Would an optional post-run execution-evidence verification pilot be useful for a synthetic paper-trade fixture?

[joy7758]

Before proposing any code, I would like to validate whether this addresses a real need for QuantDinger.

QuantDinger already provides scoped Agent access, idempotency, audit records, and paper/live execution controls. This proposal would not replace or reinterpret any of those controls.

Core question: Would the maintainers be open to discussing a fully optional, post-run execution-evidence verification pilot using one fixed synthetic paper-trade fixture?

For this proposed pilot:

• QuantDinger would remain the authoritative system of record for trading events and operational records.
• agent-evidence would remain the canonical owner of verification semantics.
• TITMAS would assess only the submitted evidence bundle under existing agent-evidence semantics.
• TITMAS would not modify trading logic, authorization, risk controls, or execution paths.
• TITMAS would not judge strategy correctness or profitability.
• TITMAS would not prove that a trade occurred in the real world.
• TITMAS would not provide financial, regulatory, security, or certification claims.

The first phase would be discussion-only:

• one synthetic paper-trade fixture;
• no code or pull request;
• no production changes;
• no adapter or integration;
• no integration design unless maintainers first confirm that the problem is relevant.

If the current audit and idempotency surfaces already meet this need, a “not needed” answer would be equally useful, and no implementation would proceed.