saymrwulf/proof-aware-crypto-tooling-agent
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/saymrwulf/proof-aware-crypto-tooling-agent.git synced 2026-09-04 20:03:40 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

curriculum: lecture 11 - the customer's-eye view (requirements card, wish-meets-supply, grow-the-supply)

Browse source 
Consolidates the consumer-side trust framing that was scattered across
notebooks 05/06b and WALLET.md into one on-ramp: the allowed-axioms list
as a requirements card you own and can write yourself; measurement vs
publication vs judgment (operator/log/you); the three honest outcomes
when your card is stricter than the supply (relax itemized / walk away /
grow the supply). Executable: a self-written card is shown to equal the
real APEX_BOUNDARIES cone exactly (supply == wish: True), and a strict
no-oracle card is REFUSED with the real SHA-512/wire gap itemized.
Registered in course map + notebook test; 101 tests green.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
mrwulf 2026-07-07 22:16:05 +02:00
parent 736e1eceb7
commit ea80c99244
4 changed files with 420 additions and 0 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

229
notebooks/11_the_customers_eye_view.ipynb Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
{
"cells": [
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"# Lecture 11: The Customer's-Eye View \u2014 You Hold the Ruler\n",
"\n",
"Every earlier lecture looked at the log from the *operator's*\n",
"side: replaying proofs, signing attestations, building the\n",
"tree. This one flips the telescope. You are now a customer \u2014 an\n",
"agent, a wallet, a developer \u2014 who wants to trust one of the\n",
"four verified Ed25519 forks and has no theorem prover, no Lean,\n",
"no desire to spend hours re-checking anything. What actually\n",
"happens on your side? The answer reframes the whole system, and\n",
"it is the most intuitive on-ramp to it.\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## Learning Objectives\n",
"\n",
"- Separate the three roles that a verification touches:\n",
" *measurement* (operator), *publication* (the log), and\n",
" *judgment* (you) \u2014 and see that only the last is yours.\n",
"- Understand the \"allowed axioms\" list as a **requirements\n",
" card** you own, can read, and could write yourself.\n",
"- Explain why a self-written card meeting the supply *exactly*\n",
" is engineered, not coincidental.\n",
"- State the three honest outcomes when your card is stricter\n",
" than the supply: relax (itemized), walk away, or grow the\n",
" supply.\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## The card is a requirements card \u2014 and ideally you write it\n",
"\n",
"The list of axioms a certificate is *allowed* to rest on is not\n",
"handed to you by the operator at verification time. It ships\n",
"inside your own tooling (the ed25519 profile), on your disk,\n",
"versioned by you. A maximally paranoid customer ignores the\n",
"shipped copy and writes the card from first principles:\n",
"\n",
"> *\"I accept Lean's three foundational axioms, because that is\n",
"> what the proof kernel's logic IS. For the signature-tier\n",
"> theorems I accept named placeholders for SHA-512 and the wire\n",
"> format, because RFC 8032 tells me those parts exist and I can\n",
"> see they are declared, not smuggled. Nothing else.\"*\n",
"\n",
"That is a wish-list: the assumptions you are willing to live\n",
"under. Call it your ruler.\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"import sys, pathlib\n",
"for parent in [pathlib.Path.cwd(), *pathlib.Path.cwd().parents]:\n",
" if (parent / \"src\" / \"pacta\").exists():\n",
" sys.path.insert(0, str(parent / \"src\")); break\n",
"\n",
"# A customer writes their OWN card, from first principles - no\n",
"# peeking at the operator. Lean's three, plus named oracle slots.\n",
"my_card = {\n",
" \"foundational\": {\"propext\", \"Classical.choice\", \"Quot.sound\"},\n",
" \"apex_oracle_allowed\": {\n",
" \"sha2.Sha512\", \"verifying.sha512_new\",\n",
" \"verifying.sha512_update\", \"verifying.sha512_finalize_bytes\",\n",
" \"ed25519.Signature\", \"ed25519.Signature.to_bytes\",\n",
" \"signature.error.Error\", \"signature.error.Error.new\",\n",
" },\n",
"}\n",
"print(\"my requirements card:\", sum(len(v) for v in my_card.values()), \"named assumptions\")\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## Wish meets supply \u2014 and it is no accident\n",
"\n",
"Now compare your self-written card against what the four forks\n",
"actually declare. They match. That convergence is *engineered*:\n",
"the supply was deliberately shrunk \u2014 every axiom made to justify\n",
"its existence \u2014 so that any reasonable person's independently\n",
"written card lands on the same minimal list. When the wish meets\n",
"the supply exactly, it is because the supplier spent months\n",
