                  ]
                }
              }
            },
            "claimBoundary": "Provisional only. The founding Buildchain cut is first-party and shadow-only; existing KFD composition, a Buildchain Domain Profile, mature cache/provenance mechanisms, and no-new-Primitive outcomes remain live."
          }
        ],
        "path": "/cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/cases/live/durable-result-identity-availability/README.md",
        "candidates": [
          {
            "id": "durable-result-identity-availability",
            "title": "Durable Result Identity and Availability Separation",
            "path": "/drafts/durable-result-identity-availability/",
            "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/durable-result-identity-availability/"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  },
  "candidates": {
    "path": "/drafts/",
    "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/",
    "registry": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/registry.json",
    "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/registry.json",
    "relationship": "pre-number-non-normative-candidates",
    "normative": false,
    "entries": [
      {
        "id": "action-state-separation",
        "title": "Cross-domain action primitives",
        "status": "promoted",
        "slotHint": 7,
        "path": "/drafts/action-state-separation/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/action-state-separation/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/action-state-separation.md",
        "relationship": "candidate-before-promotion",
        "normative": false,
        "claimBoundary": "This candidate is preserved as the source lineage promoted into active KFD-7. KFD-7 does not turn Fact or Episode into ordinary domain-Primitives, require named physical stores, claim literal physical spacetime or Euclidean dimensionality, or establish universal necessity. Its Atlas, Pursuit, and Warrant elaborations were later promoted into numbered drafts KFD-8, KFD-9, and KFD-10."
      },
      {
        "formal": {
          "id": "atlas-action-perspective-formal",
          "path": "/drafts/atlas-action-perspective/formal/",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/atlas-action-perspective/formal/",
          "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/formal/atlas-action-perspective.md",
          "relationship": "formal-candidate-child-of-candidate",
          "normative": false,
          "formalCandidateVersion": 1,
          "formalCandidateStatus": "experimental",
          "authorityPath": "drafts/atlas-action-perspective.md"
        },
        "id": "atlas-action-perspective",
        "title": "Atlas action perspective",
        "status": "promoted",
        "slotHint": 8,
        "path": "/drafts/atlas-action-perspective/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/atlas-action-perspective/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/atlas-action-perspective.md",
        "relationship": "candidate-before-promotion",
        "normative": false,
        "claimBoundary": "This candidate is preserved as source lineage promoted into numbered draft KFD-8. KFD-8 allocates Atlas as the canonical perspective coordinate but does not mandate one serialization or product surface, claim perspective completeness, establish active status, or prove universal necessity."
      },
      {
        "formal": {
          "id": "pursuit-intent-continuity-formal",
          "path": "/drafts/pursuit-intent-continuity/formal/",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/pursuit-intent-continuity/formal/",
          "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/formal/pursuit-intent-continuity.md",
          "relationship": "formal-candidate-child-of-candidate",
          "normative": false,
          "formalCandidateVersion": 1,
          "formalCandidateStatus": "experimental",
          "authorityPath": "drafts/pursuit-intent-continuity.md"
        },
        "id": "pursuit-intent-continuity",
        "title": "Pursuit intent continuity",
        "status": "promoted",
        "slotHint": 9,
        "path": "/drafts/pursuit-intent-continuity/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/pursuit-intent-continuity/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/pursuit-intent-continuity.md",
        "relationship": "candidate-before-promotion",
        "normative": false,
        "claimBoundary": "This candidate is preserved as source lineage promoted into numbered draft KFD-9. KFD-9 allocates Pursuit as the canonical direction coordinate but does not mandate one decomposition shape or workflow, establish active status, or prove universal necessity."
      },
      {
        "formal": {
          "id": "warrant-bounded-authority-formal",
          "path": "/drafts/warrant-bounded-authority/formal/",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/warrant-bounded-authority/formal/",
          "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/formal/warrant-bounded-authority.md",
          "relationship": "formal-candidate-child-of-candidate",
          "normative": false,
          "formalCandidateVersion": 1,
          "formalCandidateStatus": "experimental",
          "authorityPath": "drafts/warrant-bounded-authority.md"
        },
        "id": "warrant-bounded-authority",
        "title": "Warrant bounded authority",
        "status": "promoted",
        "slotHint": 10,
        "path": "/drafts/warrant-bounded-authority/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/warrant-bounded-authority/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/warrant-bounded-authority.md",
        "relationship": "candidate-before-promotion",
        "normative": false,
        "claimBoundary": "This candidate is preserved as source lineage promoted into numbered draft KFD-10. KFD-10 allocates Warrant as the canonical authority coordinate but does not replace domain authorization systems, mandate one token or approval shape, establish active status, or prove universal necessity."
