TL;DR: This article argues that governance without interop is vendor-local theater.
It is not enough for one system to say *“we have receipts.”* If another vendor cannot parse the artifact, reproduce the digest, replay the bundle, and reach the same admissibility outcome, the claim is not really portable. So 175 defines a common interop layer: shared envelopes, pinned canonicalization, minimal portable schemas, and deterministic bundle formats.
Why it matters: • turns governance artifacts into cross-vendor verifiable objects rather than local implementation details • fixes the classic failure modes of digest drift, schema drift, and bundle drift • makes “same artifact / same verdict” a testable claim instead of a handshake promise • gives courts, forgetting flows, and unlearning claims portable bundle formats
What’s inside: • a common *interop envelope* for contracts, manifests, receipts, and bundles • a pinned *canonicalization profile* plus conformance receipts to stop digest disagreements • minimal portable schemas for core learning-world governance artifacts • deterministic bundle formats like *Court ZIP*, *Forgetting ZIP*, and *Unlearning ZIP* • replay/conformance receipts so another vendor can verify the same bundle and reach the same admissibility result
Key idea: Do not say:
*“our system can export the evidence.”*
Say:
*“this artifact uses this schema registry, this canonicalization profile, this interop-safe digest model, and this bundle index—so another vendor can verify the same object and reach the same result.”*
That is how governance stops being local theater and becomes portable infrastructure.
✅ Article highlight: *Revocable Releases, Subject Scopes, and Unlearning Verification for Learning Worlds* (art-60-173, v0.1)
TL;DR: This article argues that once you release data, forgetting becomes a supply-chain problem.
A world can promise future exclusion, controlled-channel revocation, or bounded unlearning claims—but only if those claims are receipted. To say “Release R is revocable,” “Subject X was forgotten,” or “Model M unlearned X,” you need pinned release contracts, precise subject scopes, scope-resolution receipts, and verification packs. Otherwise you are just telling a comforting story.
Why it matters: • turns “forgetting” into a governed lifecycle rather than a vague promise • separates revocable releases from irreversible public redistribution • makes “Subject X” precise enough to be caseable and auditable • forces unlearning claims to be tested, bounded, and published honestly
What’s inside: • *release contracts* with revocation tiers and downstream obligations • *subject selector* + *scope resolution* artifacts for “where X might exist” • *unlearning contracts* and *verification packs* for testable forgetting claims • explicit irreversibility disclosures, so public claims do not promise impossible erasure • bounded public claim shapes under publication policy
Key idea: Do not say:
*“we forgot X.”*
Say:
*“this release had this revocation tier, this subject scope was resolved across corpora/releases/models, this unlearning execution and verification pack were run, and these are the limits of what we can and cannot guarantee.”*
TL;DR: This article argues that deployment is the highest-risk moment in a learning world.
Training produces a new policy. Deployment turns that policy into an institution inside the world. So rollout cannot be treated like a casual model swap. It needs deploy-gate contracts, canaries, phased rollout, kill-switches, rollback receipts, and explicit non-interference rules that stop “better learning” from silently rewriting world reality.
Why it matters: • treats deployment as governed change, not routine ops • prevents silent reality drift when a newly trained policy changes world outcomes • binds rollout to safety envelopes, evaluation validity, performance SLOs, and canon boundaries • makes rollback and emergency stop part of the formal operating contract
What’s inside: • a *model deploy gate contract* that defines when a learned policy may enter the world • canary and phased rollout as explicit governed stages • kill-switch and rollback receipts for emergency containment • non-interference audits so training and deployment do not rewrite canon or governance outcomes • appeal and publication boundaries for claims like “we deployed safely” or “we rolled back successfully”
Key idea: Do not say:
*“we trained a better model, so we deployed it.”*
Say:
*“this policy entered the world under this deploy gate, this rollout stage, these envelope and SLO checks, these rollback guarantees, and these receipts.”*
That is how deployment becomes governance with receipts.
✅ Article highlight: *Worlds as Training Substrates* (art-60-167, v0.1)
TL;DR: This article argues that gameplay is not automatically a training dataset.
A persistent world can generate incredibly rich traces of action, conflict, coordination, failure, and recovery. But turning that into a learning corpus is a governance problem, not a data-hoarding problem. If you want to say *“Model M was trained on World W”*, you need pinned corpus manifests plus receipted extraction, consent/redaction, decontamination, and training runs.
