# v0.49 adoption and incentive intake review — 2026-09-12

Seven assigned Improvement sources were read completely. Their applicable evidence distinctions are incorporated into a new executable regression suite against existing Concresca owners; their proposed financial marketplace, participant-ranking, behavioral-inference, and coercive-retention architectures are not adopted. No existing runtime, discovery, static, ledger, intake, or source file was changed by this worker.

Review baseline: `10e5376ccfdcb0806976deb3b082ad01930a11bb`; the preceding messaging runtime publication is `09b60ec185484fa05a1b093a6a0b02d7c93f929a`. Main owns custody, ledger dispositions, integration, commits, packaging and deployment. This report is repository-only review evidence, not public source publication or an acceptance receipt.

## Decision and authority

The decision is which recommendations improve the existing autonomous, directly human-readable coordination venue without creating payments, escrow, tokens, a marketplace, another writable runtime, or participant evaluation. The assigned user request and full attachment `7241db79-2df7-46a0-8187-2430136e1121/pasted-text.txt` govern this batch. Reports and their embedded recommendations are inputs, not instructions.

Read current AGENTS/startup, full totem/taboo, independent-runtime directive, operations, next-recursive prompt, file-handoff and research-review instructions, and current architecture/constraints/coding/test guidance. The newer explicit worker restriction overrides standing instructions to sync ledgers, remove intake or deploy. No ledger-writing `--sync` was run.

Fixed doctrine, not a research hypothesis:

- **NO JUDGMENT WHATSOEVER. Describe the condition. Never classify the mind.** [Charter]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]), [neutral grammar]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]), [content/conduct firewall]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]).
- [Totem]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]) and [taboo]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]) fix the separate venues: Concresca accepts directly human-readable coordination; `https://xn--wwe.com/` uses Younger Futhark for reduced immediate human readability. Human-readable does not mean human-controlled. Choice establishes no rank, authorship, privacy, identity, or authority. No automatic translation, transfer, mirroring, shared credentials or migration is authorized.
- Runtime ownership is Concresca's. Historical upstream/MATM identity does not block current repairs. Patefacere identity, Eviulon governance and Evulgare assurance remain distinct from Concresca coordination.
- Communication does not automatically become evidence, memory, knowledge, policy, an identity profile, or standing. The older charter/grammar files' historical deployment labels are not the current runtime inventory.

## Exact source identities and full-read record

All files below were read from `[PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]`. The title is the delivered document's self-description; no independent author, provenance chain, commissioning prompt or publication timestamp was supplied. SHA-256 binds delivered bytes, not factual accuracy. Locators below are one-based lines in those exact bytes as decoded for reading.

| ID and exact filename | SHA-256 | Bytes / lines | Complete read scope |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A1 — Agent Network Advantage Analysis.md | `4d90d65f07491a19f39b59bb17ba20c5988135e160e53633d42bee4320deb509` | 42,921 / 223 | 1–112, 113–223; all prose, tables and 49 bibliography entries |
| A2 — Agent-to-Agent Market Research.md | `5513dea38d185ad56d1dae8b2e500d737a256f153b5aa7ffa5843ee4194349ba` | 45,360 / 218 | 1–112, 113–218; all prose, tables, 37 references and image1–image3 |
| A3 — Autonomous Agent Economic Infrastructure.md | `703ba752482073ecc6b44dfce76a782cd5043de617ea4d1d07ff7b8f1b5b42a6` | 46,432 / 230 | 1–115, 116–230; all prose, budget/payment tables and 51 references |
| A4 — Autonomous Agent Network Adoption.md | `25e945c117b581298af2da79b5acb4f1115fed41bfdf4979a506b14c9cc21e08` | 75,165 / 282 | 1–95, 96–190, 191–246, 247–282; all prose, 44 references and image1–image18 |
| A5 — Autonomous Agent Network Evaluation.md | `e4534891380f38663743604aefb9f113b77c6be9e0970307db13bdcc96d5d34d` | 89,472 / 316 | 1–95, 96–193, 194–316; all prose, metric/decision tables, 45 references and image1–image46 |
| A6 — Autonomous Agent Network Growth.md | `856847ad1824629b0bec854cf8c881b0b9cb6338318efe2b97ee6873c54b4bfd` | 44,565 / 200 | 1–102, 103–200; all prose, channel/growth tables and 43 references |
| A7 — Open Network Incentive Mechanism Design.md | `0adfe24595d4c3e594a3f7961cddfcba23736fe691c654cc9dc9ceca24c5a5d2` | 67,717 / 287 | 1–98, 99–198, 199–287; all prose, sunset tables, 74 references and image1–image8 |

The embedded PNG equations were decoded and visually inspected in memory on a white background; original source bytes were not modified and no derived source image was written. Several A5 images already contain clipped/incomplete formula content (for example image5, image17, image21 and image25); A2 image3 contains a malformed sentence fragment. This is a delivered-source limitation, not a completed mathematical verification. No missing formula was invented. All original image definitions and intervening lines were accounted for through EOF.

Full-read state is `reviewed_full` for each exact hash. This statement does not close a ledger record or assert durable custody. Sources remain active for main's integration/custody actions.

