Repository navigation
TR-ANC-002 can earn Level 2 without binding receipt root/count to the transparency-named entry #464
Description
Continued from trace-tests agentrust-io/trace-spec#547 as part of repository consolidation. Original author: @solloek369-arch. The original discussion and maintainer decisions remain in that linked issue; this migration does not resolve the conformance question. Implementation coordination also remains in trace-registry agentrust-io/trace-tests#102 and trace-spec #280.
Lineage: trace-tests agentrust-io/trace-tests#70 → trace-tests agentrust-io/trace-tests#79 → caller root/count ↔ transparency-named entry binding
What TR-ANC-002 checks today
At the exact unreleased main snapshots below, TR-ANC-002
replays an inclusion proof against merkle_root and leaf_count supplied in
the caller receipt.
It does not establish that those values belong to the registry entry named by
the transparency URI in the signed record. A receipt can therefore be
internally consistent and still earn Level 2 without that authority relation
having been established.
What the Anchor Format says
The Anchor Format
identifies the registry entry through the record's transparency URI. The
question here is whether a Level-2 verdict must also establish that the caller
receipt's root and count describe that identified entry.
Decisive controls
| World | Suite result | Independent paired-entry check |
|---|---|---|
| Matching sealed paired entry | ✅ Level 2 | ✅ established |
| Wrong caller root | ❌ refused | — |
| Only paired-entry root changed | ✅ Level 2 | ❌ not established |
| Only paired-entry count changed | ✅ Level 2 | ❌ not established |
The Merkle check is load-bearing: a wrong caller root is refused. The narrower
gap is that changing only the separately retained paired entry's root or count
leaves the suite at Level 2 while the independent check reports the binding not
established.
Decision requested
Is binding of the caller receipt's merkle_root and leaf_count to the
registry entry named by transparency part of what a Level-2 verdict must
establish?
No upstream API or network-resolution design is proposed here.
Currentness and scope
Currentness checked: 2026-09-02T10:31:53Z — the trace-tests and
trace-spec default branches matched these exact unreleased pins at that time:
trace-tests:98c34c7b62f55886ba170609f268645994ba8c1ftrace-spec:98aae176aa9ae4053d944624dad7629c76789ff7
Replay if TR-ANC-002 or the Anchor Format entry-binding relation changes.
This does not claim released impact, registry compromise, remote
exploitability, severity, production prevalence, downstream authorization, or
a prescribed upstream API.
Evidence
An unsigned self-verifying local packet, including paired worlds and replay
receipts, is available on request:
d32607ee1f272c8c16f39e44b323e0bd85cd7e897dc3e330a6b5807670318410
Activity
imran-siddique commentedon Oct 15, 2026
@solloek369-arch yes, required. TR-ANC-002 now needs the registry entry supplied offline. Root or count differing from it is refused, and with no entry Level 2 is not earned. Nothing identifies an entry from the
transparencyURI yet, so a pass says that link was not checked; it stays with #448 finding 21. Until then this replaces my 09-23 line on trace-tests#92.This redefines a conformance level, so under GOVERNANCE.md this comment opens the 30-day comment period, closing no earlier than 2026-11-14. What breaks: a Level 2 result from a receipt alone. What implementers do: keep the registry entry with the record and pass it with
--entry. Record, receipt and entry shapes do not change.Your four worlds and the absent entry are tests in #533.