informed-decision/docs/specs/EvidenceModel.md

# Evidence Model

**Repo:** informed-decision
**Workplan task:** `INFD-WP-0001-T06`
**Status:** draft, pending review
**Companions:** `ProductRequirementsDocument.md`, `UseCaseCatalog.md`,
`ArchitectureBlueprint.md` (gated on `INFD-WP-0001-T02`)
**Normative algorithm:** `history/20260909-initial-exploration/canonicalize.md`
**Governed implementation:** `informed_decision/canonicalize.py`
**Tests:** `tests/test_canonicalize.py`

---

## 1. What this model claims

> **This person, in this role, was shown this view, and bound this act.**

Not *"the file was signed"*. The difference is the whole product. A signature
over a document proves a key was used on some bytes; it does not establish what
the signer was looking at when they decided, which is the question an auditor
actually asks and the question no e-signature product answers.

The mechanism is **dynamic linking**: the human-readable content actually
presented is canonicalized and its digest is bound into the act.

## 2. What this model does not claim

Stated first, because an evidence model that oversells is worse than none.

**E-01 — It does not prove the person understood.** It proves what was
presented and what was explicitly acknowledged. Comprehension is not
observable and this model does not pretend to observe it.

**E-02 — It does not prove the person read anything.** Deliberately. Evidence of
informedness is the hash of the presented view plus explicit acknowledgment —
never dwell time, scroll depth, or attention telemetry. That choice trades a
weaker claim for the absence of surveillance, and the trade is intentional
(`INTENT.md` principle 12, `PR-70`/`PR-71`).

**E-03 — It does not survive a compromised surface.** `view_hash` is computed by
the same component that renders. A compromised surface can present X and attest
Y. This is structurally the same residual `approval-engine` names for
adversarial omission at a compromised source, and it is not closed here, not
closable at this layer, and never to be described as closed.

**E-04 — A hash chain proves records were not altered or truncated after
arrival. It cannot prove a record was never sent.** Carried over from
`approval-engine`'s reasoning rather than rediscovered: a suppressed event
leaves the chain perfectly intact and verification reports intact. Completeness
is a separate obligation met by cadence, not by chaining.

**E-05 — Stage 1 binding is organizational only.** No AES, no QES. The object
carries `binding_level` so higher levels are expressible without a schema
change; nothing above organizational is implemented or claimed.

**E-06 — A Stage 1 escalation is an assertion, not a verified claim.** Without
the mandate graph, guard `G_ESC` cannot be fully evaluated. The bundle records
what the approver asserted and marks it unverified.

## 3. The two hashes

| | `view_hash` | `awareness_hash` |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Over | the binding document | the awareness document |
| Signed | yes, from organizational level up | **no** |
| Purpose | what the person committed to | what they were oriented with |
| In AES/QES signed attributes | yes | no, unless promotion ran |

**Binding allow-list:** `memo_id`, `memo_version`, `question`, `requested_act`,
`binding_level`, `brief`, `locale`, `ui_release`, normalized `packet`,
normalized `highlights`, `binding`, and optionally `awareness_promoted`.

**Awareness allow-list:** proposed hat and its source, available hats and
scopes, last session, situation note.

Profile: JCS-inspired restricted JSON — UTF-8, keys sorted by code unit, no
insignificant whitespace, integers only, unknown keys stripped, nulls dropped.

```
canonical = dumps(document)
hash      = SHA-256(UTF-8(canonical))
```

### Why the split exists

The login case forced it and it now applies everywhere. Defaulting a role to
last-used is **required** for situational awareness — an operator who cannot see
which hat they are about to wear is less safe, not more — and is **forbidden**
from silently entering the signed payload. A person must not be bound to
orientation material they did not commit to.

Promotion is the only bridge: moving a field from awareness into binding creates
a new memo version, invalidates outstanding presentations, and copies the named
fields into `awareness_promoted` where `view_hash` covers them (guard
`G_PROMOTE`).