"making the supply as small as honesty allows.\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"from pacta.profiles.ed25519 import APEX_BOUNDARIES\n",
"\n",
"# The supply: the apex-tier certificate's documented, allowed\n",
"# axiom cone for the upstream fork - the exact set the strongest\n",
"# theorem is permitted to rest on, nothing more, nothing less.\n",
"supply = set(APEX_BOUNDARIES[\"dalek-wrappers\"])\n",
"wish = my_card[\"foundational\"] | my_card[\"apex_oracle_allowed\"]\n",
"print(\"supply == my wish:\", supply == wish)\n",
"print(\"axioms in supply my card did not anticipate:\", (supply - wish) or \"none\")\n",
"print(\"axioms my card wanted that are absent:\", (wish - supply) or \"none\")\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## The three roles, kept apart\n",
"\n",
"It is tempting to say \"the inclusion proof proves the Lean proof\n",
"is about my card.\" It does not, and the precision matters:\n",
"\n",
"| role | who | what it establishes |\n",
"|---|---|---|\n",
"| measurement | operator's kernel run | \"this theorem rests on exactly these named axioms\" (recorded verbatim in the attestation) |\n",
"| publication | the transparency log | \"this measurement is in the permanent record, shown identically to everyone\" (the inclusion proof + signed head) |\n",
"| judgment | **you** | \"these observed axioms are inside my allowed card\" (re-derived locally, every time) |\n",
"\n",
"Only judgment is yours, and it is the only step that involves an\n",
"opinion. The operator is trusted to *copy down what the kernel\n",
"printed* \u2014 never to interpret it.\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## If you are happy \u2014 you are already finished\n",
"\n",
"If your card covers the observed cone, verification is: check\n",
"one signature, walk ~4 hashes to the signed root, compare cones\n",
"to your card. Milliseconds, standard library, no Lean. Done.\n",
"\n",
"## If you are NOT happy \u2014 there is nothing to negotiate\n",
"\n",
"Suppose your card is stricter: *\"I require SHA-512 itself\n",
"proven, not an oracle.\"* The system has no sales pitch for you.\n",
"Its entire answer is an **itemized** statement of the gap:\n",
"*not in supply; SHA-512-proven is the R5 frontier; here is the\n",
"exact list of what you would be accepting if you proceed\n",
"anyway.* Your decision is never \"lower my standards\" in the\n",
"abstract \u2014 it is a named line item: *SHA-512 as oracle: yes/no.*\n",
"Informed compromise, not diffuse trust.\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "code",
"execution_count": null,
"metadata": {},
"outputs": [],
"source": [
"# The honest gap, itemized. A stricter customer wants no hash oracle.\n",
"strict_card = my_card[\"foundational\"] # foundational ONLY, no oracle slots\n",
"gap = supply - strict_card\n",
"print(\"this customer must explicitly accept, or walk away:\")\n",
"for ax in sorted(gap):\n",
" print(\" -\", ax)\n",
"print()\n",
"print(\"verdict for the strict card:\", \"PASSES\" if supply <= strict_card else \"REFUSED (gap above)\")\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## The third option: grow the supply\n",
"\n",
"The gap between anyone's dream card and today's supply is a\n",
"to-do list, not a wall. Prove SHA-512, certify the wire\n",
"parsers, and the new certificates enter the same log \u2014 and\n",
"stricter cards start passing. The log is additive in exactly\n",
"the way requirements are.\n",
"\n",
"**So: you hold the ruler. If your ruler is stricter than our\n",
"supply, your ruler is our roadmap.** That is the quiet\n",
"invitation built into the whole design.\n"
]
},
{
"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## Exercises\n",
"\n",
"- Write your own requirements card for the *foundational*\n",
" (non-signature) certificates from scratch. Those certificates\n",
" are expected to carry exactly Lean's three standard axioms\n",
" (`propext`, `Classical.choice`, `Quot.sound`) and nothing\n",
" else - did your card guess exactly those three?\n",
"- A vendor's attestation says `status: proven`. Explain in two\n",
" sentences why your tooling ignores that field entirely, and\n",
" what it looks at instead.\n",
"- You require reproducible builds. Is that a card you can write\n",
" today and have pass? Name the tier that gap belongs to, and\n",
" what would have to enter the log to close it.\n",
"- Argue both sides: is \"wish meets supply exactly\" a strength\n",
" (minimal, auditable) or a weakness (the same author wrote the\n",
" card and the supply)? What single action by a customer\n",
" settles the argument in their favor?\n"
]
}
],
"metadata": {
"kernelspec": {
"display_name": "Python 3",
"language": "python",
"name": "python3"
},
"language_info": {
"name": "python",
"pygments_lexer": "ipython3"
}
},
"nbformat": 4,
"nbformat_minor": 5
}

