Skip to content

Evidence Coverage for Intent-Bound Execution: Scope, Obligations, and Cutoff Reasoning

Mengting Wu, Lin Wang, Yong Zhang, Jiang Deng

cs.CRarXiv:2610.01386

Abstract

A verifier may authenticate every available record and still lack grounds to call an execution account complete. Such a claim requires a justified account of which records were due for the execution being assessed. We present an analytical model for retrospective coverage of declared execution-evidence obligations. Its scope binds a structured Intent, an exact Candidate, a selected analytical attempt, an execution and evidence boundary, a stage horizon, a fixed record-obligation profile, a named verifier, and an assessment cutoff. Branch and trigger premises determine obligation instances; source competence, content, integrity, and object and stage bindings determine admissibility. We distinguish closure of the obligation inventory from closure of the relevant verifier view, and define three reporting results: COMPLETEWITHINSCOPE, INCOMPLETE, and UNKNOWN. These results concern current coverage of obligations due at the cutoff. Execution progress, external outcome knowledge, and historical delivery timeliness are reported separately. Constructed service-principal-disablement cases demonstrate complete dispatch and refusal branches, a due but missing final-result record, subsequent coverage after late delivery, and the limits of extending one selected attempt's coverage to all attempts. The contribution is an execution-specific composition of scope, branch, horizon, obligations, admissibility, view, and cutoff. Completeness remains conditional on the declared profile and assessment premises.

Create a lesson