veraxis-protocol · veraxis-protocol · Aug 24, 2026 · Aug 24, 2026
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
@@ -262,6 +262,7 @@ Measured evidence and its limits: [`docs/BENCHMARKS.md`](docs/BENCHMARKS.md) ·
 | See what is planned and why | [`docs/ROADMAP.md`](docs/ROADMAP.md) |
 | Validate a clean clone yourself | [`docs/CLEANROOM-VALIDATION-RUNBOOK.md`](docs/CLEANROOM-VALIDATION-RUNBOOK.md) |
 | See how this repository was usability-tested | [`docs/REPOSITORY-USABILITY.md`](docs/REPOSITORY-USABILITY.md) |
+| See the release-readiness verification record | [`docs/RELEASE-READINESS.md`](docs/RELEASE-READINESS.md) |
 | Understand the terminology | [`docs/DEVELOPER-LANGUAGE.md`](docs/DEVELOPER-LANGUAGE.md) |
 | See how this compares to other systems | [`docs/SOTA.md`](docs/SOTA.md) |
 | Understand the full conceptual model | keep reading below |

diff --git a/docs/RELEASE-READINESS.md b/docs/RELEASE-READINESS.md
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+# Release readiness record (AC-038)
+
+Adjudication input for the CURRENT-SDLC public-release lifecycle. **This
+document records verification results. It does not certify release, and it does
+not declare the repository production-ready** — that adjudication is not the
+executor's to make.
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| Candidate commit (`main`) | `db1c745686285b229361d83f663dac2b5e8924a5` |
+| Tree | `b6fa47bb8f955ed2edde3c95daea8689d9ea5d0e` |
+| Method | Two independent fresh clones of `main`, plus GitHub API state |
+| Environment | Linux x86_64, Python 3.11, git 2.43.0 |
+| Maturity assessed elsewhere | TRL 4 — [`docs/TRL-ASSESSMENT.md`](TRL-ASSESSMENT.md) |
+
+Every result below was executed. Nothing is inferred from an earlier commit,
+from a branch head, or from documentation about the repository.
+
+---
+
+## Gate results
+
+| Gate | Subject | Result | Basis |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| A | Engineering correctness | **VERIFIED** | `pytest -q` → 342 passed. E2E → `PASS` / `ALLOW` / `OK`, receipt with 10 bound fields, exit 0. Undeclared action → `REFUSED` / `RUN_UNCLASSIFIED_ACTION`, exit 1, `receipt` absent. Stale fact → `REFUSED` / `RUN_FACT_STALE`, exit 1, `receipt` absent. `verify-receipt` → `PASS` / `OK`, exit 0. |
+| B | Evidence sufficiency | **VERIFIED** | DUT `e4e1a975`, harness `a7f6ba37`, `dut_verification.verified: true`. E2E 7/7 (0 failed). Adversarial 38/38 (0 failed, 0 not evaluated). Observed sustained E2E throughput min 1512.9 / median 1574.4 / max 1587.5 ops/sec. Determinism `true`. Claim ceiling 10 clauses. |
+| C | Independent-adjudication boundary | **VERIFIED** | No self-certification string found in the repository. `docs/REPOSITORY-USABILITY.md:11` and `docs/AGENT-USABILITY.md:8` each state explicitly that adjudication does not belong to the document's author. |
+| D | Git integrity | **VERIFIED** | Candidate merged via PR with exact-head green checks (below). Resulting `main` re-verified after merge; zero worktree drift against the merge commit. |
+| E | Human usability from a fresh clone | **VERIFIED** | Fresh clone of `main`: install 10 s, `pytest -q` → 342 passed, **first meaningful success at 21 s** against a 5-minute budget. Refusal and receipt-verification paths reproduced. README truthfulness surfaces present. |
+| F | Agent usability, independently re-executed | **VERIFIED** | Separate fresh clone; `docs/AGENT-USABILITY.md` deliberately **not** relied on. Details below. |
+| G | Adoption readiness | **VERIFIED** | Issues enabled and documented as the reporting path; benchmark-reproduction reporting path documented; commercial path documented; contribution status stated honestly as *not yet established*; licence status stated honestly as *not declared*. |
+
+### Gate F — what was independently re-executed
+
+Executed in a fresh clone of `db1c745`, following `AGENTS.md` and `README.md`
+only:
+
+- **CLI surface.** `authcontract --help` lists exactly
+  `{verify, project, check-action, git-gate, run-specimen, verify-receipt}` —
+  six subcommands, matching `AGENTS.md` §5, with no undocumented extras.