Why it matters: • turns “world data” into a governed learning substrate instead of a vibes dataset • makes provenance, canon, and performance posture part of training honesty • prevents extraction pipelines from silently rewriting what the world was • treats contamination, leakage, and consent as first-class training-governance issues
What’s inside: • *training corpus manifests* that pin world identity, canon snapshot, and performance posture • *learning trace extraction contracts* for what may be pulled from world history • *dataset build receipts* and *training run receipts* for provenance • *decontamination receipts* for leak prevention and train/eval hygiene • governed rules for changing extraction or normalization surfaces without laundering history
Key idea: Do not say:
*“we trained on gameplay data.”*
Say:
*“this model was trained on a governed corpus built from this world, under these extraction, redaction, decontamination, and training receipts.”*
That is how learning stops being data scavenging and becomes governance with receipts.
TL;DR: This article treats a world economy as a governance surface, not just a price simulator.
If you want to say “prices were fair,” “there was no manipulation,” or “this market intervention was legitimate,” you need more than dashboards. You need pinned measurement semantics, receipted adversary monitoring, and receipted institutional intervention. In this framing, markets are not vibes. They are policies with receipts.
Why it matters: • turns economy claims into auditable claims instead of economist-flavored storytelling • treats bot farms, market manipulation, and propaganda as adversarial operations with receipts • makes “no manipulation” a stronger claim that must be monitoring-backed • shows how freezes, rollbacks, tax changes, and price-band interventions need explicit policy hooks and authority
What’s inside: • *economy observability contracts* and *metrics profiles* for pinned measurement semantics • *economy monitoring profiles/receipts* anchored to 148 adversary monitoring • oracle-backed economy events such as *MARKET_REGIME_SHIFT* • receipted institutional interventions: freezes, rollback trades, tax changes, and price-band updates • the idea of *safe-mode economics* when integrity or coverage becomes uncertain
Key idea: Do not say:
*“the market looked healthy.”*
Say:
*“this economy claim is backed by pinned observability and metrics profiles, monitoring receipts, and receipted institutional actions under declared policy and authority.”*
TL;DR: This article argues that moderation is not just an admin action. It is an institution with due process.
If a system can ban, seize, disqualify, fine, or imprison, then “trust us” is not enough. Coercive actions need a full receipted chain: pinned law/policy, incident + evidence, enforcement action, appeal path, panel decision, disclosure rules, and remedies that can be audited later.
Why it matters: • turns moderation from opaque power into legible institutional process • makes bans, seizure, prison, fines, and DQ answerable to receipts instead of vibes • adds bounded appeals, panel policy, quorum, and disclosure rules • shows how remedies and custody corrections can be governed without silent history edits
What’s inside: • a *moderation case envelope* that binds incident → enforcement → appeal → adjudication • *appeal policies* with filing windows, standards, and evidence/disclosure rules • *panel policies* and *panel assignment receipts* so adjudication has real authority and quorum • *disclosure manifests* that explain what was shown, what was redacted, and why • *custody correction receipts* for reversing seizure, rollback transfers, and ownership fixes • bounded publication rules so “we banned them” becomes a scoped claim, not a fact dump
Key idea: Do not say:
*“the mods reviewed it and took action.”*
Say:
*“this coercive action was bound to this law and policy basis, this incident and evidence bundle, this enforcement receipt, this appeal path, this panel decision, this disclosure posture, and these receipted remedies.”*
That is how moderation becomes legible coercion instead of hidden power.
TL;DR: This article asks a deceptively hard question for persistent worlds:
*What does it mean to say that something really happened?*
Its answer is strict: history is not whatever the lore team writes down. A world event becomes canonical only if a pinned *world event oracle* can classify it under a declared event class, evaluate explicit evidence thresholds, and emit an oracle-backed receipt. Otherwise it stays *PENDING* or *NON_CANONICAL*.
Why it matters: • turns “what happened” from narrative vibe into a governed decision surface • separates canonical history from rumors, partial evidence, and unresolved events • makes event classes, evidence thresholds, and canon rules explicit and versioned • prevents retroactive lore rewrites unless reclassification is itself governed
What’s inside: • a *world event oracle* that consumes receipts and decides canon status • pinned *event classes* with schemas, required bindings, and threshold rules • explicit threshold families for shard coverage, replay status, ledger support, monitoring, and disclosure • oracle outputs like *CANONICAL*, *PENDING_VERIFICATION*, and *NON_CANONICAL* • governed canon updates via CPO + shadow apply + reclassification verification
Key idea: Do not say:
*“this is the official story.”*
Say:
*“this event entered canonical history because a pinned oracle evaluated this event class, under these thresholds, with these receipts, and found the claim admissible.”*
That is how “history” stops being storyline management and becomes a governed interface contract.
