Exact

Exact Union RegExp

Repository files (latest commit first)

Filename	Latest commit message	Latest commit date
Transaction Science ce8a8b20a0 mesh §3.2: the fidelity floor was checked against the route table, not the serve ... A Mesh request carries two bounds and only one of them was held to a standard of honesty. Energy has a provenance model whose coupling §3.3 requires be enforced before sealing — "the rule that keeps 'measured' honest". Fidelity had none. `serve` computed `fidelity_met` at step 2, from `route.chosen_fidelity`, which is `ServingEngine::fidelity` — documented as "the fidelity level this engine is **rated** to deliver". The engine ran at step 3 and the receipt was built at step 4 from the step-2 value, so nothing the engine returned could change it. A backend admitted at F3 that degraded at serve time sealed `fidelity_met: 1` against an F3 floor, and the receipt looked ordinary. The engine could not have been asked, either: `ServeOutcome` is counters only — tokens in/out/accepted, cache hits, speculative proposals — with no fidelity signal and no degradation signal. So the figure could not have been anything but a table lookup. `ServeOutcome` gains `delivered_fidelity: Option<Fidelity>`, and `fidelity_met` is derived from it when present. Two figures, two different claims: the advertisement is what the route table promised before the work and the basis the router admitted the backend on; the delivered level is what the party that did the work says it served. Both are sealed, as a pair, so a divergence is attributable to a named backend rather than merely showing up as a failed floor. Enforced, not just recorded: a backend reporting **above** its rating is refused (`MeshError::FidelityAboveRating`) rather than clamped. It would be claiming a basis the route decision never rested on, and clamping would hide a misconfigured or dishonest engine behind a plausible receipt — the exact failure the field exists to expose. What this does not claim, stated in the spec rather than implied: a delivered figure is still the backend's own account. It is better grounded than a table entry written before the work and it is not an independent assessment of the output — Mesh does not score responses. What the pair buys is that the divergence becomes visible. Additive, and `mesh/1` stays byte-stable. The two fields travel together or not at all: their purpose is the comparison, and the advertisement alone adds nothing a verifier lacks from `backend`. Carrying neither is exactly what a receipt sealed before the fields existed means, so the published pack is unchanged — the drift check proves it, and it caught two earlier drafts of this change that were not additive (the reference engine reporting unconditionally, then `fidelity_advertised` emitted on its own). `ReferenceEngine` therefore keeps the historical shape by default, with `reporting_delivered_fidelity()` to exercise the field; a real engine that can degrade needs no switch. SPEC gains §3.2.1 with the four MUSTs, §5's `ServeOutcome` sketch and §6.1's wire table updated. mesh-rs workspace: 57 passed, clippy clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>		2026-10-09 02:51:33 -04:00
..
src	mesh §3.2: the fidelity floor was checked against the route table, not the serve	2026-10-09 02:51:33 -04:00
Cargo.toml	wai.generate.spectral: extend the lexicon to 370 words (data-only, pin unchanged)	2026-06-27 05:33:47 -04:00