      },
      {
        "id": "claim-assessment-decision-admission",
        "title": "Claim, Assessment, Decision, and Admission",
        "status": "promoted",
        "slotHint": 11,
        "path": "/drafts/claim-assessment-decision-admission/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/claim-assessment-decision-admission/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/claim-assessment-decision-admission.md",
        "relationship": "candidate-before-promotion",
        "normative": false,
        "claimBoundary": "This candidate is preserved as source lineage allocated to numbered draft KFD-11 by the 2026-07-21 pre-stable Foundation Revision. It does not replace KFD-2 Claim or Assessment semantics, activate KFD-11, require four physical records, or prove universal cross-domain minimality."
      },
      {
        "formal": {
          "id": "federated-work-continuity-formal",
          "path": "/drafts/federated-work-continuity/formal/",
          "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/federated-work-continuity/formal/",
          "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/formal/federated-work-continuity.md",
          "relationship": "formal-candidate-child-of-candidate",
          "normative": false,
          "formalCandidateVersion": 1,
          "formalCandidateStatus": "experimental",
          "authorityPath": "drafts/federated-work-continuity.md"
        },
        "id": "federated-work-continuity",
        "title": "Federated Work Continuity",
        "status": "incubating",
        "path": "/drafts/federated-work-continuity/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/federated-work-continuity/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/federated-work-continuity.md",
        "relationship": "candidate-before-promotion",
        "normative": false,
        "claimBoundary": "This incubating candidate preserves a perspective-generated Work hypothesis before federation dogfood. It does not establish an independent Work entity, allocate a KFD number, supersede Initiative, prefer entity over derived-view semantics, prove cross-domain transfer, or qualify a product implementation."
      },
      {
        "id": "recursive-normative-self-conformance",
        "title": "Recursive normative self-conformance",
        "status": "merged",
        "path": "/drafts/recursive-normative-self-conformance/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/recursive-normative-self-conformance/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/recursive-normative-self-conformance.md",
        "relationship": "candidate-before-promotion",
        "normative": false,
        "claimBoundary": "This pre-number Candidate was merged into the explicit composition of KFD-1, KFD-2, KFD-5, KFD-11, and the fixed Self-Conformance Profile under a no-new-kfd disposition. It has no slot hint, number, active status, self-certification, merge authority, or release authority."
      },
      {
        "id": "durable-result-identity-availability",
        "title": "Durable Result Identity and Availability Separation",
        "status": "incubating",
        "path": "/drafts/durable-result-identity-availability/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/drafts/durable-result-identity-availability/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/drafts/durable-result-identity-availability.md",
        "relationship": "candidate-before-promotion",
        "normative": false,
        "claimBoundary": "This incubating Candidate preserves a portable separation hypothesis generated from Buildchain v4 Stage Capsule. It has no slot hint, number, active status, cross-domain qualification, independent implementation, production-reuse authority, certification, or preference over subsumption, rejection, and no-new-kfd outcomes."
      }
    ]
  },
  "decisions": [
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/1/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/1/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-1-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/1/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/1/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-1-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 3,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-1.md",
        "sha256": "5ec81c119cd43317949c5128ddadacc46fc8121ec3b19568e82b050598750a12"
      },
      "id": "KFD-1",
      "number": 1,
      "kind": "procedure",
      "status": "active",
      "title": "Facts must not drift",
      "path": "/1/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/1/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-1.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/2/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/2/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-2-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/2/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/2/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-2-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 1,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-2.md",
        "sha256": "903834cb8465d90c4de18f05e564e5c0c9a0704a1308abddb093801c420eab6d"
      },
      "id": "KFD-2",
      "number": 2,
      "kind": "principle",
      "status": "active",
      "title": "Trust must start from facts",
      "path": "/2/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/2/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-2.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/3/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/3/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-3-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/3/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/3/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-3-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 1,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-3.md",
        "sha256": "239d24abf81e2d671e992a49534d721130bbc041cd22d5a4280b61d3d8672586"
      },
      "id": "KFD-3",
      "number": 3,
      "kind": "principle",
      "status": "active",
      "title": "Cooperation must start from trusted value",
      "path": "/3/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/3/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-3.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/4/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/4/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-4-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/4/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/4/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-4-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 2,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-4.md",
        "sha256": "811134da84de1715a31cbf381d3e9185f8e2aad47d9c07a1d34132ef34744d78"
      },
      "id": "KFD-4",
      "number": 4,
      "kind": "principle",
      "status": "active",
      "title": "Views must remain bound to declared perspectives",
      "path": "/4/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/4/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-4.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/5/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/5/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-5-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/5/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/5/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-5-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 1,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-5.md",
