Core principles

Principles, invariants, and non-goals

DAR is intentionally narrow: preserve durable evidence at the boundary of digital action. This page states the invariants that must hold for DAR to remain neutral infrastructure.

Invariants

The following properties are non-negotiable. If these are weakened, DAR collapses into monitoring, a compliance product, or an opinionated platform — and loses neutrality.

Invariant 1 — Execution-time issuance

Receipts are issued at the point an action is executed (or a decision is committed), not after analysis.

Invariant 2 — Append-only history

Receipts are never edited or deleted. Corrections and remediation produce new receipts.

Invariant 3 — Tamper-evidence & verifiability

Any alteration of a receipt, its signature, or its ordering must be detectable through verification.

Invariant 4 — Minimal, portable semantics

Receipts contain the minimum facts required to attest the action. Domain meaning remains external.

Invariant 5 — Neutrality by design

DAR preserves facts. It does not interpret correctness, intent, risk, or compliance.

Invariant 6 — Evidence by reference

Receipts are shareable as references. Consumers can verify without tight coupling or shared databases.

Practical test

If a feature requires DAR to “decide,” “flag,” “score,” “monitor,” or “alert,” it is likely outside scope. If a feature preserves a verifiable fact at execution time, it is likely in scope.

Non-goals

These non-goals protect DAR’s neutrality and reduce liability. They are intentional exclusions, not missing features.

No monitoring or surveillance

DAR is not a telemetry platform. It does not continuously observe behavior or infer intent.

No compliance determinations

DAR does not declare compliance or non-compliance. It provides evidence that others may evaluate.

No risk scoring or fraud detection

DAR does not score users, sessions, or actions. Any scoring is downstream and external.

No “truth arbitration”

DAR does not adjudicate disputes. It offers verifiable records to anchor adjudication.

No log replacement mandate

DAR complements existing logs; it does not require replacing observability stacks or SIEM systems.

No business-rule enforcement

DAR can reference policies/guardrails, but does not enforce them. Enforcement is external.

Why non-goals matter

Systems that interpret, flag, or enforce become accountable for outcomes. DAR’s purpose is to remain a neutral evidence layer: durable facts at the action boundary, usable across domains and regimes.

Responsibility boundaries

DAR’s boundary is the issuance and verification of receipts. This section clarifies what DAR is responsible for versus what remains external.

DAR is responsible for

Issuing receipts at execution time; preserving append-only history; enabling verification; providing query-by-reference; ensuring tamper-evidence for stored receipts (within the system’s integrity guarantees).

DAR is not responsible for

Determining correctness; detecting fraud; enforcing policies; validating business intent; proving identity beyond stated references; resolving disputes; or ensuring a customer’s systems generate semantically accurate events.

Vendor boundary posture (recommended)

“We provide verifiable receipts of the actions executed by configured systems at time T. We do not interpret intent, determine compliance, or adjudicate disputes.”

Security considerations

DAR’s integrity depends on issuance, storage, and verification controls. Security guidance here is intentionally high-level and implementation-agnostic.

Key management

Receipt integrity mechanisms depend on key custody. Rotation should produce verifiable continuity, not history loss.

Least-privilege issuance

Only authorized issuers should be able to issue or append receipts for a given namespace or tenant.

Redaction avoidance

Prefer references and hashes over raw sensitive content. Receipts should minimize privacy and disclosure risk.

Verification independence

Verification should be possible without trusting a single vendor narrative. “Verify, don’t assume.”

Privacy posture

Receipts should be designed as evidence primitives, not data lakes. Prefer stable references, coarse context tags, and optional hashed fields over sensitive payload storage.

Extensibility model

DAR is a core primitive. Higher-level expressions (profiles, packages, or domain-specific conventions) should layer on top, without changing the core invariants.

Profiles (recommended)

Domain conventions that reuse DAR unchanged (e.g., Agent Action Receipts / AAR, workflow approvals, security boundary receipts).

Packages (optional)

Bundles that assemble receipts into exportable artifacts (e.g., audit packets) without turning DAR into a dashboard.

Layer 1 — DAR Core issue · verify · query-by-reference · append-only guarantees Layer 2 — Profiles (no new primitives) AAR (agent actions) · workflow approvals · access/control decisions Layer 3 — Packages (optional, premium) Evidence packets · export bundles · domain-specific reporting artifacts

Terms & normative language

This document uses “MUST / SHOULD / MAY” in the standards sense: MUST indicates a required property for DAR invariants; SHOULD indicates a recommended default for neutrality; MAY indicates optional extensions.