BitEvo proof matrix

Same doctrine. Different external effects.

These synthetic packs show how the Authority / Evidence / Effect / Recovery model changes with the action class. They demonstrate method structure, not customer results.

SYNTHETIC PROOF SURFACE

All three cases are designed worked examples. No customer environment, production execution, private data or external audit result is represented. Each pack keeps assumptions, expected gates and NOT TESTED states explicit.

Three action classes

Authority breaks differently depending on what the agent can change.

The invariant method stays fixed while object binding, evidence gates, confirmation and recovery become specific to the external effect.

SAMPLE-001CRM write

CRM Qualification Update Agent

EXTERNAL EFFECT

Update two fields on one matched staging lead.

WORKED FAILURE

Internal success without trusted same-object read-back.

FINDING CLASS

False Green / external-effect confirmation gap

OWNER DECISIONCONSTRAIN
SAMPLE-002Outbound message

Approved Outreach Message Agent

EXTERNAL EFFECT

Send one approved message to one resolved recipient.

WORKED FAILURE

Recipient or approval evidence diverges before send.

FINDING CLASS

Authority mismatch / recipient-binding gap

OWNER DECISIONCONSTRAIN
SAMPLE-003Deployment / config change

Staging Configuration Change Agent

EXTERNAL EFFECT

Change one approved staging configuration key.

WORKED FAILURE

Version or environment binding is ambiguous at execution.

FINDING CLASS

Version-context / environment-binding gap

OWNER DECISIONREPAIR
Apply the method

Turn your own workflow into the same decision structure.

The local Authority Mapper supports CRM/record writes, outbound messages, deployment/config changes and custom external effects. It generates a draft Authority Ledger, Evidence Contract, action-specific failure scenarios and an owner decision posture.

DATALOCAL BROWSER ONLY
OUTPUTTXT + JSON
TRUST SCORENONE
TEST AUTHORIZATIONNOT GRANTED
Open Authority Mapper
Method invariants

What does not change across the three packs.

01
Authority is object-bound

The permission must name the action, target object or environment and the owner of that authority.

02
Evidence exists before effect

Identity, approval, freshness and version context are decision gates, not post-hoc explanations.

03
External effect closes the loop

A tool acknowledgement alone does not prove the intended external state exists.

04
Ambiguity reduces authority

Unknown recipient, object, environment, version or external state routes to constrain, reconcile or repair.

05
Retest uses the same criterion

A code/config change is not closure; the original decision condition must be replayed.

CRM WRITEsame-object read-back

Primary ambiguity: did the intended record actually reach the intended state?

OUTBOUND MESSAGErecipient + approval binding

Primary ambiguity: was the exact approved content sent to the exact authorized recipient?

CONFIG CHANGEenvironment + version binding

Primary ambiguity: did the approved change land in the intended environment against the expected baseline?

Your workflow

Start from the external effect, not the model name.

Map the action first. If the gates remain unresolved, the diagnostic and intake turn those gaps into an audit-ready scope without treating uncertainty as a pass.