rule+post(voice): the killshot is PUFFERY BY DESIGN — a what-if and a worth, never an assertion about what a vendor does: "what if the counted version stayed wherever the money is and the fog was what reached your shelf? You do not want to live in that world. Neither do I, and that is how I am on your side. Ask any vendor what they run their treasury on, then ask what it would be worth to know which world you are in" — rewritten in P1, the Chip, the advice block and the Market aside; A12 now accepts only the what-if form and rejects the asserted form (red on the round-17 P1); CLAUDE.md and the voice bank carry the operator's words
This is a live, recomputable drift receipt — the on-chip proof of where this commit's work landed (in its authorized domain, out of it, or unplaced), sealed with a signature anyone can verify. It is the same receipt shipped in the on-commit email, hosted here so the claim is checkable on the open web. The full receipt (attestation, density panel, full commit message) publishes at /commit/e952d66b0/ shortly after the commit lands.
This is the proven asset: the drift read was produced by a real on-chip walk on sensor: metal, sealed with an ed25519 signature over the canonical body, and bound to the exact lattice by gridHash. Anyone can recompute it and check the signature — no trust in us required.
These are measurements, not a validated risk score. In a pre-registered predictive test the drift metric did not predict real defects (AUC ≈ 0.50, at chance) and the σ is pinned — so nothing here is a probability of loss and nothing here is a price. It is honest telemetry we publish while the instrument is under calibration.
Δ weighted bleed · Δ-spread max king-move leak · Γ traction slope · 𝒱 reef volatility · Θ efficiency decay (null → pending; no per-commit token meter). Definitions are carried in the signed signal's notes.
Sufficient for: where it landed, re-runnable from the commit: same bytes, same hash.
NOT sufficient for: whether the work was good, which is undecidable (Rice, 1953); nothing here claims it. Rice (1953): no program can decide, in general, whether another program is correct.