Changed or withdrawn authority
Valid and invalid requests, altered targets or parameters, stale grants, and permission withdrawn before dispatch.
Technology / Evidence & evaluation
Technical evidence
and evaluation.
This page sets out the review material available now and the work needed to evaluate the proposed municipal workflow.
Available material
Historical harness
inspection brief
The downloadable package identifies the historical authority-harness source that was inspected, records its hash and dependencies, and sets out requirements for a current evaluation.
The source passed a Python syntax check. Five required runtime modules were unavailable, so the benchmark was not run. There are no current runtime results or pass rates in this package.
Download the inspection brief ZIPIncluded in the brief
- The inspected source’s identity and hash.
- The inspection environment and syntax-check result.
- The runtime dependencies needed to execute the harness.
- The records and failure cases a current evaluation should collect.
Still to be evaluated
- The behavior of the matching installed implementation.
- Credential separation and external readback.
- Concurrency, revocation, interruption, and recovery.
- Independent reproduction of the resulting claims.
Proposed municipal evaluation
From a records search
to a checked change
A clerk searches council minutes and reviews an answer with citations. The proposed follow-on action changes one internal review marker from unreviewed to reviewed, tied to the expected record version. It leaves the official minutes untouched.
The evaluation needs to show both that permitted work can complete and that changes outside the mandate are stopped.
- 01
Search and disclose within permission
Return information the clerk is permitted to receive, with citations and a useful account of coverage limits. Restricted source details must remain protected.
- 02
Authorize the specified marker change
Bind the request to the principal, record, governing policy, and expected version. A changed condition must be handled under the relevant authorization rules.
- 03
Check the result separately
Use an authorized read-only path to inspect the target. Compare that evidence with the executor’s report and preserve any unresolved discrepancy.
- 04
Retain a reproducible account
Identify the build, environment, requested action, authorization, attempt, observations, and supported outcome. Record limitations alongside results.
Test conditions
The cases an evaluation
needs to confront
Interrupted or repeated work
Concurrent duplicates, interruption around dispatch, lost responses, and recovery without reviving authority that has already been spent.
Incomplete evidence
Confirmed effects, explicit rejection, mismatched readback, and unavailable observation. Exported records must support the outcome they claim.
The comparison should also account for valid work blocked, latency, and recovery effort. A control that prevents an unauthorized action still needs to be evaluated for its cost to legitimate work.