ENTITY v3.3.0 released - start with a bounded engineering challenge

[blackmore-technology-group]

ENTITY v3.3.0 is now published from the protected main branch.

The release adds the Verifiable Reality, Evidence and Economic Causality layer without replacing ENTITY's existing identity, authority, rights, provenance or market architecture.

The central boundary is explicit:

A valid signature or protocol-valid transition is not automatically objective external truth.

v3.3 separates:

1. cryptographic verification - did the expected key sign the exact record?
2. protocol verification - does the record/state transition obey ENTITY semantics?
3. reality/evidence verification - what evidence supports the external-world claim, who attested to it, and can it be challenged or superseded?

Release evidence

The protected v3.3.0 release records:

• 144/144 complete regression tests PASS;
• 16/16 targeted verifiable-reality tests PASS;
• 20/20 sealed reality vectors PASS (10 valid / 10 invalid);
• deterministic result SHA-256 82bd1f1fb328edd37a26d8ea60ede5a599c7d9af5027bffd73b9e52843b5a51d;
• sealed-kit SHA-256 f8b39ee01fb7346f33a57530e925b545d2bf9a770c7ec60724e28a4971d55a46.

Release: https://github.com/blackmore-technology-group/ENTITY/releases/tag/v3.3.0

Engineering evidence: https://github.com/blackmore-technology-group/ENTITY/blob/main/docs/ENGINEERING_EVIDENCE.md

Start here: https://github.com/blackmore-technology-group/ENTITY/blob/main/START_HERE.md

We are not asking a new contributor to implement ENTITY all at once

The contributor path is deliberately split into small, inspectable tasks:

• [GOOD FIRST ISSUE][FROZEN BASELINE] Reproduce ENTITY v3.4.2's inherited sealed Global Passport campaign on Linux #20 - reproduce the sealed v3.3 kit on Linux;
• [GOOD FIRST ISSUE][FROZEN BASELINE] Reproduce ENTITY v3.4.2's inherited sealed Global Passport campaign on macOS #21 - reproduce it on macOS;
• [GOOD FIRST ISSUE] Add a minimal v3.4.3 Evidence Object and claim-transition example #22 - add a minimal Evidence Object / claim-transition example;
• [REVIEW][HELP WANTED] Review ENTITY v3.4.3 claim-state transitions for ambiguity or unsafe escalation #23 - look for ambiguous or unsafe claim-state escalation;
• [THREAT MODEL][HELP WANTED] Challenge ENTITY v3.4.3's external reality-anchor boundary #24 - threat-model the external-reality-anchor boundary;
• [GOOD FIRST ISSUE][FROZEN BENCHMARK] Benchmark ENTITY v3.4.2's inherited 24-vector Global Passport verifier #25 - benchmark the 20-vector verifier;
• [GOOD FIRST ISSUE] Audit the ENTITY v3.4.3 onboarding path from a fresh clone #26 - audit the new-developer START_HERE path;
• [INTEROP][HELP WANTED][FROZEN TARGET] Independently implement the sealed Global Passport classifier carried by ENTITY v3.4.2 #27 - build a narrow independent v3.3 classifier without using BTG implementation code;
• [REVIEW][HELP WANTED] Find false-causality counterexamples in ENTITY v3.4.2 economic attribution #28 - challenge causal economic attribution with false-causality counterexamples.

A reproducible failure, ambiguity or counterexample is a useful contribution. It does not need to confirm our assumptions.

Independent implementation remains the important external milestone

BTG-controlled cross-language qualification is useful internal evidence, but it is not the same as unrelated external validation.

For an implementation to count as independent evidence, the implementer should control their own repository, choose their own architecture/libraries, use the public specification/test material, and avoid copying or porting BTG implementation code.

If the public material is insufficient to implement a rule cleanly, report that ambiguity rather than reading the BTG runtime and weakening the clean-room result.

Interoperability challenge: https://github.com/blackmore-technology-group/ENTITY/blob/main/docs/INTEROPERABILITY_CHALLENGE.md

If you are evaluating ENTITY, start small. Pick one vector, one boundary, one platform, one counterexample, or one narrow classifier and make the result reproducible.