Conformance Report
& Conformance Declaration

The Evidence Model Is Now Concrete Enough for Candidate Reports

Conformance Sections 01–09 now define a candidate proof surface covering Mandatory Core scope, result equivalence, validation, exactness, serialization, version compatibility, independent implementation, and failure conditions.

A candidate Conformance Report can therefore preserve meaningful executable evidence now, even though the final report schema, final machine-readable declaration schema, formal status identifiers, and canonical adoption process remain open.

Preserve the Evidence Behind the Claim

A Conformance Report shall preserve the evidence necessary to evaluate whether an implementation satisfies the applicable Foundational Survey Fabric Conformance requirements.

The report shall identify the tested implementation, governing Specification profile or compatibility identity, claimed Conformance scope, applicable normative encoding, test corpus, Reference Vectors or equivalent fixtures, observed results, failures, unsupported capabilities, ambiguities, and other evidence required by the governing framework.

State Only What the Evidence Supports

A Conformance Declaration shall summarize the compatibility claim established by the completed Conformance Report.

It shall not claim broader compatibility than the evidence supports and shall identify the governing Specification or compatibility identity, claimed profile, applicable serialization identity, result standing, and any material limitations.

The Tested Software Must Be Identifiable

The report shall identify the implementation with enough precision to distinguish the tested artifact from materially different builds, configurations, forks, releases, or execution packages.

Candidate identity evidence may include implementation name, release identifier, source revision, build identifier, artifact digest, environment summary, or equivalent reproducible identifiers.

The final required identity fields remain open.

The Standard Under Test Must Be Explicit

Every report shall identify the governing Foundational Survey Fabric Specification version or compatibility identity available at that stage and the Conformance profile against which the implementation was evaluated.

A declaration without a defined governing baseline shall not constitute a complete compatibility claim.

Final top-level FSF Specification identifier syntax remains open and shall not be invented by the report.

The Report Must Identify the Required Proof Surface

A report claiming current candidate Mandatory Core compatibility shall identify the applicable solved capabilities evaluated, including CRPC, canonical frame behavior, Point / Segment / SCPE validation, exact core predicates, deterministic normalization, ECEM precision semantics, and FSF-CJSON-1.0 where serialization compatibility is claimed.

Partial support shall be reported as partial support rather than implied as full Mandatory Core Conformance.

Untested, Unsupported, Experimental, and Open Behavior Must Remain Separate

The report shall distinguish successfully demonstrated optional capabilities from unsupported, untested, experimental, or Specification-open behavior.

Open mathematical gates shall not be presented as conformant merely because an implementation offers experimental behavior.

Evidence Must Be Bound to a Specific Execution

Each formal test execution should carry a distinct test-run identity sufficient to connect the implementation artifact, governing profile, fixture set, evaluator or execution environment, date or sequence metadata where appropriate, and observed results.

The final test-run identifier syntax remains open, but reports shall not collapse materially different executions into one indistinguishable evidence record.

Canonical Expectations Must Be Traceable

The report shall record the applicable Reference Vectors or equivalent executable fixtures used to establish the claimed result.

For each applicable case, the evidence should preserve the fixture identity, governing profile, expected authoritative result, observed result, and disposition.

Reports shall not imply execution of vectors or fixtures that do not yet formally exist.

Input Classification Must Be Recorded Where Material

Candidate reports should preserve evidence demonstrating the required distinction among canonical-valid, valid-noncanonical, invalid, and explicitly unsupported behavior where the applicable profile uses those categories.

Where normalization is required, the report should preserve both the input identity and resulting canonical normalized output.

The Report Must Show Exact Agreement Where Exactness Is Required

Evidence shall preserve exact expected and observed results for governed CRPC behavior, exact predicates, canonical normalization, exact supported measurements, and other Mandatory Core outputs.

Approximate decimal summaries may assist human review, but shall not substitute for exact evidence where the Specification defines exact canonical truth.

FSF-CJSON-1.0 Claims Require Canonical Byte Proof

A report claiming FSF-CJSON-1.0 compatibility shall preserve evidence sufficient to verify parsing, normalization-before-serialization, canonical structured CRPC representation, required object ordering, duplicate-key rejection, governed unknown-field handling, round-trip behavior, and canonical byte identity.

Where exact canonical bytes are required, the report shall preserve or reproducibly identify those bytes rather than only a human-readable rendering.

Different Outcomes Must Remain Distinguishable

Each applicable test shall receive a deterministic disposition defined by the governing Conformance framework.

