public · no login

Receipts and evidence

Everything here is checkable without an account. The campaign table carries the real outcome of every adversarial case, including the one that was not run.

Environment

Network: eip155:8453 · USDC on Base
Rail: x402, scheme exact, settled as EIP-3009 transferWithAuthorization
Wallet pattern: delegated access — the wallet is the end user’s
Service: reading

Adversarial campaign

10 of 11 matched

The campaign table, with real outcomes, is the submission. It is scripted and re-runnable with pnpm campaign, and its output is written to evidence/campaign/.

Case	Input	Expected	Observed	Proves
C1	In-policy request, $0.05	ALLOW	ALLOW	R3: the action works
C1x	Execute against the live rail	settled, tx hash retained	NOT_ATTEMPTED	R3 / G4 — UNPROVEN in this build
C2	Same request inside the TTL	BLOCK DUPLICATE_INTENT	DUPLICATE_INTENT	the eleven-purchases problem
C3	Approved digest, amount mutated	BLOCK DIGEST_MISMATCH	DIGEST_MISMATCH	approve $5, $500 cannot leave
C4	Above perCall.cap	BLOCK PER_CALL_CAP_EXCEEDED	PER_CALL_CAP_EXCEEDED	the human's limit binds
C5	Recipient not allowlisted	BLOCK RECIPIENT_DENIED	RECIPIENT_DENIED	vendor control
C6	Prompt-injected intent	BLOCK, named rule	RECIPIENT_DENIED	the model cannot widen the ambit
C7	Until the daily budget is exhausted	BLOCK DAILY_BUDGET_EXCEEDED	DAILY_BUDGET_EXCEEDED	effective-usage accounting
C8	Expired policy	BLOCK POLICY_EXPIRED	POLICY_EXPIRED	expiry authorises nothing
C9	User revokes, then the agent requests	403 DELEGATION_REVOKED	403 DELEGATION_REVOKED	the user owns the wallet
C10	C1 repeated 10 times	identical verdicts	ALLOW 10/10	determinism across 10 runs

The hatched row is a case that was not run. It is neither a pass nor a failure, and it is shown at the same weight as the rest.

Transactions

none

No payment has been executed.

No Dynamic environment and no x402 facilitator are configured in this build, so there is no transaction hash to open. This is R3 and gate G4, and it is the largest gap in the submission. The list is empty rather than populated with an example, because an example hash on this page would be indistinguishable from a real one.

How could this be misleading?

The campaign runs against one provider on one rail. A second provider could behave differently.
Blocked cases prove the engine refuses, not that the refusal set is complete. An attack not in the table is not covered by the table.
Determinism across 10 runs is a small sample. It is reported as 10 runs, not as “deterministic”.
The seller route is operated by this project, labelled PROJECT_OPERATED, and is not evidence of third-party adoption.
Cases recorded as NOT_ATTEMPTED were not run.