Repository navigation
Worked example: Case D (post-commit divergence) for horizon-shield#51 pilot - #139
Merged
Merged
Conversation
… pilot Proposed fourth case for the live pilot scoped in ogasurfproject-jpg/horizon-shield#51 (aeoess, ogasurfproject-jpg, babyblueviper1 -- one paid audit call, three sets of receipts). The issue explicitly invites this: "Any other project that wants to run its approach on the same workflow is welcome." The pilot's own cases A/B/C are all about the moment of the chain of receipts (paid+executed+accepted; acceptance fails; budget exceeded). None answer: what if the JCCDB cost database an estimate was audited against changes AFTER acceptance already closed validly? That's exactly post_commit_consistency/POST_COMMIT_DIVERGENCE, shipped earlier the same day in a different domain (execution-join-ref-v1 PR#137, file-write approvals for astrogilda). examples/conformance/execution-join-ref/horizon-shield-pilot-case-d/ composes that invariant onto the request_occurrence/task/ execution-receipt shape frozen in COMPANION_v0.md/PILOT_v0.md (commit 4d720ace, MIT, cited not vendored -- no code of theirs is imported). Explicit scope limit: authority_and_payment (MUSUBI/APS) and acceptance (babyblueviper1's work-acceptance-record) are DECLARED, not reimplemented -- this is a fourth, complementary check, not a competing implementation of the three roles the pilot's participants already cover. 2/2 vectors pass: case-a (happy path, shows the new invariant doesn't interfere) and case-d (the new case -- every other invariant stays true, only post_commit_consistency fails). No PR to their repos -- own worked example citing their frozen inputs, same pattern this repo always uses. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Proposed fourth case for the live pilot scoped in
ogasurfproject-jpg/horizon-shield#51(aeoess, ogasurfproject-jpg with HORIZON SHIELD real, babyblueviper1 — one paid audit call, three sets of receipts: authority+payment, APS, acceptance). The issue explicitly invites this: "Any other project that wants to run its approach on the same workflow is welcome; the inputs below do not change for that."The gap
The pilot's own cases A/B/C are all about the moment of the chain of receipts:
None answer: what if the JCCDB cost database an estimate was audited against changes after A already closed validly? That's exactly
post_commit_consistency/POST_COMMIT_DIVERGENCE, shipped earlier the same day in a different domain (execution-join-ref-v1, #137, file-write approvals for astrogilda).What this is
examples/conformance/execution-join-ref/horizon-shield-pilot-case-d/composes that invariant onto therequest_occurrence/task/execution-receiptobject shapes frozen inCOMPANION_v0.md/PILOT_v0.md(commit4d720ace, MIT — cited, not vendored, no code of theirs is imported).Explicit scope limit (this is the point, not a shortcut):
authority_and_payment(MUSUBI/APS) andacceptance(babyblueviper1's work-acceptance-record) are declared, not reimplemented. This is a fourth, complementary check, not a competing implementation of the three roles the pilot's own participants already cover.Vectors
case-a-within-paid-accepted-001: analogue of the pilot's own Case A, shows the new invariant doesn't interfere with the happy path.case-d-jccdb-snapshot-divergence-001: the new case. Same request/task/execution-receipt as A — the original call was genuinely within, paid, accepted. ~24h later an independent observation of the JCCDB snapshot gets a differentresponse_sha256.canonical_envelope,chain_integrity,authority_and_payment,acceptanceall staytrue; onlypost_commit_consistencyfails —POST_COMMIT_DIVERGENCE.Also adds a cross-reference from
docs/spec/execution-join-ref-v1.mdto this worked example.No PR to their repos — same pattern this repo always uses for cross-project worked examples.
Reproduce
Test plan
verify.py→ 2/2 passpost_commit_consistencyto true (and correctly flags the now-stale declaredfalse); breaking Case A'stask_sha256binding correctly failscanonical_envelope/chain_integrityexecution-join-ref's own 14-vector suite re-verified unaffected (14/14)