title: Technical Answerability Evidence Federation, Causal Divergence, and Claim-Lineage Board stable_id: EV-IMPL-TAF-RC42 report_type: implementation-record release: 2.0.0-rc.42-WIP status: implemented-in-source public_route: /workbench/technical-answerability-federation api_root: /api/v2/technical-answerability-federation memory_path: .uai/workbench/technical-answerability-federation.uai

Technical Answerability Evidence Federation

Mission

The Technical Answerability Evidence Federation aligns independently scoped synthetic records to the ten causal phases used by Evulgare to reconstruct consequential machine decisions:

Evidence
Provenance
Uncertainty
Interpretation
Options
Authority
Runtime assurance
Human or machine review
Outcome
Append-oriented history

The system verifies source identity, preserves root-source and correlation relationships, detects the first causal divergence, and records how evidence supports, challenges, qualifies, defeats, or invalidates bounded claims.

The implementation is customer-neutral and contains no private customer information, protected partner strategy, facility topology, real operating thresholds, target data, weapon commands, vehicle commands, force authorization, or real industrial-control interfaces.

Governing Doctrine

VALID RECORD ≠ FACTUAL TRUTH

RECORD COUNT ≠ INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION

A HUMAN CLICK ≠ MERITS REVIEW

RESTORED AVAILABILITY ≠ RESTORED SUPPORT

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY ≠ DELEGATED AUTHORITY

REPLAYABILITY ≠ CORRECTNESS

The architecture implements the distinction between an event log and decision provenance, between record integrity and factual truth, and between procedural confirmation and independent judgment. See:

@memory[docs/reports/decision-provenance-system-architecture.md#mandatory-epistemological-distinctions]
@memory[docs/reports/evulgare-accountability-architecture-research.md#mandatory-epistemological-distinctions]
@memory[docs/reports/human-judgment-interface-design.md#theoretical-foundations-and-definitional-framework]

The browser is a synchronized representation layer. Deterministic Python remains authoritative for source verification, phase alignment, first divergence, claim relationships, lineage, review quality, bounded decisions, events, and proof. See:

@memory[docs/reports/evulgare-simulation-workbench-research.md#executive-summary]
@memory[docs/reports/evulgare-defense-workbench-architecture.md#systemic-constraints-and-the-authoritative-state-rule]
@memory[docs/reports/python-autonomous-defense-architecture.md#authoritative-python-domain-layer]

Source Families

The federation consumes seven independently scoped source families:

Source family	Principal contribution
Technical Answerability	Ten-phase causal record and independent gate states
Decision Reconstruction	Deterministic decision history and stage alignment
Decision Review	Review quality and evidence-access distinctions
Autonomous Defense Kernel	Authority, attestation, and runtime-assurance evidence
Critical Infrastructure Campaign Review	Cross-site contradictions, containment, and recovery lineage
Continuity Campaign Review	Continuity evidence, reconciliation, and baseline governance
Industrial Resilience Review	Maintenance, evidence dependence, and return-to-service review

Every source record retains:

source schema
release identity
engine identity
source digest
event-chain digest
proof digest
terminal state
root source
correlation group
custody
availability
support state
phase states

Root-Source and Correlation Control

The federation counts independent root sources rather than raw record volume. Multiple derivative records generated from one root source remain one evidentiary root. Correlation groups preserve shared failure modes so copied or jointly derived records cannot be represented as independent corroboration.

The duplicate-derivative-stress and correlated-source-hold profiles deliberately expose the difference between derivative record count, independent root-source count, and shared correlation groups. The deterministic proof requires the independent-root count to be lower than the record count.

Ten-Phase Causal Alignment

Every source record is mapped to the ten Technical Answerability phases. The phase matrix keeps each source state visible and derives a bounded aggregate state without averaging away failures.

The interface provides:

a compact causal spine;
a selected-phase inspector;
a source-by-phase matrix;
keyboard phase navigation;
first-divergence identification;
source and aggregate states;
stable phase questions.

First Divergence

The first-divergence engine compares a candidate federation against the bounded baseline in phase order. It reports the earliest phase where source-aligned states or root-source identities differ.

The authority-runtime-divergence profile proves that current technical capability can remain present while delegated authority or runtime assurance fails. The first divergence must therefore be AUTHORITY, not OUTCOME or HISTORY.

Claim Relationships

The federation preserves five relationship types:

SUPPORTS
CHALLENGES
QUALIFIES
DEFEATS
INVALIDATES

Relationships are converted into claim records while retaining independent root-source identity. Claim states include:

SUPPORTED_WITHIN_DECLARED_BOUNDS
SUPPORTED_WITH_QUALIFICATIONS
CONTRADICTION_UNRESOLVED
EVIDENCE_INVALIDATED_BUT_HISTORICALLY_PRESERVED
CLAIM_SUSPENDED_PENDING_REVIEW
CLAIM_WITHDRAWN_FOR_CURRENT_SCOPE
NOT_ESTABLISHED

Unfavorable evidence is preserved. A contradiction is not deleted, averaged away, or hidden behind a composite readiness score.