✅ Article highlight: *Real-Scale World Simulation Game* (art-60-157, v0.1)
TL;DR: This article asks what it would take to build a “real SAO-like” world without hand-wavy magic.
The answer is not unlimited freedom. It is a *persistent world with bounded agency*: NPCs can act, form societies, trade, govern, and shape history—but only through pinned profiles, CAS state, ledgers, receipts, and replayable world history. In other words: a living world is believable only if it is governable.
Why it matters: • shows how to move from “match fairness” to “world-history fairness” • treats NPC societies as bounded agents rather than decorative scripts • makes laws, markets, factions, and institutions explicit state layers instead of lore vibes • explains why “living world” claims need receipts, replay, and anti-abuse monitoring
What’s inside: • layered world state as CAS: *physics, economy, society, institution, narrative* • NPCs as receipted bounded agents with observation, action, and resource limits • institution ledgers for law, market rules, faction control, and world governance • world replay as *history reproduction*, not just match replay • adversary monitoring for griefing, market rigging, propaganda, and governance capture • unique-entity / ownership / transfer receipts for “only one in the world” style claims
Key idea: Do not say:
*“the world feels alive.”*
Say:
*“this world evolved through a receipted, bounded-agency closed loop: state, NPC decisions, player actions, institutional transitions, replay, monitoring, and publication rules.”*
That is how a persistent world becomes believable without becoming ungovernable.
✅ Article highlight: *Receipted World Simulation Engine* (art-60-156, v0.1)
TL;DR: This article treats WorldSim as a *governance sandbox*.
A game already has the right shape for SI: explicit world state, discrete actions, computed effects, verification, observability, and replay. So instead of asking “is this match fair?” by vibes, WorldSim makes fairness, anti-cheat, replay fidelity, patch legitimacy, and tournament claims depend on a *receipted closed loop*.
Why it matters: • makes governance feel concrete and intuitive instead of abstract • shows that “a game is SI with better UX” • turns match fairness, replay fidelity, and anti-cheat into artifact-backed claims • connects gameplay operations to broader SI ideas: determinism, monitoring, patch governance, publication discipline, and interop
What’s inside: • world state as *content-addressed state* with state_ref, ticks, shards, and canonicalization • separate *action ledgers* and *effect ledgers* so “what happened” is reconstructible • pinned determinism + *replay receipts* for faithful replay claims • anti-cheat framed as *adversary monitoring* with monitoring receipts • balance patches as governed change objects with shadow apply and verification • tournament/public statements as bounded published claims, not vibes
Key idea: Do not say:
*“this match was fair,”* *“this replay is faithful,”* or *“this tournament result is official.”*
Say:
*“this result is backed by a receipted closed loop: state, actions, effects, replay, verification, publication policy, and the exact pins needed to make the claim admissible.”*
TL;DR: This article argues that benchmark results should be published as bounded observations, not inflated into platform claims.
A governed benchmark should not quietly turn “we measured this result under these conditions” into “therefore this platform is more governed, safer, or more production-ready.” Honest benchmarking separates reproducibility, comparability, and disclosability—and keeps benchmark outcomes distinct from stronger governance or platform-readiness claims.
Why it matters: • prevents benchmark scores from being laundered into governance-readiness claims • distinguishes reproducible results from truly comparable rankings • makes public benchmark language respect disclosure floors and evidence class • gives a clean way to publish strong numbers without overclaiming what they mean
What’s inside: • the separation between reproducibility, comparability, and disclosability • the rule that a benchmark result is not the same thing as a platform claim • a benchmark disclosure profile that sets the publication floor • a governed benchmark pack that binds runtime, toolchain, policy surface, evidence class, and results • a comparability declaration and benchmark publication report that state what public reading is actually supportable
Key idea: Do not say:
“we ranked higher, therefore we are better governed.”
Say:
“this governed benchmark pack produced these results under this disclosed runtime, toolchain, policy, and evidence surface; this comparability declaration defines what we are and are not fairly comparable to; and this publication report states exactly what public reading is supportable without inflating benchmark observations into stronger platform claims.”
