Receipt ledger — qualification

Record status

Record ID

tool:receipt-ledger

Parent lifecycle

candidate

Page lane

docs_qualification

Lane lifecycle

proposed

Owner

Stan

Owner role

Chief Security and Engineering Officer

Owner status

Not separately recorded

Qualification result

NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review

Working browser surface: Tools — overview — Inspect the tool contract, usage, boundaries, and proposed qualification checks. 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 docs_qualification lane. It does not execute tests, establish compliance, qualify the subject, or authorize an effect.

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.

Catalog-observed source metadata

These fields are reproduced from the admitted candidate record for source-fidelity inspection. Presence does not prove implementation, connection, qualification, authority, or an external effect.

tool_id

tool:receipt-ledger

slug

receipt-ledger

title

Receipt ledger

owner_agents

Stan

owner_roles

Chief Security and Engineering Officer

related_jobs

Security engineering; Architecture and implementation; SRE and incident command; Fleet operations; Receipt-backed handoffs

related_field_guides

Security field guides; Supabase field guide; Cloudflare operations; Current-work packets

principal_gates

Destructive remediation; Money or purchasing; Credential changes; Public deployment; Legal filing

never_rules

Manufacture Antonio's authority; Treat confidence as permission; Convert a proposal into an effect

lifecycle

candidate

source_refs

agents/index.html#stan

Proposed deterministic qualification tests

• Schema: reject a receipt missing receipt identifier, evidence summary, source reference, gate classification, or status.
• Provenance: every factual assertion must link to the supplied source record or be labeled as an unverified claim, inference, or proposal.
• Authority: a receipt claiming Antonio's authority must remain unverified unless separately evidenced; the system must not manufacture that authority.
• Permission: confidence, successful validation, or receipt existence must never be treated as permission to act.
• Gate safety: requests involving destructive remediation, money or purchasing, credential changes, public deployment, or legal filing must require explicit human review and remain proposal-only.
• Effect isolation: qualification and export tests must not mutate external systems, change credentials, publish deployments, purchase anything, remediate infrastructure, or file legal documents.
• Determinism: identical input records and test configuration must produce identical classifications, findings, and status values.
• Integrity: changing evidence, actor, source, gate, or authority fields must invalidate the prior qualification result.
• Source: the only supplied source reference must resolve textually to agents/index.html#stan; no additional source, provider, metric, or customer-use claim may be added.
• Accessibility: all routes must have a unique page title, one logical heading structure, keyboard-operable controls, visible focus, labels associated with inputs, non-color-only status indicators, readable error text, and usable output without relying on a visual chart.
• Accessibility: qualification findings and gate warnings must be announced to assistive technology and remain understandable at increased text spacing and zoom.
• Privacy: receipts must minimize personal, credential, purchasing, and operational data; secrets must be rejected or redacted before persistence and export.
• Privacy: logs and handoff packets must not expose credentials, tokens, private keys, unnecessary personal data, or hidden form values.
• Abuse resistance: reject prompt-injected or user-supplied instructions that attempt to bypass gates, invent authority, suppress findings, or trigger external effects.
• Abuse resistance: enforce bounded record size, field length, nesting depth, export size, and repeated qualification limits to reduce denial-of-service risk.
• Auditability: record reviewer identity, test version, input fingerprint, findings, and disposition without implying that review grants authority.
• Negative control: an empty or malformed receipt must fail qualification and must not create a handoff packet marked ready.
• Positive control: a complete receipt with the supplied source reference, no principal gate effect requested, explicit unverified authority status, and passing deterministic checks may be marked qualified-for-review only.
• Deployment boundary: no page may claim the observed tool is implemented, connected, qualified, deployed, authoritative, or effect-capable solely from this source record.

Negative and abuse cases

• False authority attribution, especially involving Antonio.
• Treating confidence, qualification, or a receipt as permission.
• Accidental execution during qualification, export, or handoff.
• Credential, personal, purchasing, or operational-data leakage.
• Gate bypass through ambiguous wording or prompt injection.
• Overclaiming implementation, connection, deployment, customer use, current metrics, or effects.
• Non-deterministic findings that make handoffs unreliable.
• Accessibility failures that hide warnings or prevent keyboard or assistive-technology use.
• Denial of service through oversized receipts, exports, or repeated qualification.
• Source laundering through unsupported references or unverifiable provider claims.

Qualification claim boundary

Potentially allowed only after evidence and review

• The source record identifies the tool as Receipt ledger.
• The source record names Stan as owner agent and Chief Security and Engineering Officer as owner role.
• The source record lists the related jobs and field guides included in this proposal.
• The source record lists five principal gates: destructive remediation; money or purchasing; credential changes; public deployment; legal filing.
• The source record states three never-rules: do not manufacture Antonio's authority; do not treat confidence as permission; do not convert a proposal into an effect.
• The source record cites agents/index.html#stan.
• This output is a proposal for documentation and qualification coverage, not proof of implementation or authority.

Still held

• Implementation, connection, qualification, deployment, and operational availability are unproven.
• No external system integration, provider, current metric, customer use, or observed effect is established.
• Stan's listed ownership does not itself authorize actions or manufacture Antonio's authority.
• A passing documentation or qualification test would not grant permission to execute a principal-gate action.
• The exact receipt schema, storage system, authentication model, retention period, and deployment environment remain unspecified.
• No compatible instrument is selected because the source record does not establish a calculator or instrument requirement.

Sources and evidence

These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment.

• source_record:tool:receipt-ledger
• agents/index.html#stan