Evidence-governed workflows

Evidence and decision rights

Preparing work, approving it, attempting an action and confirming its completion are different events. This research asks how software can preserve those distinctions and keep human responsibility visible.

The method

Connect factual statements to source identifiers and approved wording. Keep unresolved or conflicting material separate from information permitted for a particular output. Treat retrieval as the selection of useful evidence, not a guarantee that a generated conclusion is correct.

Bind completion records to the same case and its registered receipt. Recheck artifact existence, validation status and a stored digest at the state transition. Keep approval decisions separate from the executor that must enforce them.

What the work shows

Inspected completion controls reject missing, changed or wrong-case receipts. A saved local test run exercised selected identity and tamper checks with temporary artifacts and in-memory state. This makes an attempted action distinguishable from a result supported by an intact record.

Append-only approval records make intent and decisions inspectable, but do not themselves execute approved work. Likewise, a matching artifact digest establishes identity and consistency rather than the semantic truth of the underlying evidence.

Interpretation and limits

A tested state-transition guard covers its inspected path. Correct evidence curation, authenticated authority and enforcement by every relevant executor remain separate responsibilities.

The next test

Test stale approvals, payload changes, repeat attempts and unknown outcomes across one complete bounded workflow. Make the reason for each transition understandable to the person reviewing the work.