+- **Successful path.** `PASS` / `ALLOW` / `OK`, exit 0.
+- **Refusal path.** `REFUSED` / `RUN_UNCLASSIFIED_ACTION`, exit 1.
+- **Receipt verification** via the documented extraction step → `PASS` / `OK`.
+- **Unsupported interfaces (§13) tested, not assumed.** `authcontract.server`,
+  `.api`, `.http`, `.registry`, `.db` each raised `ModuleNotFoundError`.
+- **Documented negative behaviour.** Passing the `run-specimen` wrapper to
+  `verify-receipt` returned `VEIP_RECEIPT_MALFORMED` naming all nine missing
+  fields, exit 1 — exactly as `AGENTS.md` §8 warns.
+- **Refusals are return values.** A stale-fact `run_specimen()` call returned
+  `decision=REFUSED`, `reason_code=RUN_FACT_STALE`, `receipt=None`, with **no
+  exception raised**, confirming §11.
+- **Workflow ≠ enforcement.** `authcontract-gate.yml` is `on: pull_request`
+  only. `AGENTS.md` §12, `README.md:218` and `README.md:817` each state that
+  the workflow's presence does not establish that GitHub requires it.
+- **Licensing boundary.** No `LICENSE` file; no licence field in
+  `pyproject.toml`. `AGENTS.md` §15 and `README.md:249` state this and instruct
+  against describing the project as open source.
+- **Claim ceiling.** `AGENTS.md` §14 states the ceiling and forbids softening
+  it; §16 forbids inventing commands, flags, endpoints, or maturity claims.
+- **Reason-code semantics.** `AGENTS.md` §10 and `README.md:173` now describe
+  reason codes as the intended programmatic signal **within the currently
+  documented and tested interface**, and state explicitly that no versioned
+  cross-version stability commitment exists. No unestablished stability claim
+  remains.
+
+---
+
+## Release and supply integrity
+
+| Check | State |
+|---|---|
+| Git tags | **None.** No tag exists in the repository. |
+| GitHub releases | **None.** No release, draft or published. |
+| Package publication | **Not published.** Not on PyPI; source install only, stated in `README.md` and `AGENTS.md` §4. |
+| Signed release artifacts / provenance attestation | **NOT APPLICABLE** — no release artifact is produced or distributed. |
+| Release-artifact checksums | **NOT APPLICABLE** — same reason. |
+| Tracked-file secret scan | **Clean.** 82 tracked files scanned for key/token/password/private-key patterns; no match. The only matches in the working tree were inside an untracked local `.venv`. |
+| Runtime dependencies | One: `rfc8785>=0.1.2`. Test extra: `pytest>=7.0`. |
+| CI actions | `actions/checkout@v4`, `actions/setup-python@v5` in both workflows. |
+| Workflow secrets usage | None. Neither workflow references `secrets.*`. |
+| Branch protection / rulesets | **NOT VERIFIED — no read access.** This session has no branch-protection read endpoint. No claim about what is required to merge is made anywhere in the repository, which is the correct posture given this limitation. |
+
+---
+
+## Findings and disposition
+
+### Closed in this cycle
+
+**U6 — the README described the merge-gate workflow as a required status
+check.** Enforcement is branch-protection configuration, not workflow content,
+and could not be independently verified from this session. **CLOSED.** The claim
+was removed; `README.md:218`, `README.md:817` and `AGENTS.md` §12 now state the
+distinction explicitly and instruct readers not to infer enforcement from the
+workflow's existence.
+
+**U7 — reason codes were described as a "stable machine-facing identifier".**
+No versioning or pinning mechanism exists in the repository, so cross-version
+stability was unestablished. **CLOSED.** Corrected narrowly in both
+`AGENTS.md` §10 and `README.md` (table row at line 159, note at line 173):
+reason codes remain the recommended programmatic signal, now bounded to this
+commit's documented and tested interface, with the absence of a versioned
+commitment stated plainly.
