Reviewer route / Funders / Standards / Institutions

Inspect the public discipline, not the pitch.

ActProof should be reviewed as infrastructure for source-bound evidence objects.

The strongest proof is not an ambitious claim. It is a narrow technical claim, a visible source chain, and a boundary that prevents the evidence layer from impersonating legal authority.

01 / Why this matters

Machine-readable regulation is becoming infrastructure.

If regulated acts become machine profiles, the public needs a way to inspect the transformation.

ActProof contributes a public method for tracing that transformation: from source artefact to field table to profile to receipt to verifier result.

02 / What to inspect

Review the objects in order.

Begin with the profile object, not the headline claim. Then the source bindings, then the verifier, then the refusal boundary.

R-01Profile

Does the profile name its source and claim boundary?

Check act_type_id, fields, evidence labels, issuer roles and signature policy.

Catalogue →

R-02Source

Are source artefacts pinned?

Check whether the profile can be associated with named, hashable legal artefacts.

Source bindings →

R-03Mapper

Is judgement visible?

Check whether field conversion and complexity concentration are treated as review work.

Mapper →

R-04Verifier

Does the tool remain narrow?

Check whether local hashing avoids legal claims and upload dependency.

03 / Known risks

The project becomes weak if it overclaims.

Reviewer confidence should increase when risks are named plainly. The main risk is not that ActProof is too narrow. The main risk is allowing the evidence layer to imply a legal certainty it cannot provide.

Defensible

source-bound evidence profiles
local reproducibility checks
canonical receipts
public challenge routes

Dangerous

certified compliance status
regulator-like badges
opaque AI extraction
private schema presented as public law

04 / Entry points

Different reviewers need different routes.

ActProof offers funders, implementers, standards contributors and RegTech teams separate inspection paths under one institutional discipline.

01Funderpublic good

02Bankworkpaper

03Vendorschema gap

04Standardprofile

05Auditorreceipt

06Developerlibrary