Anyone can demo the happy path. The interesting question is what a system does when someone alters a document, forges an approval, withholds a quorum, or lies about an anchor. So the proving ground declares the outcome of each attack in advance — and then proves the system behaves exactly as declared. Where we were wrong, the row would say so.
A single fixed seed drives the entire stack through the real modules — not mock-ups of them: membership, a service agreement co-signed by two parties, delivery, an invoice, a dispute, the routing of that dispute to the right tier, a resolution reached by several signers, an anchored root, and finally verification performed offline.
Because the seed is fixed, the run is deterministic. You can reproduce it, and so can anyone who doubts it.
Around that golden path sits the scenario matrix: twenty attacks, each with an outcome written down before the run, each row proven against its own declaration.
Both are downloadable. The verifier re-runs live when you click: valid for the intact package, invalid for the twin, with a named reason. A tool that cannot tell the two apart is not a verifier, it is a decoration.
You are not required to run it here, either. Take both packages, check out the verifier clean, and run it yourself — which is the only version of this claim that should ever convince you.
Membership to anchored root to offline verification, driven end to end through the real modules.
Altered documents, forged approvals, missing quorum, a lying anchor, a failed key store, statutory holds, duplicates.
Download both packages. Watch one verify and the other fail with a reason. Then do it yourself, offline.
Infrastructure that oversells itself is worse than none, because people rely on it for things it was never built to do. So, plainly:
Twenty attacks, twenty declarations, and an evidence package you can carry off and check on your own machine without asking us anything.