Docs menu
Reference

Translation: dev / auditor / spec

The same nouns and verbs, said three ways: the word you'd reach for talking to a developer, the phrase an auditor would actually trust, and the term the spec defines. Use this page when a word feels like it means two different things in two different places on this site — it probably does, on purpose, and this is the decoder.

Nouns

ConceptDevAuditorSpec
your recordreceipt (yours) / capsulethe signed record the producer authored; a self-attested claim until witnessedcapsule (AAC record)
the witness artifactstampa Transparency Service's Receipt: the checkpoint was in its log at registration — never a statement about content, and not agreementRFC 9942 Receipt over the checkpoint (a Signed Statement whose payload is a log head)
the logyour log / ledgerthe producer's append-only history; tamper-evident by constructionCLL (Checkpointed Local Log, MMR)
the commitmentcheckpoint (“the 32-byte root”)one signed value committing the entire history to dateCLL checkpoint (COSE_Sign1)
the witnessing partywitnessthe party that makes the log checkable by a strangerTransparency Service (RFC 9943)
an action's accountproof (of an action)the signed membership claim: which records constitute one actioncomposition capsule
foreign bytes brought incarry / receivedsomeone else's already-signed record, committed as-transmittedas-transmitted CPB binding
the hand-over filebundledigests + proofs + stamps; lets anyone check integrity/order/completeness, carries no contentbundle
content releasedisclosea deliberate, recorded release of content to a named audience; itself loggeddisclosure record

Verbs

You typeDevAuditorSpec
seal(payload)“make a checkable record”mints a signed, logged, cadence-witnessed recordcanonicalize (CPB) → sign → append (CLL) → checkpoint
received(bytes, type=)“bring in someone else's signed record”localizes a foreign signed artifact as-transmittedas-transmitted carry
compose([...])“bind these into one account”membership claim over cited records; asserts nothing newcomposition capsule
bundle“the file I hand a stranger”assembles the offline-verifiable proof packagebundle assembly
disclose“share the content, on the record”releases selected content to an audience + logs the actdisclosure record + payloads
verify“check any of it, offline”recomputes signatures, inclusion, checkpoint-chain consistency; grades honestlyscitt-cose verification
status“where's everything on the ladder”ladder position + witnessing lag per recordladder + lag render
report (plugin)“the number, with the denominator”coverage with honest denominators; model-assisted rows labeled, never blendedrollup evaluation

The ladder — two rungs, no more

RungDevAuditorSpec
self-attested“signed by me”record integrity by the producer's key alone; no third-party confirmationattestation_mode=self_attested
witnessed“an independent log registered it”existence + order + completeness checkable without trusting the producerregistered checkpoint (≥1 valid Receipt)

There is no third rung. A witness Receipt is not a countersignature, and a witness vouches for nothing about the content. A counterparty's own signature over a shared record is a separate claim described on the bilateral page, not a step on this ladder. A record is self-attested until a Transparency Service its producer does not run has registered its checkpoint and returned a Receipt. On this site “witnessed” and “registered” name that same step. See witness anywhere for how you move a record up this ladder.

The honesty rows

This is the auditor register's spine — the claims this project will not round up, anywhere:

  • A witnessed record is not a true record. The stamp attests existence/order/completeness, never accuracy.
  • A derived verdict is not an adjudicated one. verify never grades up: absence ≠ forgery, unsigned ≠ invalid.
  • Coverage is the range, not the population.
  • Registration ≠ Receipt ≠ agreement. Registration is the act. A Receipt is what the service returns: it proves inclusion in that service's log, not agreement with the content. When a checkpoint carries a consistency proof, this service registers it only if the proof shows it extends the last one it registered for the same log; that check is part of its published Registration Policy. “Anchor” is avoided as a verb (it collides with “trust anchor”).
Why this page exists: the same underlying mechanism reads differently to the person wiring it into their agent, the person deciding whether to trust it, and the person implementing it from the spec text. Using the wrong register in the wrong place is how documentation quietly overclaims — this table is the check.