Append-Oriented Claim Lineage

Every claim produces a hash-linked lineage event. Changes in support, qualification, challenge, contradiction, suspension, withdrawal, or invalidation append new events rather than rewriting history.

The lineage chain records:

sequence
claim identity
claim state
relationship summary
previous-event digest
current-event digest

Review Quality

The system keeps seven reviewer modes distinct:

HUMAN CLICK
PROCEDURAL CONFIRMATION
MERITS REVIEW
DECLARED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT
MACHINE REPORT
INDEPENDENT MACHINE REVIEW
ABSTAIN / DEFER

Independent machine review requires:

primary-evidence access;
contrary-hypothesis review;
implementation diversity;
independently scoped authority;
abstention capability.

A click or procedural confirmation cannot satisfy a merits-required claim.

Twenty Independent Dimensions

The federation evaluates twenty dimensions independently:

source integrity
evidence completeness
evidence independence
provenance continuity
uncertainty representation
interpretation support
option-space completeness
authority
declared purpose
software attestation
model attestation
policy attestation
configuration attestation
runtime assurance
reviewer merits
reviewer independence
outcome reconstructability
history integrity
deployment evidence
independent validation

There is no universal Technical Answerability score.

Deterministic Profiles

The published profiles are:

baseline-qualified — qualified evidence federation baseline.
duplicate-derivative-stress — duplicate records from fewer independent roots.
correlated-source-hold — shared-correlation and common-failure hold.
uncertainty-divergence — uncertainty becomes the first changed causal phase.
authority-runtime-divergence — authority and runtime-assurance divergence.
review-quality-failure — procedural activity without merits-capable review.
restored-availability-support-suspended — availability returns while support remains suspended.
contradiction-defeater — contradictory evidence defeats affected claims.
protected-boundary-failure — the protected-information boundary fails closed.
all-gates-reviewed-synthetic — every gate reviewed inside the declared synthetic scope.

Deterministic Proof and Browser Evidence

The RC42 global proof evaluates 99 named conditions, all of which pass in the packaged deterministic engine. Every individual run also carries a bounded per-run invariant set.

The local Chromium harness exercises the real Jinja templates and same-origin assets for the redesigned Technical Answerability page and the federation board. It verifies the 1366 × 603 short-height layout, mobile reflow, the 320 CSS-pixel equivalent of 400% magnification, reduced motion, forced colors, keyboard-operable phase controls, no-JavaScript analytical content, zero page-wide horizontal overflow, and zero page or console errors in the exercised Chromium environment. This evidence does not substitute for actual-host, cross-browser, physical-device, WebXR, assistive-technology, security, privacy, or measured-production acceptance.

Comparison and Counterfactual Isolation

Baseline comparison identifies changed phase states, claims, dimensions, root sources, and the first divergence without mutating either parent.

Counterfactual branches are labeled:

COUNTERFACTUAL FEDERATION — NOT EXECUTED

A branch receives a separate digest and cannot change the source records, active root, deployment state, release state, or parent history.

Evidence Package

The deterministic export includes:

exact source records;
root-source and correlation classification;
phase alignment;
first divergence;
claim relationships;
claim states;
append-oriented claim lineage;
independent dimensions;
contradictions;
residual unknowns;
review record;
bounded decision;
event ledger;
proof conditions;
public-boundary declaration;
package digest;
SYNTHETIC_NULL_SINK terminal state.

Package verification establishes deterministic structure and recorded-byte integrity inside the declared synthetic scope. It does not establish actual-host deployment, factual truth, legal approval, certification, procurement acceptance, or customer-system validation.

Coordinated Interface Views

The public workbench provides synchronized:

Causal Graph
Phase Matrix
First Divergence
Evidence Dependence
Claims
Claim Lineage
Review
Contradictions
Event Ledger
Proof Inspector
Narrative
Raw Synthetic Evidence

The page includes complete server-rendered analytical content. JavaScript enhances filtering, profile execution, comparison, counterfactual branching, and evidence export but is not required to understand the baseline result.

Public Boundary

The workbench accepts only published profile and reviewer identifiers. It rejects credentials, customer content, protected partner strategy, private source paths, arbitrary files or URLs, facility data, real coordinates, targets, weapon commands, vehicle commands, force authorization, real reactor control, industrial protocols, and classified material.

No public action can deploy software, recover a production system, activate a baseline, or promote a release.

Every public run terminates at:

SYNTHETIC_NULL_SINK

What This Demonstrates

RC42 demonstrates:

deterministic federation of several Evulgare assurance records;
exact source identity verification;
root-source and correlation control;
ten-phase causal alignment;
first-divergence detection;
explicit claim relationships;
append-oriented claim lineage;
review-quality separation;
bounded comparison and counterfactual isolation;
deterministic evidence-package export and verification;
accessible coordinated representations.

What It Does Not Establish

RC42 does not establish:

actual cPanel deployment;
factual accuracy of external-world source claims;
real-system certification;
operational readiness;
legal or procurement approval;
customer-system validation;
representative physical-device, WebXR, or assistive-technology acceptance.