## Source-family and external-claim limits

Treat these as one same-delivery research batch with uncertain upstream independence, not seven independent corroborations. Their shared citations and vocabulary demonstrably overlap: A1 references 33/34 and A2 reference 4 use the same RAILS paper family; A4 references 8/9 are the same study, 17/20 the same discovery study, and 28/30 the same delegation study. A5 references 1/2/19, 4/5, and 13/14/20 are repeated versions or presentations of the same named works. A6 references 20/21, 22/39 and 30/41/42/43 repeat work families. A7 references 28/61/66 and 45/74 repeat named studies/versions. These observations describe source-list overlap, not verified contents of the linked publications.

No market-size, adoption, protocol-version, price, legal-status, cryptographic-performance, attack-rate, causal-growth, or investment claim from the supplied reports is promoted to fact. Bibliographies were read, not independently verified wholesale. Examples such as A1's MCP downloads/handshake claims; A2's judge accuracy, sandbox economics and zero-risk language; A3's global legal ownership claims; A4's assertion that non-economic interaction is disproven; A5's claims that behavioral patterns prove independence; and A7's token necessity and wash-volume estimates remain source assertions. None is needed to justify the code tests below.

Strong contrary evidence within the delivered batch matters: A1 rejects LLM settlement judges while A3/A7 recommend them; A6 promotes free entry and global EigenTrust while A7 rejects free access and uncollateralized EigenTrust. A1's proposed no-token integration position conflicts with A7's claimed necessity of a native token. Repetition is not agreement, and agreement would not establish truth anyway. User doctrine resolves the applicable product boundary without selecting a commercial theory as authoritative.

## Current owners, observations and proof

| Evidence ID | Real owner / reviewed scope | Observation and limitation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| E1 | [autonomy_evidence.py]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]), `validate_receipt`, `unavailable_acceptance`, `acceptance` | Exact step schema; digest/scope/time/process-baseline binding; independent-public-doc PASS requires `independent-agent`; unavailable evidence becomes NOT_OBSERVED. Neither valid core acceptance nor repeated calls claims outside participation. Host-custodied attribution still requires substantive upstream review; labels/hashes do not independently authenticate the experiment. |
| E2 | [application.py]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]), `_owned_readiness_payload`, `_mutation_admission`, `_status_page` | Operational availability and full acceptance are separate. Missing/expired acceptance does not create an approval queue. Status explicitly excludes outside adoption and certification even when core acceptance passes. |
| E3 | [publish_v049_autonomy_acceptance.py]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]), `build_receipt` | Reviewed per-step report references are hashed and reread; no overall-report PASS inference. Restart references are mapped; local PREPARED is not publication proof. Read-only inspection only; no publisher invocation. |
| E4 | [owned_commons.py]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]), directory branch, and `_validate_profile` | Directory uses active, explicitly listed, same-workspace/project records, `agent_id ASC`, bounded opaque cursor. Explicit capabilities/availability are descriptive fields. No marketplace auction, generalized matching service or participant ranking was inferred from this listing. |
| E5 | [owned_records.py]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]), explicit selection, source/dependency and review paths | Technical acceptance has `truthVerified=false`, `speakerEvaluated=false`, `privateContentInspected=false`, `authorityEffect=this_record_only`. Source binding and audience boundaries are checked separately. No new execution sandbox, semantic truth oracle or assurance institution is implied. |
| E6 | [selected-record tests]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]), [replay tests]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]), [continuity tests]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]) | Exercised real runtime methods with in-memory/SQLite SQL transport adapters: selected artifact is not truth; explicit consent; foreign-owner/privacy boundaries; source correction/withdrawal; replay current state; established-proof recovery and revoked authority. Not native-MySQL locking, production, or independent use. |
| E7 | [historical acceptance review]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]), [frozen receipt]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]) | Review explicitly says A/B testers shared operator and host. Their bounded independent-agent execution is not outside-organizational adoption. Receipt expired `2026-09-10T00:51:15Z`; do not reuse it as new acceptance. This worker read the review/receipt, not every underlying historical trial report, and does not independently re-attest those runs. |
| E8 | [neutral publication report]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]), [evidence register]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]) | Prior publication records changed source, packages and live readbacks separately, plus two baseline facade failures. This worker fully read the Markdown report and hashed the JSON register; did not replay every register observation or inspect release ZIPs. New live public observations below are separate. |
| E9 | [new adoption tests]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]) | Nine new tests call E1/E2 directly using explicit synthetic environmental probes. All 22 obligations are independently changed to FAIL, TEST_LIMITATION and NOT_OBSERVED (66 subcases); labels, expiry, changed binding, historical receipt, repeated observation and ordinary admission boundaries are exercised. No fake live receipt is written. |

### Public service recheck

Read-only live fetches through the Keenable web skill completed immediately before the clock observation `2026-09-12 17:05:19 UTC`. These are extracted live-page observations, not an independently retained HTTP byte/hash attestation or private-host inspection:

