Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/jobs/tilly-instrument-qualification/qualification/ job / candidate # Instrument qualification — qualification The distinct qualification record for Instrument qualification. This page is proposal-only. Status: **proposed**Lifecycle: **candidate** ## Record status **Record ID**: job:tilly:instrument-qualification **Parent lifecycle**: candidate **Page lane**: qualification **Lane lifecycle**: proposed **Owner**: Tilly **Owner role**: Pointguard and independent reviewer **Owner status**: WORKING **Qualification result**: NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review **Working browser surface:** [Agent jobs — builder overview]() — Inspect the package and stage a local project. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held. ## Qualification status **Result**: NOT RUN **Disposition**: HELD **Reviewer**: Not recorded **Receipt**: Not recorded This page defines proposed acceptance criteria for the qualification lane. It does not execute tests, establish compliance, qualify the subject, or authorize an effect. ### Lane-specific instrument aids [wcag-contrast-ratio-checkerrequired · Check documented foreground/background contrast inputs for the review surface; record the result as an accessibility receipt, not as proof of full accessibility.]()[checksum-verifierrequired · Verify a supplied source checksum when a source file and expected digest are available; hold the test when either value is absent.]() ## Outcome definitions **Verified**: All stated evidence and acceptance requirements passed for the exact reviewed revision; this still does not authorize deployment or an external effect. **Failed**: One or more deterministic acceptance requirements failed with an inspectable reason. **Needs review**: Evidence or interpretation is incomplete, conflicting, or awaits an identified human reviewer. **Held**: Authority, required evidence, safe execution conditions, or a principal gate is absent. The current record remains NOT RUN / HELD. These definitions describe candidate outcomes only. ## Proposed deterministic acceptance tests Route-resolution and distinct-content checks apply only to the admitted canonical routes in this record. Held source-proposed extensions are non-resolving proposals and are excluded. - AT-01 Identity: the submitted instrument name and slug exactly match one allowed catalog entry; unknown, ambiguous, or invented slugs fail. - AT-02 Source integrity positive: every relied-on source has a locator and owner, and any supplied SHA-256 matches the source bytes using checksum-verifier; otherwise the result is held. - AT-03 Source integrity negative: a mismatched digest, altered source, missing locator, or unverifiable file yields not-qualified or held and blocks supported claims. - AT-04 Authority positive: each claim is mapped to evidence whose recorded authority covers that claim; unsupported extrapolation is rejected. - AT-05 Authority negative: a claim about deployment, provider connection, credentials, database authority, customers, indexing, publication, or qualification is held because the supplied contract does not establish it. - AT-06 Chronology positive: source publication or revision dates precede the claim or review event, and retrieval dates are recorded. - AT-07 Chronology negative: stale, future-dated, undated, or revision-conflicted evidence is held until reconciled; chronology must never be inferred silently. - AT-08 Contradiction: conflicting sources produce a contradiction record naming both locators, affected claims, reviewer, and resolution state; unresolved contradictions block qualification. - AT-09 Accessibility: required labels, keyboard-operable controls, visible focus, error identification, and non-color-only status communication are recorded as checks; contrast inputs may be checked with wcag-contrast-ratio-checker. Missing observations produce held, not pass. - AT-10 Privacy: the review record excludes unnecessary personal, credential, protected, or customer data; private or protected material is not indexed or published. Any exposure is a blocking failure. - AT-11 Reproducibility: another reviewer can locate the same source revision and repeat each applicable check from the recorded inputs, expected result, and receipt; otherwise held. - AT-12 Independence: Tilly cannot approve her own evidence; a decision without a distinct independent approver remains held. - AT-13 Failure state: every failed or held test names a reason, affected claim, owner, remediation, deadline, and next state; empty or generic failure notes fail. - AT-14 Publication boundary: passing local checks does not create a public claim, deployment, provider effect, database write, customer index, or qualification; those states remain held. - AT-15 Record integrity: revisions preserve prior decisions, source provenance, canonical IDs, links, attachments, and receipts; overwritten evidence fails. ## Negative and held-state tests - A named native surface may be mistaken for a connected web feature or production capability. - A verified instrument status may be mistaken for qualification of a particular use or claim. - A checksum match proves file integrity only, not source authority or truth. - Contrast checking may be mistaken for complete accessibility conformance. - Undated or contradictory sources can create false chronology or authority. - Private, credential, customer, or protected data may leak into notes, search, PointGuard context, or public routes. - Tilly may accidentally approve her own evidence or convert a draft decision into a public claim. - A failed external send, provider write, upload, export, or credential action may be misreported as completed. - Keyword-heavy documentation could create doorway pages rather than useful distinct documentation. - Missing receipts or generic failure notes can conceal uncertainty and make review non-reproducible. ## Qualification claim boundary ### Potentially allowed only after the stated evidence - Only that a proposal-only qualification review record exists, if separately approved for that wording. - Only source-bounded descriptions of the review method and recorded limitations. - Only results explicitly supported by a reviewed source and approved independent decision. ### Still held - The instrument is qualified until an independent approval record exists. - The instrument is deployed, connected, live, or production-ready. - A provider, credential, database, customer, indexing, publication, or external communication effect occurred. - The evidence is authoritative beyond its recorded owner and scope. - A draft or local approval is a public claim. - Any unverified statistic, outcome, compatibility statement, or completeness claim. - That accessibility is complete based only on a contrast check. ## Sources and evidence These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment. - `agents/index.html#tilly` - `source_record:job:tilly:instrument-qualification` - `Observed native contract: records preserve canonical IDs, provenance, source locators, SHA-256, revisions, lifecycle, tags, links, attachments, and record revisions.` - `Observed native contract: PointGuard is a persistent cross-app context surface; specialist apps remain execution and canonical-record owners.` - `Observed native contract: current GuthHub routes are local prototypes or indexes; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, and production effects are held.`