Evidence Coverage for Intent-Bound Execution: Scope, Obligations, and Cutoff Reasoning
Authors define a cutoff-based model that judges whether execution-evidence obligations are complete, incomplete, or unknown.
The paper models retrospective coverage of declared execution-evidence obligations rather than treating authenticated records as a complete account. Scope binds a structured intent, an exact candidate, one analytical attempt, evidence boundaries, a stage horizon, a fixed obligation profile, a named verifier, and an assessment cutoff. Branch and trigger premises create obligation instances, while source competence, integrity, and bindings decide admissibility. Reporting outcomes are COMPLETE_WITHIN_SCOPE, INCOMPLETE, or UNKNOWN, illustrated with service-principal-disablement cases that separate missing final records, late delivery, and limits of generalizing one attempt.
- Coverage is judged only against obligations due at a declared cutoff.
- Results are COMPLETE_WITHIN_SCOPE, INCOMPLETE, or UNKNOWN.
- Service-principal cases show missing records and late delivery.
- Completeness depends on the declared profile and assessment premises.
From the original article
1 min read at arxiv.orgA verifier may authenticate every available record and still lack grounds to call an execution account complete. Such a claim requires a justified account of which records were due for the execution being assessed. We present an analytical model for retrospective coverage of declared execution-evidence obligations.
By Mengting Wu · arxiv.org
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.