open-standards/wai/extensions/task-fidelity.md

# WAI Extension: Task Fidelity

> Status: Draft. Names the contract for media whose correctness is a **downstream
> model's behaviour**, not a byte comparison — the class
> [`determinism-tiers`](determinism-tiers.md) cannot express. Sibling to that
> file, not a tier inside it: the tiers there are *reproducibility* guarantees a
> sink can check from the bytes alone, and a task claim is not one.
> No new wire format and no new receipt mechanism; a claim shape + an evidence
> grading over §7, modelled on
> [`energy-measurement`](energy-measurement.md)'s acquisition class.
> Keywords **MUST**, **MUST NOT**, **SHOULD**, **MAY** are RFC 2119/8174.

## 1. Why a second axis

`determinism-tiers.md` answers one question: *does the sink reproduce the same
bytes?* A growing class of coded media is not answering that question at all.
Three independent arrivals, none of them WAI's:

- **Video coding for machines.** ISO/IEC 23888-2 (MPEG-AI Part 2; **DIS**, FDIS
  planned late 2026) codes video *and* descriptors extracted from it, jointly
  optimised for bitrate and for machine-task performance after decoding. Its
  fidelity target is a task's accuracy, not a pixel comparison.
- **Feature coding for machines.** ISO/IEC 23888-4 (MPEG-AI Part 4; **CD**) codes
  intermediate feature tensors from inside a machine-vision network — the origin
  runs the first N layers, ships the tensor, the sink runs the remainder. **No
  pixels are reconstructed at any point**, so there is no medium to hash.
- **Vendor framing.** At least one vendor markets compression as safe for machine
  consumption when the change it induces in a downstream model's behaviour is
  statistically indistinguishable from the variance that model already tolerates.
  No standards body, no designation — and the vendor's own material states the
  industry lacks a shared framework for the claim, which is what makes the seam
  worth naming rather than ceding.

WAI today can register these as capabilities but cannot state what conformance
means for them. `ReplicateClass::Behavioral` is a disclaimer, not a criterion.
*Task-equivalent but not bit-equal* is unstateable, so an implementation either
overclaims a reproducibility tier it does not meet or says nothing at all.

**The distinction that makes this a separate file.** A reproducibility tier is
checkable by the sink from the bytes it received. A task-fidelity claim is not:
checking it requires a model, a corpus, and a test run. Listing the two together
would blur the one property `determinism-tiers.md` currently keeps clean — that
its tiers are verifiable without leaving the object.

## 2. The claim

A task-fidelity claim is a tuple, and it is meaningless with any element missing:

| element | meaning |
|---|---|
| `model` | content address of the network the claim is about — the identity under which δ was observed |
| `test` | content address of the task, corpus and metric the claim was measured under |
| `tolerance` | τ — the behavioural change the claimant asserts is acceptable, in the metric `test` names |
| `observed` | δ — the behavioural change actually measured under `test` |
| `evidence` | the class in §3 |

A claim asserts **δ ≤ τ under `test`, for `model`**. It asserts nothing about any
other model, any other corpus, or any metric `test` does not name.

- A claim **MUST** carry all five elements. A tolerance without an observation is
  a target, not a claim, and **MUST NOT** be sealed as one.
- `model` and `test` **MUST** be content addresses, not names. "Tested on a
  standard detector" is unfalsifiable; a hash is not.
- A claim **MUST NOT** be restated for a different model or corpus without a new
  observation. Behavioural tolerance does not transfer by assertion.

## 3. Evidence class (REQUIRED)

What separates the rungs is **provenance and scope, not accuracy** — the same
principle as `energy-measurement.md` §2, and for the same reason: a confidently
formatted δ says nothing about whether anyone ran the test.

| class | meaning | requires |
|---|---|---|
| `Measured` | δ was observed by running `test` against `model` on the stated corpus. | retained artifacts sufficient to re-run |
| `Transferred` | δ was observed under a *different* model or corpus and is argued to carry over. | the source claim, and the argument, both named |
| `Asserted` | δ is claimed without an observation. | — |

- An implementation **MUST NOT** promote a claim's evidence class in transit, as
  §2 of `energy-measurement.md` forbids for acquisition class.
- A verifier that cannot resolve `model` and `test` **MUST** treat the claim as
  `Asserted` regardless of the class stated, and **SHOULD** say so rather than
  discard the claim silently.
- `Transferred` **MUST NOT** be used to cross a modality or a task family. A
  detector's tolerance is not a segmenter's.

## 4. What the claim is, and is not

- It is **not** a reproducibility tier, and **MUST NOT** be presented as one. A
  capability carrying a task-fidelity claim **MUST NOT** thereby claim
  `entropy-consistency` or `decode-equivalence`; those are separate assertions
  about separate properties, and a capability may hold both, one, or neither.
- It is **not** sink-checkable from the bytes. This is the defining limitation,
  and stating it is the point: a receipt bearing a task-fidelity claim carries a
  *graded assertion*, not a verification, and a relying party that treats it as
  the latter has misread it.
- It is **not** a quality metric. δ is behavioural change in a named downstream
  task, not perceptual fidelity, and the two **MUST NOT** be reported in the same
  field.
- It does **not** license degradation elsewhere. A task-fidelity claim says
  nothing about energy, and an object honouring a decoding-operation-reduction
  hint is still bound by `determinism-tiers.md` §2.

## 5. The split-computation case — named, not solved

FCM makes the origin/sink **work partition** a negotiated wire parameter: the cut
point N decides how much of the network each side runs. That breaks an assumption
in `jwp-receipts.md`, where `joules_micro` is one `u64` for producing the object
by one producer.

A cut-point-aware receipt needs three things WAI does not have: joules before the
cut, joules attributable after it, and a network-identity hash making the halves
provably compose. The third is a carriage problem — the artifact a network
identity names has no normative wire form in WAI today.

This extension **does not** solve that. It records the gap so a task-fidelity
claim over a split computation is not mistaken for a complete accounting: such a
claim **MUST** state the cut point, and **MUST NOT** report a single joule figure
as if one producer had done all the work.

## 6. Framing

Byte-comparability is becoming one fidelity contract among several rather than
the only one. WAI's position is unchanged by that — it names contracts and grades
the evidence behind them, and does not adjudicate which contract a domain should
want. What would be wrong is silence: a ratified class of media arriving with a
conformance notion the container cannot state, described instead in the vocabulary
of a guarantee it does not make.