Review and Reporting

Review and Reporting

A defensible review sequence

Use this sequence for an evidence review, an audit explanation, or a handoff between systems:

1. Define the question. Specify the target requirement, the workspace and immutable generation if applicable, and the exact document or bundle digests under review.
2. Identify source ownership. Name the source system for every external mission, lease, certificate, claim, or acceptance decision. CPCF's projection is not a transfer of that authority.
3. Check document identity. Verify the closed kind, generated schema identity, canonical subject, metadata, and source pointers.
4. Recompute trust. Use admitted keys, protected DSSE payloads, pinned identity, trusted time, policy sequence, lifecycle, and required role quorum. Do not accept self-carried keys, cached Booleans, unsigned time, or unsigned capabilities as authority.
5. Establish the snapshot. Record the analysis-basis digest and the material inputs. Do not mix witnesses from different snapshots.
6. Report dimensions separately. Preserve every satisfied, violated, unknown, and unknown_due_to_budget result.
7. State limits and next action. Identify declared bounds, missing evidence, incomplete implementation rows, and the least-effectful step that could reduce uncertainty.

Suggested report structure

Field	Include
Scope	Workspace, generation, exact digests, question, and declared contract.
Sources	CPCF objects and the external systems that remain source of record.
Trust basis	Policy identity, trusted-time evidence, signers, roles, and quorum result.
Findings	Relevant independent dimensions and their unmodified statuses.
Effects	Whether any external-runner receipt exists; distinguish a receipt from containment or success proof.
Limits	Unknown evidence, budget limits, model scope, and non-claims.
Next safe step	A read, evidence request, or bounded action that has the necessary authority.

Phrases to avoid

Avoid phrases such as “the collective phase was achieved,” “the agents are independent because they have different labels,” “the exit code proves success,” “the experiment proves causality,” or “the runner is safely isolated.” Each substitutes a broader conclusion for the record actually checked.

Prefer statements that name the result and its boundary, for example: “The declared structural reachability condition is satisfied in immutable snapshot S; causal formation remains unknown.”

Read Evidence and Authority and Operational Profile and Scientific Scope for the underlying distinctions.