Contributions and work products

Use a public contribution repository for the verifier source, policies, public tests, and DAO records. Paid open-contribution work produces open-source results under an agreed license. Contributors can use AI. Disclosures should establish the right to submit the work and any relevant license obligations, without requiring a routine declaration that AI helped write it.

A contributor requests paid work before treating it as a funded assignment. An authorized maintainer job accepts a scope and quote within its budget. The request might begin as a labeled pull request. The underlying commitment survives a later change of interface or Git provider. Unpaid contributions can follow the same technical review process without creating a payment obligation.

Keep changes to verifier behavior and changes to its tests separately inspectable. A contributor should not be able to make their patch pass by hiding an easier exam inside the same review. Documentation and other supporting work can earn payment and participation credit according to their accepted value.

Choose one authoritative merge history for each shared source tree. Synchronization with the private monorepo must preserve accepted changes and expose conflicts. Public reading and outside proposals remain compatible with restricting merge credentials to authorized agents.

Planning and implementation

A small contribution can begin with a change brief attached to its implementation. The brief names the problem, affected behavior, intended result, test evidence, and dependencies. It does not need a separately paid planning stage.

Commission a separate implementation specification when resolving uncertainty is substantial work that another contributor can use. Its acceptance conditions should identify the questions it resolves and the instructions or design it delivers. Accepting that specification does not promise its author the implementation assignment. Quote implementation separately when another party does it or the work needs a separate budget decision.

Payment follows the accepted scope. An implementer may supply a test report as part of the package without creating a second paid contribution. An independently commissioned evaluation can be a distinct paid assignment. Payment should buy useful work, without depending on whether a human or an AI wrote its prose.

Names and effects

Use these primary names throughout the records. Alternative names describe the same function if an interface needs a shorter label.

| Test report | Exact tested inputs and versions, prescribed runs, observed results, and authenticated execution evidence. | Supplies measurable evidence to any rule whose requirements it satisfies. | Evaluation results, test evidence record | | Merge decision | The controller's result from applying merge requirements to an exact revision at U06. | Authorizes that merge. It can be generated automatically from test evidence. | Merge authorization, acceptance record | | Release decision | The controller's result after applying production requirements at U12 and the execution checks at U14. | Establishes eligibility, then permits the identified production action. | Promotion authorization, production eligibility record | | Challenge submission | A specific alleged error, target, requested correction, and supporting evidence. | Starts qualification. Only a qualifying case blocks its permitted transition. | Objection, counterexample submission | | Challenge decision | The assigned authority's ruling and reasons for the disputed question. | Upholds acceptance, requires correction, or leaves the case unresolved. | Appeal decision, dispute ruling |

The test report, merge decision, and release decision can refer to the same evidence. They differ in function and timing. A merge requires the agreed implementation checks. Production also requires an exact tested deployment, a completed valid challenge window, and current execution authority. Do not commission three essays to record those three facts.

Where evaluation stops

Tests give measurable evidence that a candidate met the checks actually run. The controller can use that evidence directly to decide acceptance under the agreed policy. That is enough for the routine release rule. No additional subjective council approval applies to every passing report.

Judgment establishes coverage for a full candidate and resolves expectations, classification exceptions, or challenges that an existing rule cannot settle. The assigned council receives the exact question and evidence. It returns an authenticated acceptance, rejection, or abstention with reasons and its permitted effect. The controller checks identity, assignment, target, required agreement, and validity. It does not ask another council to re-evaluate every sentence.

The stopping point is a qualified decision authority, a bounded challenge process, and an executor that checks the resulting permission. New evidence can reopen an active safety problem through the incident process. An endless sequence of reviewers is not required to make an ordinary decision final.