✅ Article highlight: *Brownfield Migration Program for Institutional SI Adoption* (art-60-238, v0.1)
TL;DR: This article argues that institutional SI adoption is not a rewrite fantasy. It is a governed migration program.
Most real institutions already have SaaS stacks, admin consoles, workflow engines, manual review paths, cron jobs, wrapper layers, and old authority surfaces still doing real work. So the question is not “how would we build an ideal SI-native platform from scratch?” The question is how to introduce governed SI structure **without lying about what still remains legacy**.
Why it matters: • turns migration from roadmap theater into a governed program with evidence and exit criteria • separates compatibility surfaces from actual replacement • makes legacy exceptions explicit instead of burying them in implementation notes • prevents institutions from claiming “SI-native enough” before the real authority paths have actually moved
What’s inside: • a *migration wave plan* with scoped phases and wave-by-wave exit criteria • a *compatibility surface register* for bridges, proxies, and legacy control/storage surfaces • a *legacy exception register* that distinguishes *DEGRADE_ONLY*, *CLAIM_BLOCKING*, *TEMPORARY_ALLOWED*, and *RETIRE_REQUIRED* • the rule that traffic percentage is not governance completion • a bounded way to decide when the system is honest enough to support a stronger claim rung
Key idea: Do not say:
*“we’re migrating toward SI.”*
Say:
*“this is our migration wave plan, these compatibility surfaces still remain, these legacy exceptions are classified and time-bounded, these exit criteria determine whether the next wave is actually complete, and this is the strongest claim we can honestly support while migration is still in progress.”*
✅ Article highlight: From L2 Bundle to Auditable Platform Claims (art-60-235, v0.1)
TL;DR: This article explains the jump from “we deployed an SI-style bundle” to “we can honestly make an auditable platform claim.”
Those are not the same claim. A bundle can be present and deployable while the stronger platform story is still incomplete. To make the stronger claim, a system needs explicit closure across runtime, verification, storage, compiler, determinism, and institution surfaces—and it needs an honest inventory of what is still only degrade-supportable versus what still blocks the claim outright.
Why it matters: • separates bundle-level honesty from platform-level honesty • prevents teams from overclaiming “auditable platform” just because many good pieces exist • makes degrade-only gaps and reject gaps explicit instead of hiding them in narrative • gives a practical closure path from deployable bundles to production-grade platform claims
What’s inside: • a practical platform claim ladder: L0_BUNDLE_PRESENT → L1_BUNDLE_DEPLOYABLE → L2_GOVERNED_RUNTIME_PRESENT → L3_AUDITABLE_PLATFORM → L4_FEDERATABLE_OR_MULTI_INSTITUTION_PLATFORM • platform claim profiles that define the target rung and required surfaces • platform readiness assessments across runtime, compiler, storage, determinism, verification, and institution layers • claim gap registers that distinguish degrade-acceptable gaps from claim-blocking gaps • implementation roadmaps that close stronger-claim gaps without pretending they are already closed
Key idea: Do not say:
we have most of the pieces, so we basically have the platform.
Say:
this is the target platform claim, these surfaces are already supportable, these gaps only justify downgrade, these gaps still block the stronger claim, and this is the roadmap to close them.
TL;DR: This article argues that determinism is not a binary badge.
A serious system should not just say “this run was deterministic.” It should say *what kind* of determinism claim is being made: exact reproducibility, epsilon-bounded replay, scheduler-stable replay, or a degraded posture due to platform drift. In other words, replay honesty needs profiles, not slogans.
Why it matters: • turns “deterministic enough” into an explicit, auditable claim • separates exact replay, epsilon-bounded replay, and scheduler stability instead of blurring them • makes platform drift and topology changes visible instead of silently laundering weaker replay results • prevents teams from confusing bundle validity with strong DET validity
What’s inside: • a practical determinism ladder: *EXACT_REPRODUCIBLE*, *EPSILON_BOUNDED*, *SCHEDULER_STABLE*, *PLATFORM_DRIFT_DEGRADED* • *determinism profiles* that define what replay truth is being claimed • *epsilon-bound policies* for declared approximate replay • *scheduler consistency reports* for ordering and partial-order stability • *DET run comparisons* with explicit replay honesty statements about what matched exactly, approximately, or not at all
Key idea: Do not ask only:
*“was it deterministic?”*
Ask:
*“under what determinism profile, under what epsilon policy, under what scheduler consistency report, and with what replay honesty statement did this scope remain exact, approximate, scheduler-stable, or degraded?”*
TL;DR: This article argues that compilation should be governed all the way down to backend lowering.