+
+### Open, with disposition
+
+**U1 — no licence is declared.** Default copyright applies and no usage rights
+are granted. **OPEN — owner decision.** Choosing a licence has legal effect and
+is not an executor decision. Stated truthfully in `README.md` and `AGENTS.md`
+§15 rather than left for a reader to discover. This is the single largest
+adoption barrier in the repository.
+
+**U5 — the benchmark DUT guard treats `README.md` as a protected surface, so
+documentation-only changes trip it.** **OPEN — deliberately not worked around.**
+The guard is behaving correctly: it refuses to publish results claiming to
+describe a commit whose declared device-under-test paths differ. Splitting
+`DUT_PATHS` into behavioural and documentary sets would report documentation
+drift without blocking; that is a benchmark-design change and was not made here
+to obtain a green run.
+
+**U8 — `docs/AGENT-USABILITY.md` was authored by the same executor that wrote
+`AGENTS.md`.** **OPEN — inherent, and disclosed in the document itself.** Gate F
+above reduces but does not remove this: the re-execution was independent of the
+*document*, not of the *author*. Independent agent reproduction by a third party
+remains absent, consistent with the "externally validated: NO" row in
+[`docs/TRL-ASSESSMENT.md`](TRL-ASSESSMENT.md).
+
+### New in this cycle
+
+**U9 — internal governance vocabulary appears in public documentation.**
+`docs/DEVELOPER-LANGUAGE.md`, `docs/REPOSITORY-USABILITY.md`,
+`docs/AGENT-USABILITY.md` and `docs/SOTA-EVIDENCE.md` reference
+`CURRENT-SDLC`, "Engineering Lead", and `WORK-ORDER-AC-021` by name. No
+work-order body, specification, or derivation machinery is exposed — only the
+process vocabulary and identifiers. **OPEN — recorded, not unilaterally
+remediated.** Some of these strings sit inside accepted, guard-pinned
+documentation-language text, and rewording them is a boundary decision rather
+than an executor correction.
+
+**U10 — no `SECURITY.md`, `CONTRIBUTING.md`, or `CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md`.**
+**OPEN.** The absence is currently consistent with the repository's stated
+posture — `README.md` says plainly that no contribution process exists yet and
+that there is no support commitment — so nothing is *overclaimed*. A
+vulnerability-reporting path in particular is worth adding before wider
+distribution.
+
+**U11 — neither workflow declares an explicit `permissions:` block.** Both
+therefore inherit the repository's default `GITHUB_TOKEN` permissions rather
+than a least-privilege grant. **OPEN.** Neither workflow uses `secrets.*` or
+writes to the repository, so `permissions: contents: read` would be sufficient.
+Not changed here: modifying workflow permissions is repository configuration and
+was not within this work order's authorization.
+
+**U12 — GitHub Actions are pinned to mutable major tags** (`@v4`, `@v5`) rather
+than immutable commit SHAs. **OPEN.** A tag can be repointed by its publisher,
+so the executed action content is not pinned by the repository. Low severity
+given no secrets are exposed to these workflows, but it is a supply-chain
+surface and worth recording rather than assuming.
+
+**U13 — dependency versions are floors, not pins, and no lockfile exists.**
+`rfc8785>=0.1.2` and `pytest>=7.0` permit different resolved versions between
+installs. **OPEN.** This is in direct tension with roadmap item X4
+(cross-environment determinism): canonical identity that depends on an
+unpinned canonicalization library is not yet demonstrably reproducible across
+installs. Recorded as a finding rather than repaired, because pinning changes
+`pyproject.toml`, which is a protected DUT path, and would invalidate the
+benchmark's device-under-test verification without a fresh measurement run.
+
+---
+
+## What this record does not establish
+
+Bounded to one synthetic banking specimen family, on one machine, one operating
+system and one Python version. It does not establish production readiness,
+regulatory or legal correctness, universal source-to-rule derivation,
+arbitrary-domain compatibility, security certification, distributed
+scalability, formal correctness, independent external validation, or comparative
+standing against any other system.