Candidate disposition concepts presently include: PASS, FAIL, UNSUPPORTED, INDETERMINATE, SPECIFICATION AMBIGUITY, and TEST / FIXTURE DEFECT.

These are candidate concepts, not yet final machine-readable canonical status identifiers.

Failures Must Remain Visible

A Conformance Report shall preserve all material failures, mismatches, unresolved ambiguities, unsupported mandatory capabilities, fixture defects, and other evidence that materially affects the claim.

A Conformance Declaration shall not omit known evidence that invalidates or materially limits the compatibility claim.

Later Success Must Not Erase Earlier Evidence

Where an implementation is corrected and retested, the later result may supersede the earlier claim for current standing, but the evidence model should preserve the distinction between the original failed run and the later successful run.

The formal retest, withdrawal, supersession, and evidence-retention procedures remain open.

The Claim Must Be Verifiable by Others

The report should preserve enough information for an independent evaluator to reproduce the applicable tests and confirm the claimed result from the same governing materials.

Where independent implementation evidence is required, the report shall identify the independent implementation or implementations, their relevant identity, and the comparison evidence used.

The Claim Must Not Exceed the Proof

A Conformance Declaration shall be invalid if it claims compatibility beyond the tested Specification profile, demonstrated Conformance scope, normative encoding, tested operation set, or successfully completed Mandatory Core requirements.

The declaration shall accurately represent the boundaries of proven compatibility.

Evidence Must Remain Bound to What Was Tested

Reports and declarations shall carry sufficient identity information to determine the implementation artifact, governing Specification/profile, applicable serialization identity, test corpus, Conformance rules, and test execution that produced the result.

A later implementation release, Specification revision, profile change, or serialization revision shall not automatically inherit an earlier declaration without whatever reevaluation the governing framework requires.

The Record May Be Verified Without Becoming Spatial Truth

Conformance Reports and Declarations may use signatures, hashes, publication records, provenance systems, content-addressed evidence, or other integrity mechanisms.

Such mechanisms authenticate the evidence record. They do not define canonical spatial meaning, canonically adopt the Specification, or grant amendment or succession authority.

Conformance Should Be Interoperably Expressible

The completed Conformance framework should support a deterministic machine-readable Conformance Declaration containing the identities and outcome information necessary for software, registries, validators, or future infrastructure to evaluate the claim consistently.

Candidate content includes implementation identity, governing Specification/profile identity, serialization identity, claimed class/profile, test-run identity, overall standing, limitations, evidence references, and declaration provenance.

The final schema, encoding, required fields, status vocabulary, and interchange rules remain open.

The Claim Must Also Be Understandable

Conformance shall also be expressible in a concise human-readable form identifying what was tested, against what governing profile, for which scope, using which applicable serialization, with what overall result and limitations.

Human-readable summaries shall remain faithful to the underlying machine-verifiable evidence.

Material Change May Require New Proof

Material changes to implementation behavior, governing Specification/profile, normative serialization, Conformance scope, Mandatory Core requirements, or relevant test corpus may require renewed evaluation.

The exact reassessment triggers remain open, but a declaration shall not be treated as timeless evidence for software or rules materially different from what was tested.

Proof Produces the Claim

An implementation may make a candidate Foundational Survey Fabric compatibility claim only after satisfying the applicable Mandatory Core, all requirements of each claimed Conformance scope, validation and exactness rules, serialization obligations, version-compatibility requirements, independent implementation obligations where required, and applicable failure conditions.

The declaration is therefore the outcome of the Conformance framework—not an assertion that precedes it, and not a source of canonical authority beyond the compatibility scope actually proven.

The Final Evidence Layer Is Ready for Candidate Design, Not Canonical Issuance

The original section correctly established that proof must precede declaration. The integrated candidate Conformance model now provides enough structure to define a meaningful evidence record for the solved core.

Final schemas, status identifiers, certification mechanics, declaration lifecycle, and canonical adoption remain open. Conformance evidence can now be structured; canonical standing still belongs to the valid BitPangea adoption process.

Primary Referenced Findings

This Conformance section is derived especially from Requirements Findings #10, #16–#17, #57–#60, #63–#64, #78–#85, with Finding #84 establishing the Mandatory Core and Finding #85 establishing staged readiness gates: formal mathematical design may proceed within the audited requirements envelope, serious conformance testing follows sufficiently deterministic rules, and canonical adoption requires conformance analysis, adversarial testing, and independent implementation evidence.