docs: propose v2 claim identifier and evidence convention - #82
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Design-only proposal for #76: an unambiguous on-chain reference for what a v2 assertion actually claims. V2_RESOLUTION.md's own threat table already named this gap (an open electorate needs an unambiguous immutable reference to the proposition) and explicitly deferred it. This is that decision.
Recommendation, in short: a mandatory content hash (
BytesN<32>, same shape asPolicySnapshotV2.policy_hash), not a plain URI and not a full on-chain schema, with an optional URI as a best-effort discovery pointer only. Evidence (why a disputer or voter thinks what they think) stays event-only, never stored in persistent state.This was picked up now rather than later because it was flagged as "should land before or alongside #65," and #65/#66 already merged without it, waiting further only compounds the retrofit cost against more already-merged code.
No code changes here. Two open questions are called out explicitly at the end for review before a follow-up implementation issue gets opened against #64/#65/#66's already-merged shape, the same split V2_RESOLUTION.md and #64-#71 used.
Closes #76
Test plan
mdbook buildsucceeds, new page renders and links correctly under the Protocol v2 Resolution Proposal section