## 4. The four isolation properties

These are the model. Each is a test in `tests/test_canonicalize.py` and each
must stay green; a failure means `view_hash` no longer means what §1 claims.

| # | Property | Protects | Test |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Shuffling object keys does not change either hash | Any verifier, in any language, agrees with us | `test_key_order_does_not_change_*` |
| 2 | Editing an awareness field does not change `view_hash` | The person is bound only to what they committed to | `test_editing_awareness_does_not_change_view_hash` |
| 3 | Changing `binding.target` **does** change `view_hash` | Positive control — without it, 2 could pass vacuously | `test_changing_binding_target_changes_view_hash` |
| 4 | Selecting a hat after login does not rewrite `view_hash` | Post-bind session state is a different object | `test_post_bind_hat_selection_does_not_change_view_hash` |

Property 3 is not decorative. Properties 1, 2 and 4 are all *negative* — they
assert that things do **not** change the hash. A canonicalizer that returned a
constant would pass all three. Property 3, plus the per-field variants over
`question`, `requested_act`, `binding_level` and `packet`, is what makes the
suite meaningful.

**Published vectors** reproduce byte for byte and are asserted in CI:

```
login       view_hash       492d9d31…1b06b8
login       awareness_hash  2be77429…4fe05d1
ADR-0042    view_hash       1c89ec07…e91f202
```

**Provenance is tested.** `history/20260909-initial-exploration/` is never
edited. `test_governed_vectors_match_the_preserved_history_copy` asserts the
governed fixtures have not drifted from the founding copies, so a silent edit to
a vector to make a failing test pass is itself a test failure.

## 5. The presentation record

Every render creates one. It carries:

- `memo_id`, `memo_version`
- `principal` — who it was shown to
- `locale`, `ui_release` — both inside `view_hash`
- `rendered_at`
- `acked_highlight_ids`
- `view_hash`, `awareness_hash`
- `phase` — `pre_bind` | `bind` | `post_bind`

A disposition references exactly one presentation, of the same memo version
(guard `G_PRES`). A presentation taken at version *n* cannot bind after the memo
advances to *n+1* — no silent upgrade (`NC-07`).

Because `locale` is inside `view_hash`, the same memo read in German and in
English produces two different presentations of one binding. Intended, and
documented rather than smoothed over (`PR-61`).

## 6. The evidence bundle

An **export**, not a screenshot (`INTENT.md` principle 7). Contains the memo and
all its versions, every presentation with both hashes, every disposition, the
thread, the route as executed, and the append-only hash chain.

Requirements:

- **Verifies offline.** No network, no access to this service. A verifier
  recomputes `view_hash` from the bundle's own binding document and compares.
- **Detects mutation.** Altering any covered field breaks verification.
- **States its own bound.** The residuals in §2 travel with the bundle as
  metadata. An auditor must not have to read this document to learn that E-03
  exists.
- **Marks unverified assertions as such** — see E-06.

## 7. Relationship to `audit-core`

`audit-core` holds the archive; this repository holds the operative record and
produces the export. This surface emits its transitions there and does not
duplicate the archive's role.

Its guarantee is bounded and the bound is inherited, not re-litigated:
`audit-core` is not WORM or object-locked, its tamper evidence is conditional on
live preconditions, and stronger custody was **decided against** in statute §16.
This repository must not plan around a stronger archive, and must not imply the
bundle is more durable than the archive it reconciles against.

## 8. Open — `view_hash` versus the approval binding digest

**Unresolved.** Filed as `INFD-IN-0001` R3 with `gate-house`.

`approval-engine`'s claim carries *"a digest over the same canonical binding the
decision point already computes."* `view_hash` is also a digest over "the
binding". They cover different material: the approval digest exists with no
human in the loop; `view_hash` additionally covers brief, packet, highlights,
locale and UI release.

