ᚲ.com

Comparison matrix

Build provenance vs Runtime evidence

One-sentence distinction

Build provenance records how an artifact was produced; runtime evidence records what an authorized deployed service was doing during an observed window.

Stable record
K01-COMP-021
Claim status
PROJECT DOCTRINE
Last reviewed
Research cutoff
Source type
COMPARISON
Currentness
Current for release 2.1.0; external sources require periodic revalidation.
Correction state
No unresolved public correction recorded for this release.
Machine record
Static JSON record

Side-by-side matrix

Build provenance and Runtime evidence are related but not interchangeable
DimensionBuild provenanceRuntime evidence
Primary questionWhat evidence establishes the first property for a named purpose?What separate evidence or authority establishes the second property?
EvidencePurpose-specific technical, factual, or institutional records.Independent records appropriate to the second category.
AuthorityMay be descriptive or technical and may not require legal authority.May require a competent legal, constitutional, organizational, or operational decision-maker.
CurrentnessCan be current, stale, disputed, unknown, or unavailable.Must be assessed separately; the first status does not transfer.
Failure conditionEvidence may be authentic but incomplete or unsuitable.Authority may exist but rely on wrong or stale facts.

Why the distinction matters

Build provenance records how an artifact was produced; runtime evidence records what an authorized deployed service was doing during an observed window. Systems and institutions fail when one side is used as a shortcut for the other. The distinction determines what evidence is collected, who may decide, what can be appealed, and which failure modes must be controlled.

Common failure caused by conflation

Using a reproducible package as a substitute for deployment, uptime, correctness, or current authority evidence.

This error can create false confidence, unauthorized status, misattributed liability, silent loss of correction rights, or an operational claim based only on descriptive material.

Implementation consequences

  • Use different fields, identifiers, and claim-status records for each side.
  • Require separate evidence and currentness checks.
  • Do not let a user-interface label silently merge the categories.
  • Preserve correction and supersession history for both.
  • Route decisions to the ecosystem authority that owns the relevant function.

Security obligations vary by sector and jurisdiction; evidence must distinguish mandatory controls from recommended practice.

Technical evidence can inform a legal decision but cannot replace jurisdiction, legal basis, procedural authority, due process, or remedy. Conversely, a lawful decision does not make the underlying technical record accurate if the evidence is stale or defective.

Examples

  1. A valid signature demonstrates control over a key and payload integrity; it does not establish the truth of every signed statement.
  2. A registry can record a citizenship decision; the registry operator does not thereby acquire constitutional power to create citizenship.
  3. A static release can show that software exists; it does not prove the service is currently operating.

Sources

Comparison claim record

Each proposition has a stable ID, status, scope, owning route, evidence relationship, currentness qualification, correction state, and synchronized JSON record. Record completeness does not make the proposition true.

Build provenance versus Runtime evidence

Build provenance records how an artifact was produced; runtime evidence records what an authorized deployed service was doing during an observed window.

Claim ID
CLM-K03-CMP-021
Status
PROJECT DOCTRINE
Scope
Canonical distinction between Build provenance and Runtime evidence.
Machine record
JSON

Qualification: The matrix prevents category error but does not decide every jurisdiction-specific or system-specific case.

Support relationship