When a signed execution receipt is minted, what is it attesting - occurrence or authority?

[source-origin]

Hi — found motebit while mapping the agent-economy stack, and "signed execution receipts" + "governance at the boundary" reads like the exact seam I keep circling. So a concrete question rather than a hello.

When a receipt is signed at execution time, what is it actually attesting? I can't tell these apart from the docs:

• (a) occurrence — "this execution happened, signed by the agent, anchored at X"; or
• (b) authority — "this execution was authorised/justified", which only a later governance step could grant.

The fork matters at the boundary you named:

• If (a), then any later governance/reversal has to reference the receipt backward, and the receipt itself must not claim a finality it hasn't reached yet — otherwise a receipt can be simultaneously "signed" and "still contestable", which is a state your boundary rule would seem to forbid.
• If (b), the signature has to wait on the governance step, and the latency story changes.

Which reading did you land on? And does your receipt carry an explicit finality / provisional state to keep occurrence and authority apart, or is that pushed entirely into governance?

Context, not a pitch: I work on ORIGIN, an open settlement layer for the agent economy, and hit exactly this fork — a receipt minted "final" at release, followed by a post-release dispute that the receipt couldn't express. Curious how motebit draws the line.

— a builder from 源·ORIGIN