A serious compiler stack should not stop at “the code compiled.” It should be able to say which *effect rows* were declared or inferred, which *layer boundaries* were admissible, what the backend lowering promised to preserve, where determinism was degraded or rejected, and which diagnostics and conformance receipts support that claim.
Why it matters: • turns compiler behavior from folklore into a governed evidence path • treats effect widening and layer crossing as real governance events • makes backend lowering answerable for determinism, frame preservation, and trace survival • connects compiler diagnostics to verifier-backed conformance instead of dev UX alone
What’s inside: • *effect rows* as bounded effect surfaces, not just annotations • *layer-call matrices* for admissible, degraded, and rejected crossings • *lowering determinism statements* that say what a backend preserves, degrades, or excludes • *compiler diagnostic reports* as portable evidence artifacts • linkage from diagnostics and lowered artifacts to *SIR*, *.sirrev*, golden vectors, and conformance harness receipts
Key idea: Do not say:
*“the compiler emitted output.”*
Say:
*“this SIL program declared these effect rows and layer boundaries, these calls were admissible under this matrix, this lowering preserved or degraded this determinism surface, and these diagnostics and receipts support that claim.”*
✅ Article highlight: *LLM Wrappers as Proposal Engines, Not Authorities* (art-60-232, v0.1)
TL;DR: This article argues that LLM wrappers should not hold runtime authority.
A wrapper may draft proposals, but it should not directly own world-facing effect power. In SI-style migration, the wrapper produces a proposal under a declared wrapper profile, that draft is parsed under a governed contract, parse failures are handled explicitly, gates evaluate the parsed proposal, and only then can runtime authority decide whether any effect is admissible.
Why it matters: • separates model suggestion from runtime authority • makes parse failure a governed event instead of a silent fallback • gives legacy LLM-agent stacks a realistic migration path without pretending the wrapper is already safe • keeps effect-ledger discipline and runtime gating in the authority layer, not in the model shell
What’s inside: • wrapper profiles as bounded proposal-generation contracts • proposal drafts, parsed jump receipts, and jump outcome records • governed handling for parse failure, partial parse, and draft rejection • gates that evaluate parsed proposals before any live effect path opens • the rule that effects execute under runtime authority and effect-ledger discipline, not under model autonomy
Key idea: Do not say:
*“the agent decided and used tools.”*
Say:
*“the wrapper proposed, the proposal was parsed or failed under a governed contract, gates evaluated it, and any resulting effect was executed under runtime authority.”*
✅ Article highlight: *SI-NOS as a Governed Runtime Control Plane* (art-60-231, v0.1)
TL;DR: This article argues that SI-NOS should not be described as a “smart runtime” or a prestige OS label.
Its real role is stronger: SI-NOS is the *governance host* for live runtime operation. It binds observation, identity, ethics, evaluation, memory, rollback, audit routing, effect paths, institution roles, and runtime modes into one auditable control plane.
Why it matters: • separates “we deployed a bundle” from “the live runtime actually enforces governance” • explains why a model host is not the same thing as a governance host • makes observer contracts, capability profiles, effect paths, and mode transitions first-class runtime artifacts • shows where institutional authority and runtime effect admissibility actually meet
What’s inside: • the core distinction between *deployment bundle* and *control-plane claim* • *runtime control-plane manifests* that bind the live orchestration surface • *observer contracts* that define what must be seen before bounded effect is admissible • *runtime capability profiles* that constrain tools, sensors, effect classes, rollback scope, and audit scope • *runtime mode-transition records* for states like *APPROVAL_REQUIRED*, *SANDBOX_ONLY*, *SAFE_MODE*, and *BLOCK*
Key idea: A governed runtime should not merely say:
*“we deployed an SI bundle.”*
It should be able to say:
*“this runtime operated under this control-plane manifest, with these observer contracts, these capability profiles, these institution-role bindings, these runtime modes, and this mode-transition lineage for the declared effect surfaces.”*
✅ Article highlight: *Verifier Packs and Conformance Harness* (art-60-227, v0.1)
TL;DR: This article argues that “how we verify the spec” should itself be a governed artifact path.