**Ruled `GH-DEC-2026-012` R3, and now re-opened as `INFD-IN-0004`.** The ruling:
distinct attestations with an authority rule — the binding digest is
authoritative for what the request *is*, `view_hash` for what was *shown*,
neither substitutable, and a disagreement between them is a finding against the
presenting surface rather than a fact about the request. Linkage by
co-reference, not nesting.

`approval-engine` has since published what its digests actually cover
(`docs/approval-claim.md`) and recommends the opposite linkage — that our
binding document carry their `binding.digest` as a field, which is the option
`GH-DEC-2026-012` refused. Their reason is the stronger version of the risk we
raised: our binding slice canonicalizes `principal` and `target`, two of their
five digest fields, so co-reference by identifier alone leaves **two
independent canonicalizations of one act** rather than removing the duplication.

Raised as a finding rather than resolved bilaterally
(`docs/finding-r3-linkage-conflict.md`). **The ruling stands and nothing has
changed here pending a re-ruling.**

For reference, three hashes answering three questions:

| Hash | Owner | Covers | Answers |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `binding.digest` | `approval-engine` | `action`, `actor`, `principal`, `purpose`, `target` | which **act** is approved |
| `binding.pdp_digest` | `approval-engine` | the PDP's decision-request binding | which **decision request** |
| `view_hash` | here | brief, packet, highlights, locale, UI release, binding slice | what a **person was shown** | Three candidate outcomes and their costs are set out in
`docs/gate-house-decision-request-layer-placement.md` §2 R3. The outcome to be
avoided is both digests shipping with no stated authority rule, leaving the
estate with two canonicalizations of one act.

## 8b. Where `view_hash` actually lives (Stage 1)

**It is not in the approval entry, by the engine's deliberate design.**

`POST /v1/approvals/{id}/entries` reads the request body and **discards it**.
Approver identity, `assurance` and `evidence_ref` come only from the verified
token (`evidence_ref` is `jwt-sha256:<digest of the presented token>`). The
reasoning is sound and we adopt it rather than argue it: a caller-supplied
approver field is provenance, not evidence, and that entry is currently the one
record containing no caller-supplied data.

Stage 1 arrangement, requiring no change to `approval-engine`:

1. this repository holds the presentation record and computes both hashes;
2. it emits that record to `audit-core` as its own evidence;
3. correlation to the approval entry is by **`(approval_id, subject,
   approved_at)`** — all three returned by the engine after a successful entry.

**Consequence for an auditor, stated plainly:** someone holding only the
approval object cannot reach the presentation. They need this surface's record
or `audit-core` as well. `GOAL.md` DoD-3 — "the approval entry is
reconstructable from a `view_hash`" — is satisfied by the correlation triple,
not by a hash stored on the entry.

Putting the binding *inside* the approval object would be a real change request
against `approval-engine` (an optional, verified-alongside-token `view_hash` on
the entry) and it is doctrine before it is a change request, so it goes to
`gate-house` first. Not raised at Stage 1; recorded here so the option is not
lost.

### `assurance` is the only carrier of authentication facts

`approval-engine` persists the token's `assurance` claim verbatim and
interprets nothing — an empty `{}` is *accepted* and evidences nothing. It is
therefore the single place where "this was bound under MFA" survives into the
approval record. The shape must carry authentication method, `acr`/`amr` and
`auth_time` at minimum, and `informed-decision` and `key-cape` own it between
them. Nothing downstream reconstructs it.

### Principal type is verified evidence; `subject_id` is not

Schema v4 records `entries[].principal_type` from the verified token. Design
principle 10 (humans bind, agents draft) is enforceable from the evidence chain
by reading that field. Never infer it from the shape of `subject_id` — a naming
convention is not a verified claim. Entries written before v4 are `null` and
must not be read as `human`.

## 8c. Act-scope is not membership — `GH-DEC-2026-013` §5

Gate House made the sharpest observation anyone has made about this object
model, and it is worth carrying in full because it changes what we record even
though it changes no field.