1
notebooks/README.md
View file

@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ The course teaches:
- split-view defense: STH pinning, consistency enforcement, freshness, monitoring, - split-view defense: STH pinning, consistency enforcement, freshness, monitoring,
- dogfood verified cryptography and the honest hybrid post-quantum posture, - dogfood verified cryptography and the honest hybrid post-quantum posture,
- the verified-custody wallet (warden): a quorum boundary of four proven forks, the signing firewall, and the agent-native MCP surface, - the verified-custody wallet (warden): a quorum boundary of four proven forks, the signing firewall, and the agent-native MCP surface,
- the customer's-eye view: the allowed-axioms list as a requirements card you own and could write yourself, and what happens when your card is stricter than the supply,
- research roadmaps from R4 evidence toward R5 assurance. - research roadmaps from R4 evidence toward R5 assurance.
This curriculum is not financial advice, not a trading bot, and not a wallet-building guide. It is a training path for engineers and researchers who need to evaluate formal-verification-enhanced cryptographic tooling without overclaiming. This curriculum is not financial advice, not a trading bot, and not a wallet-building guide. It is a training path for engineers and researchers who need to evaluate formal-verification-enhanced cryptographic tooling without overclaiming.

189
scripts/build_curriculum_notebooks.py
View file

@ -2312,6 +2312,194 @@ COURSE = {
), ),
] ]
), ),
"11_the_customers_eye_view.ipynb": notebook(
[
md(
"""
# Lecture 11: The Customer's-Eye View — You Hold the Ruler
Every earlier lecture looked at the log from the *operator's*
side: replaying proofs, signing attestations, building the
tree. This one flips the telescope. You are now a customer — an
agent, a wallet, a developer — who wants to trust one of the
four verified Ed25519 forks and has no theorem prover, no Lean,
no desire to spend hours re-checking anything. What actually
happens on your side? The answer reframes the whole system, and
it is the most intuitive on-ramp to it.
"""
),
md(
"""
## Learning Objectives
- Separate the three roles that a verification touches:
*measurement* (operator), *publication* (the log), and
*judgment* (you) — and see that only the last is yours.
- Understand the "allowed axioms" list as a **requirements
card** you own, can read, and could write yourself.
- Explain why a self-written card meeting the supply *exactly*
is engineered, not coincidental.
- State the three honest outcomes when your card is stricter
than the supply: relax (itemized), walk away, or grow the
supply.
"""
),
md(
"""
## The card is a requirements card — and ideally you write it
The list of axioms a certificate is *allowed* to rest on is not
handed to you by the operator at verification time. It ships
inside your own tooling (the ed25519 profile), on your disk,
versioned by you. A maximally paranoid customer ignores the
shipped copy and writes the card from first principles:
> *"I accept Lean's three foundational axioms, because that is
> what the proof kernel's logic IS. For the signature-tier
> theorems I accept named placeholders for SHA-512 and the wire
> format, because RFC 8032 tells me those parts exist and I can
> see they are declared, not smuggled. Nothing else."*
That is a wish-list: the assumptions you are willing to live
under. Call it your ruler.
"""
),
code(
"""
import sys, pathlib
for parent in [pathlib.Path.cwd(), *pathlib.Path.cwd().parents]:
if (parent / "src" / "pacta").exists():
sys.path.insert(0, str(parent / "src")); break
# A customer writes their OWN card, from first principles - no
# peeking at the operator. Lean's three, plus named oracle slots.
my_card = {
"foundational": {"propext", "Classical.choice", "Quot.sound"},
"apex_oracle_allowed": {
"sha2.Sha512", "verifying.sha512_new",
"verifying.sha512_update", "verifying.sha512_finalize_bytes",
"ed25519.Signature", "ed25519.Signature.to_bytes",
"signature.error.Error", "signature.error.Error.new",
},
}
print("my requirements card:", sum(len(v) for v in my_card.values()), "named assumptions")
"""
),
md(
"""
## Wish meets supply — and it is no accident
Now compare your self-written card against what the four forks
actually declare. They match. That convergence is *engineered*:
the supply was deliberately shrunk — every axiom made to justify
its existence — so that any reasonable person's independently
written card lands on the same minimal list. When the wish meets
the supply exactly, it is because the supplier spent months
making the supply as small as honesty allows.
"""
),
code(
"""
from pacta.profiles.ed25519 import APEX_BOUNDARIES
# The supply: the apex-tier certificate's documented, allowed
# axiom cone for the upstream fork - the exact set the strongest
# theorem is permitted to rest on, nothing more, nothing less.
supply = set(APEX_BOUNDARIES["dalek-wrappers"])
wish = my_card["foundational"] | my_card["apex_oracle_allowed"]
print("supply == my wish:", supply == wish)
print("axioms in supply my card did not anticipate:", (supply - wish) or "none")
