[SCITT] Re: New I-D: Evidence Requirements for Agent Control Delivery and Outcome Reconciliation (draft-abak-agent-control-delivery-evidence-00)

[Iman Schrock <[e-mail]>]

Ali, all,

The lifecycle separation is useful, and Section 13 draws the boundary
with AEB correctly: AEB follows a consequential action toward its
effect; this draft follows a stop or revoke instruction toward the
runtime constraint.

My first failure is target multiplicity at reconciliation. R-CD-4
requires a target or resolution input, R-CD-5 requires a receiver
identity, and CONFIRMED then requires a matching instruction
identifier and content binding. I do not see a normative step that
binds the resolved target to that receiver, or an accounting unit that
prevents one receiver observation from satisfying a control that
resolves to several enforcement paths.

For example:

- ctrl-1 resolves to EP-A and EP-B.
- A reads and applies it.
- B produces no receiver observation and remains able to dispatch.
- Under Section 6.1, ctrl-1 can be CONFIRMED. The issuer population in
Section 6.3 still conserves. Section 9.3 says the control may
nevertheless be ineffective.

That is existential evidence for a universal delivery claim.

I think the model needs one of two contracts: every intended path gets
its own instruction identifier and disposition, or the instruction
binds a closed target set and reconciliation produces one
sub-disposition per target before the parent can be CONFIRMED. An open
or unresolved target population should preclude PASS. R-CD-4 and
R-CD-5 should also require exact agreement between the resolved target
and the receiver identity and boundary, so the right instruction at
the wrong enforcement point cannot confirm delivery.

Two adjacent drafts may help define the composition seam.
draft-schrock-ep-revocation-statement-01 defines the upstream signed
control object and says explicitly that it proves the revoker acted,
not that anyone received the revocation.
draft-schrock-ep-outcome-binding-00 separates accepted dispatch from
independently observed effect and keeps missing or unauthenticated
required observations indeterminate. With AEB, the chain is revocation
statement, control delivery and enforcement evidence,
consequential-action boundary evidence, and effect reconciliation. No
link implies the next.

One race would be useful in the conformance set: O1 crosses provider
entry, then a freeze commits, and O2 is blocked. O1 remains consumed
or in flight and requires outcome reconciliation. Delivery or APPLIED
status for the freeze cannot relabel O1 or prove that an external
effect was reversed. The vector should bind the control epoch, closed
target population, effect predicate, and observation window.

I can contribute an exact fixture if useful.

Best,
Dr. Iman