8000 Record protected publication authority evidence by Mnehmos · Pull Request #37 · Mnehmos/MathOS · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

Record protected publication authority evidence - #37

Merged
Mnehmos merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/record-authority-evidence
Jul 20, 2026
Merged

Record protected publication authority evidence#37
Mnehmos merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/record-authority-evidence

Conversation

@Mnehmos
@Mnehmos Mnehmos commented Jul 20, 2026 •
edited
Loading
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

  • Replace the pending issue Phase 3: define publication-profile proof authority and retained evidence #21 authority checkpoint with exact merged-main CI, protected-publication, artifact, and evidence identities.
  • Record the independently recomputed 72-file audit and the sole authoritative evidence/2 semantic.
  • Check only the release items now supported by retained evidence: pinned Lean environments and enforced hole/unsafe/axiom policy.
  • Keep protected refutation evidence, full SPEC replay, derived source truth, pilots, and MathOS 1.0 explicitly open.

Change class

Select one:

  • Class 0: Administrative or documentation
  • Class 1: Standard implementation
  • Class 2: Verifier-critical
  • Class 3: Release, migration, or security-sensitive

Affected trust boundary: no runtime boundary changes. This PR records the exact evidence produced by the already-merged receipt-bound publication-authority gate.

TDD evidence

  • Acceptance criteria were defined before implementation
  • A focused test or formal obligation failed first for the expected reason
  • The smallest coherent implementation made it pass
  • Refactoring preserved passing behavior
  • Relevant unit and integration suites pass
  • Failure paths and boundary cases are covered
  • Documentation-only exception applies and is explained below

Red evidence: documentation-only evidence capture after the protected run. No production implementation changed.

Green evidence: the exact merged main CI and protected publication runs passed; the downloaded artifact and a separately downloaded ZIP passed independent hash and semantic audits.

Commands and results:

  • cargo fmt --all -- --check
  • git diff --check
  • .work/audit-authority-run.py against run 29726693055 — 72 files, 25 roles, 24 unique final hashes, 8 empty stderr files, and exact canonical evidence/2 passed
  • separate gh api artifact ZIP download — SHA-256 exactly matched GitHub's archive digest
  • independent read-only review cross-checked every new commit/tree/run/job/artifact/hash/timestamp claim

Mathematical verification

  • No mathematical trust boundary is affected
  • Candidate output was checked independently from its generator
  • Formal proof passes the pinned kernel or checker
  • Counterexample premises and violated conclusion were checked
  • Assumptions, domains, tolerances, and dependency pins are recorded
  • Claim, theorem, witness, or artifact identifiers are linked

Verifier and result: one exact protected lean_kernel_proof is accepted and authoritative for the named formalization version. No source-claim truth is asserted, and no protected refutation example is claimed.

Provenance and licensing

  • No new third-party code, data, model output, or dependency
  • New third-party material has source, license, and attribution recorded
  • Generated artifacts include tool, version, configuration, seed, and hash as applicable
  • MathCorpus and RL export implications are documented
  • No credentials, private data, or access-controlled material are included

Provenance references: PR #36, issue #21, main CI run 29726693096, protected publication run 29726693055, and artifact 8454565233.

Risk and recovery

Known limitations: receipt-bound semantic/CAS revalidation is not the typed-action plus event-chain replay required by SPEC section 16.6. The broader replay box remains open. The proof/refutation box also remains open until a protected refutation artifact exists.

Rollback or recovery plan: revert this documentation-only commit if an identity is disproved. The retained GitHub artifact and issue/PR evidence comments remain independently inspectable.

Follow-up work: implement the separate derived-status gate from exact current authority plus exact current verified fidelity, then complete Pilot A through the real CLI/MCP paths.

Review readiness

  • The branch is current with main
  • The pull request addresses one coherent concern
  • Required checks pass
  • Review threads are resolved
  • I have not represented generated output as independently verified evidence

Records the final durable evidence for #21. MathOS 1.0 is not complete.

@chatgpt-codex-connector
chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Jul 20, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

@coderabbitai
coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 20, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@Mnehmos, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 27 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 0207cc5b-e400-4c5b-a25c-c27e575f1ee2

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0ef8a13 and 1a6ef61.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • docs/implementation/RELEASE_CHECKLIST.md
  • docs/implementation/STATUS.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch docs/record-authority-evidence

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@Mnehmos
Mnehmos merged commit fe60adf into main Jul 20, 2026
6 checks passed
@Mnehmos
Mnehmos commented Jul 20, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Canonical-main follow-up after the evidence ledger merge

PR #37 merged as fe60adf037ebe6a67ce8a96bf29fdb256ebde0d2, tree abce3ff03d3f8821d07ed73d94f8e85c808a6f90.

  • Main CI run 29727800832 passed all five jobs on that exact SHA: real storage 88304834787, Rust Ubuntu 88304834804, legacy Python 88304834850, pinned Lean 88304834854, and Rust Windows 88304835029.
  • Protected publication run 29727800801, job 88304834439, passed every candidate, attestation, challenge, ingestion, authority-promotion, and retention step.
  • Artifact 8454995294, publication-boundary-fe60adf037ebe6a67ce8a96bf29fdb256ebde0d2, is 82,746 bytes. GitHub reports sha256:a0de61913a4cb35f898602791fd4f7bce7848fa8d24a46687d862f737d61b7cd; a separate gh api ZIP download reproduced the same hash.
  • The parameterized independent audit passed all 72 files, 25 retained roles, 24 deduplicated final artifact hashes, eight empty stderr files, 18 false boolean authority fields, exact commit/tree/run/attestation identities, and the sole final authoritative semantic.
  • Current authority evidence: ID 019f7ea2-34fe-72d3-bdce-6d5b2e4e5b0b, canonical hash 6702807d369a3d0653d97b57d515610ef1f2ca679a5afc236fbca045cc3b20d9, kind lean_kernel_proof, actor publication-boundary, timestamp 2026-07-20T08:26:27Z.
  • Current formalization subject: 019f7ea2-0036-7331-8ea4-ccf3423134da at version fa8e61403cc1d55d8313f49d80c98535f8ad2d2c02f8625551f87d7b4fd956d6; request b70357cb89a927ccba60f30dcd5133ae880fc9ea525151b44f2b53329ed5e186; receipt 9cad0a04843ec091e082213ba39e17495ef101fd03b06615e8a3bb3ff7333112; protected report bf0b597a0b75d595005d6d2dc8a472053e92e8060b559c070929ac4ed7a856eb; retained closure 292563112c1158ad5e366d8359389f52550f51eb20dffd8d86a6780699142745.
  • Verified Rekor timestamp: 2026-07-20T08:26:16Z.

The evidence ledger is therefore healthy on current canonical main. This remains exact formalization authority only; no source-claim truth or MathOS 1.0 completion is claimed.

This was referenced Jul 20, 2026
Closed
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@Mnehmos
0