        "sha256": "d6f1033b3bf5f7afe91fc800bbbc265e486e9e28f0b8e3d8013522beee6ecc3f"
      },
      "id": "KFD-5",
      "number": 5,
      "kind": "procedure",
      "status": "active",
      "title": "Primitive discovery must separate genesis from qualification",
      "path": "/5/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/5/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-5.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/6/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/6/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-6-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/6/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/6/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-6-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 1,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-6.md",
        "sha256": "9422364d645d83b19d6da17cfc8d07e6d46ac43ecd7c21a3b5863c692600d546"
      },
      "id": "KFD-6",
      "number": 6,
      "kind": "procedure",
      "status": "draft",
      "title": "Autonomous discovery must remain grounded in causal experience",
      "path": "/6/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/6/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-6.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/7/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/7/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-7-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/7/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/7/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-7-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 5,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-7.md",
        "sha256": "fe3196177a56640d205337bd1148e0a8764ecbbf91bc23d2c6d8a232c926f7d4"
      },
      "id": "KFD-7",
      "number": 7,
      "kind": "principle",
      "status": "active",
      "title": "Real-world action must keep state, occurrence, and action coordinates distinct",
      "path": "/7/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/7/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-7.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/8/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/8/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-8-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/8/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/8/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-8-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 1,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-8.md",
        "sha256": "ebce9500c48d7d70a20cdff1b5f6cfa856b00d7dd1853a16c897f76d7bb57bcf"
      },
      "id": "KFD-8",
      "number": 8,
      "kind": "principle",
      "status": "draft",
      "title": "Perspective must remain bound to admitted facts and declared loss",
      "path": "/8/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/8/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-8.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/9/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/9/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-9-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/9/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/9/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-9-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 1,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-9.md",
        "sha256": "1a4405bdd3cacfa02d2021afcb61a42190f965e01ecd3b113360528a46b99105"
      },
      "id": "KFD-9",
      "number": 9,
      "kind": "principle",
      "status": "draft",
      "title": "Continuing direction must outlive the actions that advance it",
      "path": "/9/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/9/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-9.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/10/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/10/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-10-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/10/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/10/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-10-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 1,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-10.md",
        "sha256": "59da2ef4dc8aa8da297bd26161b9208ac988d0bb59b27cdc06f5ceb4773d510c"
      },
      "id": "KFD-10",
      "number": 10,
      "kind": "principle",
      "status": "draft",
      "title": "Authority must remain explicit, bounded, and revocable",
      "path": "/10/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/10/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-10.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/11/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/11/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-11-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/11/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/11/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-11-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 1,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-11.md",
        "sha256": "fc8229061801b7b197fd4113cee1539d0f37743778fc311dfd19752fbde81e74"
      },
      "id": "KFD-11",
      "number": 11,
      "kind": "procedure",
      "status": "draft",
      "title": "Consequential settlement must separate claim, assessment, decision, and admission",
      "path": "/11/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/11/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-11.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/12/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/12/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-12-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/12/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/12/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-12-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 3,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-12.md",
        "sha256": "729255895449cb7efebd42258de68795478316b21979372c721dcf0d044f1e8f"
      },
      "id": "KFD-12",
      "number": 12,
      "kind": "principle",
      "status": "draft",
      "title": "Software work must keep Initiative and Assignment distinct",
      "path": "/12/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/12/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-12.md"
    },
    {
      "usage": {
        "path": "/13/usage/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/13/usage/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-13-usage.md"
      },
      "formal": {
        "path": "/13/formal/",
        "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/13/formal/",
        "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/docs/KFD-13-formal.md",
        "relationship": "formal-reference-child-of-decision",
        "normative": false,
        "formalModelVersion": 1,
        "formalModelStatus": "experimental",
        "authorityPath": "decisions/KFD-13.md",
        "sha256": "0a40abf1b336480298ce0f0db76260822bfca5521169df5df973089a4b79b7a3"
      },
      "id": "KFD-13",
      "number": 13,
      "kind": "procedure",
      "status": "draft",
      "title": "Project settlement must bind authorities without absorbing them",
      "path": "/13/",
      "url": "https://kfd.libkungfu.dev/13/",
      "source": "@kungfu-tech/kfd@1.0.0-alpha.67/decisions/KFD-13.md"
    }
  ],
  "relatedSurfaces": {
    "buildchain": "https://buildchain.libkungfu.dev/",
    "kungfu": "https://kungfu.tech/",
    "hub": "https://libkungfu.dev/"
  }
}