Two different facts are being asked to travel in one claim named `tenant`:

| Fact | Property of | Who needs it |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Which scope is this act being entered into | the **act** | this repository's binding slice |
| Which tenant is this person a member of | the **principal** | `approval-engine`'s exact-match admission |

> *"A binding slice that must commit the scope being entered should commit THAT
> SCOPE, not borrow a membership claim to stand in for it."*

**Our schema already does the right thing.** `binding.target` is the act-scope:
the tenant, environment and system being entered, committed in the binding
document and therefore inside `view_hash`. It is not derived from, and must
never be replaced by, the token's `tenant` claim.

What was missing is not a field but a **statement and a record**:

- `binding.target` is the authoritative act-scope commitment. The `tenant` claim
  is a membership fact about the principal and is **not** the act-scope.
- The two must never be collapsed. Where they agree, that agreement is itself a
  fact worth recording; where they disagree, issuance is refused upstream
  (`key-cape` `329e48f`) and this surface records the refusal rather than
  choosing a winner.
- **The `tenant` claim's provenance is recorded.** `key-cape` emits `tenant` as
  a bare string, so a consumer cannot tell a tenant the *directory asserted about
  the person* from one a *registration supplied about the client they came
  through*. `GH-DEC-2026-013` §5 requires the claim to carry its provenance;
  until it does, this surface records which route the value arrived by rather
  than storing an undifferentiated string.

This is the same rule as `unknown` versus `absent` in the stance map and
`erased` versus `never held` in §8d: **wherever a system reaches one appearance
by two routes, the record must say which route**, or the safer reading becomes
unavailable to everyone.

## 8d. What commitment-only does and does not establish — `GH-DEC-2026-014`

Commitment-only emission is **granted for Stage 1**. It is granted on the test
`GH-DEC-2026-013` set: its distinguishing case fails closed. A reviewer who
cannot obtain the content gets **no** reconstruction rather than a **wrong** one.

**It satisfies non-alteration. It does not satisfy reconstructability, and must
not be described as doing so** — not here, not in `audit-core`'s documents, and
not in any conformance claim.

A commitment-only record is weaker than an archive in a specific way. An archive
proves records were not altered or truncated after arrival, never that one was
never sent (§2, E-04). A commitment additionally **does not carry what it commits
to**. It establishes that the commitment was made when it says and has not
changed. About *what was committed to* it establishes nothing — except
conditionally: **if** a document is later produced, whether it is the one.

### The gap, in the right words

An earlier draft of ours said commitment-only "leaves us able to erase the
content". That understates where the problem sits, and Gate House corrected it:

> **Commitment-only moves *integrity* out of our control and leaves
> *availability* entirely inside it. The party that can withhold the content is
> the party the evidence is about.**

That is the condition limit 3 exists to prevent, **reduced and not removed**. The
reduction is real. It is not sufficient alone — which is why the grant carries
the condition below.

### The condition that makes the grant safe

**Non-production must be detectable as a finding, not present as an absence.**

If the independent path holds only a commitment, a reviewer who asks for content
and gets nothing cannot distinguish *erased*, *withheld*, *lost*, and *never
held*. The absence reads as an unremarkable blank.

So the evidence path must carry, alongside the commitment:

1. an assertion that committed content **exists**, and
2. **where custody sits**,

such that failure to produce at retrieval is a **conformance failure
attributable to the custodian**.

> *A commitment with no assertion that something is being committed to is
> indistinguishable from a commitment to nothing.*

This is **not a reversal candidate**. If it proves expensive, the answer is a
cheaper mechanism for the same property, never removal of the property.

### Residual, again

Not closed, not credited. The existence assertion narrows the erasure gap — a
detectable non-production tells a reviewer something is missing and who owed it.
It does not produce the missing thing.

## 9. Signed attributes (L4+, horizon)

When AES/QES arrives, the signed attributes carry `memo_id`, `memo_version`,
`disposition.verb` and `presentation.view_hash`. They do **not** carry
`awareness_hash` unless promotion ran. Recorded here so nothing built at Stage 1
forecloses it.