Skip to content
C.W.K.
Stream
Lesson 04 of 04 · published

Verify the Evidence

~11 min · verification, evidence, claim, integrity

Level 0Cold Iron
0 XP0/36 lessons0/12 achievements
0/100 XP to next level100 XP to go0% complete

Verify the Evidence

A green exit is not the same as a verified claim. Start by binding the observation to the archived submission manifest and, for repository tasks, the exact frozen-base manifest. Then read the command, network posture, exit status, clipped-output flag, and actual output.

Integrity proves which bytes were exercised. Relevance asks whether that command can observe the behavior being claimed. A passing unit suite does not prove a browser layout; a screenshot at one pinned viewport does not prove accessibility or every screen size.

Unavailable evidence is an honest gap, not a mandatory gate failure. The evidence pack records that the sandbox or screenshot facility could not run, or a command started but timed out. Judges weigh that absence alongside the artifact and other evidence; they do not replace it with a contestant's unsupported success story.

Negative and partial outcomes deserve exact language: “command exited 1 after these checks,” “output was clipped,” or “screenshot unavailable.” State the strongest supported claim, the exclusions, and the remaining uncertainty.

Verify identity, execution, relevance, and scope. A trustworthy pack makes failure and absence as legible as success.

Code

Auditing evidence — green is not a claim·python
def audit(row, manifest_shas, claim_needs):
    """Three questions in order. Miss one and the claim does not stand."""
    findings = []
    if row.get("sha") not in manifest_shas:
        findings.append("integrity: these are not the declared bytes")
    if "unavailable" in row:
        findings.append(f"absence: {row['unavailable']} — an honest gap")
    elif row.get("exit") != 0:
        findings.append(f"execution: exited {row['exit']} — itself an observation")
    if claim_needs not in row.get("observes", []):
        findings.append(f"relevance: this command cannot see {claim_needs}")
    return findings or ["this claim is supported"]


shas = {"aa11"}

passing = {"sha": "aa11", "exit": 0, "observes": ["unit"]}
print(audit(passing, shas, claim_needs="unit"))

# Passed, but watched the wrong thing — the most common misreading.
print(audit(passing, shas, claim_needs="browser_layout"))

missing = {"sha": "aa11", "unavailable": "no sandbox", "observes": ["unit"]}
print(audit(missing, shas, claim_needs="unit"))

External links

Exercise

Audit one passing runner, one failing runner, and one unavailable screenshot. For each, write the strongest supported claim and one claim it cannot support.
Hint
Separate execution outcome from relevance and from absence.

Progress

Progress is local-only — sign in to sync across devices.
Spotted a bug or have feedback on this page?Report an Issue

Comments 0

🔔 Reply notifications (sign in)
Sign inPlease sign in to comment.

No comments yet — be the first.