print("axioms my card wanted that are absent:", (wish - supply) or "none")
"""
),
md(
"""
## The three roles, kept apart
It is tempting to say "the inclusion proof proves the Lean proof
is about my card." It does not, and the precision matters:
| role | who | what it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| measurement | operator's kernel run | "this theorem rests on exactly these named axioms" (recorded verbatim in the attestation) |
| publication | the transparency log | "this measurement is in the permanent record, shown identically to everyone" (the inclusion proof + signed head) |
| judgment | **you** | "these observed axioms are inside my allowed card" (re-derived locally, every time) |
Only judgment is yours, and it is the only step that involves an
opinion. The operator is trusted to *copy down what the kernel
printed* — never to interpret it.
"""
),
md(
"""
## If you are happy — you are already finished
If your card covers the observed cone, verification is: check
one signature, walk ~4 hashes to the signed root, compare cones
to your card. Milliseconds, standard library, no Lean. Done.
## If you are NOT happy — there is nothing to negotiate
Suppose your card is stricter: *"I require SHA-512 itself
proven, not an oracle."* The system has no sales pitch for you.
Its entire answer is an **itemized** statement of the gap:
*not in supply; SHA-512-proven is the R5 frontier; here is the
exact list of what you would be accepting if you proceed
anyway.* Your decision is never "lower my standards" in the
abstract — it is a named line item: *SHA-512 as oracle: yes/no.*
Informed compromise, not diffuse trust.
"""
),
code(
"""
# The honest gap, itemized. A stricter customer wants no hash oracle.
strict_card = my_card["foundational"] # foundational ONLY, no oracle slots
gap = supply - strict_card
print("this customer must explicitly accept, or walk away:")
for ax in sorted(gap):
print(" -", ax)
print()
print("verdict for the strict card:", "PASSES" if supply <= strict_card else "REFUSED (gap above)")
"""
),
md(
"""
## The third option: grow the supply
The gap between anyone's dream card and today's supply is a
to-do list, not a wall. Prove SHA-512, certify the wire
parsers, and the new certificates enter the same log — and
stricter cards start passing. The log is additive in exactly
the way requirements are.
**So: you hold the ruler. If your ruler is stricter than our
supply, your ruler is our roadmap.** That is the quiet
invitation built into the whole design.
"""
),
md(
"""
## Exercises
- Write your own requirements card for the *foundational*
(non-signature) certificates from scratch. Those certificates
are expected to carry exactly Lean's three standard axioms
(`propext`, `Classical.choice`, `Quot.sound`) and nothing
else - did your card guess exactly those three?
- A vendor's attestation says `status: proven`. Explain in two
sentences why your tooling ignores that field entirely, and
what it looks at instead.
- You require reproducible builds. Is that a card you can write
today and have pass? Name the tier that gap belongs to, and
what would have to enter the log to close it.
- Argue both sides: is "wish meets supply exactly" a strength
(minimal, auditable) or a weakness (the same author wrote the
card and the supply)? What single action by a customer
settles the argument in their favor?
"""
),
]
),
} }
@ -2334,6 +2522,7 @@ The course teaches:
- split-view defense: STH pinning, consistency enforcement, freshness, monitoring, - split-view defense: STH pinning, consistency enforcement, freshness, monitoring,
- dogfood verified cryptography and the honest hybrid post-quantum posture, - dogfood verified cryptography and the honest hybrid post-quantum posture,
- the verified-custody wallet (warden): a quorum boundary of four proven forks, the signing firewall, and the agent-native MCP surface, - the verified-custody wallet (warden): a quorum boundary of four proven forks, the signing firewall, and the agent-native MCP surface,
- the customer's-eye view: the allowed-axioms list as a requirements card you own and could write yourself, and what happens when your card is stricter than the supply,
- research roadmaps from R4 evidence toward R5 assurance. - research roadmaps from R4 evidence toward R5 assurance.
This curriculum is not financial advice, not a trading bot, and not a wallet-building guide. It is a training path for engineers and researchers who need to evaluate formal-verification-enhanced cryptographic tooling without overclaiming. This curriculum is not financial advice, not a trading bot, and not a wallet-building guide. It is a training path for engineers and researchers who need to evaluate formal-verification-enhanced cryptographic tooling without overclaiming.

1
tests/test_curriculum_notebooks.py
View file

@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ EXPECTED_NOTEBOOKS = [
"08_capstone_research_program.ipynb", "08_capstone_research_program.ipynb",
"09_dogfood_verified_crypto.ipynb", "09_dogfood_verified_crypto.ipynb",
"10_verified_custody_wallet.ipynb", "10_verified_custody_wallet.ipynb",
"11_the_customers_eye_view.ipynb",
] ]