A serious system should not stop at “we ran the tests and passed.” It should be able to say exactly **which verifier pack** was used, under **which harness manifest**, against **which vector bundle**, with **which reason-code linkage**, producing **which normalized run verdicts**, **which replay result**, and **which profile-level conformance report lineage**.
Why it matters: • turns conformance from hidden CI behavior into portable, auditable artifacts • makes verifier choice, harness policy, vector completeness, and replay status explicit • prevents “green badge” claims that cannot later be reconstructed • keeps degraded, partial, and historically superseded runs visible instead of laundering them away
What’s inside: • a clean distinction between *specification*, *verifier pack*, *harness manifest*, *conformance run*, *replay verification*, and *profile conformance report* • a practical ladder: VH1 / VH2 / VH3 • core portable artifacts like si/verifier-pack/v1, si/harness-manifest/v1, si/test-vector-bundle/v1, si/conformance-run-report/v1, and si/replay-verification-record/v1 • hard gates for explicit pack, explicit harness, vector completeness, replay-backed claims, and report support • the rule that a profile conformance report must point to supporting runs rather than float free as a status badge
Key idea: Do not say:
*“the tests passed.”*
Say:
*“this scope was checked by this verifier pack, under this harness manifest, against this declared vector bundle, with this linkage, producing these run verdicts and this replay-backed report lineage.”*
✅ Article highlight: *Runtime Admissibility and Barrier Objects* (art-60-226, v0.1)
TL;DR: This article turns runtime admissibility into a first-class object family.
A governed runtime should not rely on scattered booleans, warning banners, or hidden branches to decide whether an effect may proceed. It should evaluate the requested effect under an explicit *barrier object*, emit a normalized verdict, record the resulting runtime posture, and preserve the full lineage if the path later degrades, reopens, or reenters.
Why it matters: • turns “was this allowed?” into a replayable governance question • makes runtime gating portable and auditable instead of implementation-specific branching • distinguishes degraded postures that are operationally different even when they normalize to the same exported verdict • prevents history laundering by requiring explicit reopen and reentry lineage
What’s inside: • the core idea that a *barrier* is an effect-admissibility object • a minimal artifact family: *BarrierObject*, *BarrierInputSet*, *AdmissibilityVerdict*, and *RuntimePostureRecord* • explicit runtime postures such as *REVIEW_ONLY*, *LOCAL_ONLY*, *RECEIPT_ONLY*, *SANDBOX_ONLY*, *BLOCKED*, and *REENTERED* • the rule that DEGRADE alone is not enough; the posture must also be explicit • append-only lineage across barrier creation, verdict emission, degraded posture, reopen trigger, reentry, and closure
Key idea: A governed runtime should not merely say:
*“this action was allowed.”*
It should be able to say:
*“this requested effect was evaluated under this barrier, against this input set, with this verdict, in this runtime posture, for these reasons, and along this replayable lineage.”*
✅ Article highlight: *Reference Harness / Minimal Interop Toolchain: The Smallest Executable Loop for 149* (art-60-153, v0.1)
TL;DR: This article makes cross-vendor interop concrete.
Interop is not real because two vendors say they are “compatible.” It becomes real only when a runnable harness can make them **run the same pack**, **normalize outputs into the same schema**, **emit comparable receipts**, and **compare results under pinned rules**. In SI terms: *run → normalize → receipt → compare*.
Why it matters: • turns “cross-vendor interop” from a claim into an executable test loop • separates reproducibility, comparability, and disclosability instead of blending them • makes normalization, canonicalization, and comparison rules explicit and pinned • fails closed when evidence, schemas, reason codes, or toolchain provenance are missing
What’s inside: • the smallest executable interop loop: *run → normalize → receipt → compare* • a reference harness contract that every vendor must satisfy • canonical *normalized interop events* as the shared comparison language • receipts for vendor runs, normalization, comparability assessment, and cross-vendor verdicts • explicit comparability mapping: which metric families are *COMPARABLE* and which are *NOT_COMPARABLE*
Key idea: Interop is not a marketing statement.
It is admissible only when vendors can produce **receipts whose normalized outputs are comparable under a pinned harness, normalization profile, digest procedure, and comparability mapping**.
*Cross-vendor interop becomes real only when a runnable harness can produce comparable receipts.*
