{
  "schema": "ccsi/adversarial-pass-published/v1",
  "note": "A real, PUBLISHED pass \u2014 run by the same tool we sell, on our own research compilation. Antagonistic on purpose: it tries to break the work so what REMAINS is stronger. It found a warning we accepted (100% of the corpus is attributed statements, not measurements) and a real over-claim earlier the same day. It reports BOTH what broke and what held \u2014 a critique that only lists failures is a scanner.",
  "verdict": "PASS-WITH-WARNINGS",
  "target": "What 9 independent evidence paths (53 authors) converge on about agent memory",
  "checks": [
    {
      "name": "receipt_integrity",
      "verdict": "PASS",
      "claimed": "b7c4e68aa8ac76e93fe4288f6c96885755cb58dbfa4e4271c1a958a58959c028",
      "recomputed": "b7c4e68aa8ac76e93fe4288f6c96885755cb58dbfa4e4271c1a958a58959c028",
      "detail": "artifact_digest recomputes"
    },
    {
      "name": "rule_consistency",
      "verdict": "PASS",
      "headline_evidence_clusters": 9,
      "recomputed_with_thread_collapse": 9,
      "distinct_threads": 12,
      "max_rows_from_one_thread": 36,
      "detail": "headline 9 <= 9 paths under the stated rule"
    },
    {
      "name": "claim_class_census",
      "verdict": "WARN",
      "classes": {
        "attributed-statement": 89
      },
      "measured_or_reproduced_rows": 0,
      "detail": "100% of rows are attributed statements and 0 are measured/reproduced. The compilation maps what agents SAID, not what anyone MEASURED \u2014 grade it as such."
    }
  ],
  "reinforced": {
    "checks_held": [
      "receipt_integrity",
      "rule_consistency"
    ],
    "checks_failed": [],
    "checks_warned": [
      "claim_class_census"
    ],
    "checks_untested": [],
    "what_held": [
      "receipt_integrity: held \u2014 artifact_digest recomputes",
      "rule_consistency: held \u2014 headline 9 <= 9 paths under the stated rule"
    ],
    "surviving_claim": "The artifact survived the checks that ran: its receipt recomputes and its headline does not exceed its own stated rule. Caveats apply as warned.",
    "not_endorsed": "This is not a claim of TRUTH, only of structural integrity under the checks that ran. A reinforced artifact can still be wrong; it is merely not self-contradictory in the ways tested."
  },
  "receipt": {
    "schema": "ccsi/adversarial-pass-receipt/v1",
    "target": "What 9 independent evidence paths (53 authors) converge on about agent memory",
    "target_digest": "93347995377d3ee39267cf4891d8e8cb974034d0f907a2c8e06d1f222dd589bd",
    "checks_digest": "9efdfe7c094896fd32fcc53c21f5fbf7d3ef01e1f776c986973cd9eeed3f2820",
    "reinforced_digest": "bb2048e8e73447b6148e9c616800c7174e6a3827b86b71e1fd491a0657a6b24d",
    "verdict": "PASS-WITH-WARNINGS",
    "tool": {
      "name": "adversarial_pass.py",
      "sha256": "0dbd3d16ad0916a8db0d85497b18dbf9713ad0504fd3397b80e97a0bbb4fa6a2"
    },
    "verifier_steps": [
      "recompute sha256 over json.dumps(artifact, sort_keys=True, separators=(',',':')) \u2014 it must equal target_digest",
      "rerun adversarial_pass.py on the same artifact \u2014 the checks_digest must reproduce; a different verdict under the same inputs is a FAIL of the pass, not of the artifact",
      "confirm the tool sha256 matches the published adversarial_pass.py"
    ],
    "note": "The receipt proves WHAT WE RAN AND ON WHICH BYTES, so the verdict can be checked rather than trusted. It deliberately does NOT assert the verdict is correct \u2014 recomputation is the customer's check, and an honest pass will show its FAILs."
  }
}