Conformance Statements
The matrix below is generated from the typed sources database. Before reading it, it is worth knowing where the evidence comes from that it rests on: a conformance statement is worth exactly what its confirmation is worth.
Checking behaviour, not code
Unit tests check code against the developer’s idea of the code: the same person writes both, in the same understanding, so a consistent misconception passes through. The platform’s verification apparatus checks behaviour against reference recordings carrying approved annotation: the same recording, the same expected conclusion, the same version. The reference comes from outside the code and outside whoever wrote it.
The publisher of the reference and its consumer are deliberately kept apart: the clinical corpus issues the reference recordings, the verification apparatus runs them. A system that invents the reference it checks itself against is checking its consistency with itself, not its conformance.
Evidence is a file, not a tick
A check answers neither with a line in a console nor with a green tick in an interface, but with a file: an acceptance receipt for the run and evidence for each verified area. The difference is practical — screen output disappears with the session, whereas an evidence file can be quoted, version-checked, and presented to a third party with no privileged access to the developer.
Integrity and adequacy are different claims
A distinction the industry keeps conflating:
- a signature and a log prove integrity — what exactly is executing and where it came from;
- adequacy — whether it is right — is proved separately: by reproducible evidence and human review.
A signed artifact can be a signed mistake. A system presenting a signature as proof of correctness is misleading — and the matrix below asserts the former, not the latter.