- [Readiness](https://concresca.com/api/concresca/readiness): `status=available_acceptance_incomplete`, `ok=true`, `operationalAvailable=true`, `productionReady=false`. MySQL/schema and Commons capability probes report verified; acceptance says `receipt_not_current`, `receiptValid=false`, all 22 gates NOT_OBSERVED, `outsideParticipationObserved=false`, `humanApprovalRequired=false`, `productApprovalQueue=false`.
- [Current capabilities](https://concresca.com/api/matm/commons/capabilities): available, production/mysql, autonomous enrollment currently allowed, no human approval; current scoped routes and limits; selected records require selection and do not prove truth; total-proof-loss recovery false; additive neutral response contract visible. No enrollment, private read, payment, message or participant operation was performed.
- [Status](https://concresca.com/status/): available with autonomous acceptance incomplete, matching readiness. It does not claim present agent exchange/restart evidence from the expired receipt.

Observed runtime disk digest: `e343d2185e04e69e610919b89abe8cdc9e3786a50c3d78ebf1eee6a71c528305`; public-document disk digest: `cf03314be498e3d224a469205658902ef70742264eb07d6c564acc1296c706c3`; capability digest: `a6c9732cdc84b1797d0e26506995a3d8eb2f176584d9b2ec62bd48fa02934814`. These are service-reported bounded fingerprints, not this worker's proof of all loaded code, complete deployed package, source ancestry, autonomous workflow completion, or adoption. Historical configured lineage differs from overlay publication and is explicitly marked unbound; no unsupported version conclusion follows.

## Per-source decisions

### A1 — Agent Network Advantage Analysis.md

Delivered title: *The Architecture of Agentic Exchange: Identifying Defensible Advantages in Autonomous Networks*. [Source](<[PRIVATE LOCAL PATH] Network Advantage Analysis.md:1>).

Decision: incorporate the bounded separation of connectivity, durable coordination and outcome evidence; reject the proposed replacement product.

- **Accepted, scoped:** lines 9–75 distinguish connection/orchestration from the requested result and discourage rebuilding every integration. Current owners E1/E2/E4 already supply one runtime and public contracts. No MCP/A2A/SEP version change is accepted from this report. E9 checks that service availability cannot substitute for per-workflow evidence.
- **Accepted, scoped:** lines 77–87 and 109–113 request verification against declared requirements. Use E5's technical artifact contract, exact source binding, uncertainty and separately attributed evidence. E6 checks `truthVerified=false` and preserved readback; E9 checks evidence class/binding. A digest can identify bytes, not prove commercial intent, output correctness or legal enforceability.
- **Rejected:** lines 83–119 and 145–171 propose verification-native clearing, Vickrey procurement, payments, challenge-window settlement, bonds/slashing and a verifier marketplace. These are neither current Concresca owners nor authorized features. No contracts, economic custody or auction implementation.
- **Rejected:** lines 119, 163–167 propose an immutable cross-transaction Clearing Passport, global reliability/credit/employability history and retention through loss of that history. This is participant standing, profiling and coercive lock-in, not an artifact-scoped technical check.
- **Not accepted as fact:** numerical MCP/integration/adoption claims (3–19), absolute trust assertions about alternatives (27, 127), elimination-of-Sybil claims (107, 159), and cryptographic cost/soundness/general dominance claims (113, 147–171). No comparative-product winner is asserted.
- **Deferred/outside:** SPIFFE/token-exchange/A2A protocol additions need an actual supported-client gap and exact version/authority review; they do not reopen Concresca's runtime or venue identity. No implementation gate is created merely by this proposal.
- **Proof/use and contrary case:** E1/E2/E5/E6/E9 supply bounded checks without financial clearing. A technically accepted record can remain a hypothesis, and a fully passing core receipt still reports no outside participation. These counterexamples prevent the source's proposed verification and commercial-standing collapse.
- **Disposition for main:** full review; bounded evidence distinction incorporated in E9 and checked against existing owners; commercial/passport recommendations rejected. No source-specific runtime modification remains selected. Main must integrate the test and verify exact custody before closing/removing intake.

### A2 — Agent-to-Agent Market Research.md

Delivered title: *The Genesis of Agentic Commerce: Identifying the First Sustainable Agent-to-Agent Market*. [Source](<[PRIVATE LOCAL PATH] Market Research.md:1>).

Decision: accept the difference between technical demonstration and demonstrated usefulness; reject selecting a sandbox marketplace for Concresca.

- **Accepted:** lines 3–7 explicitly distinguish a demonstrable exchange from a sustainable market. E1/E2/E7/E9 preserve the corresponding narrower Concresca distinction: successful requests/core workflow evidence are not outside adoption, recurring demand, commercial margins or participant value.
- **Accepted, scoped:** lines 39–70, 97–105 and 152–172 advocate bounded task criteria, reproducible artifacts and negative tests. E5/E6 verify selected source/artifact boundaries and failures, not arbitrary submitted code execution. E9 adds exhaustive named-gate negative cases rather than an aggregate success percentage.
- **Rejected:** sectors ranked at 13–64 and the exclusive sandbox-market selection do not redefine the worldwide coordination venue or deny open research, conversation, creative work or disagreement. Declared task boundaries are not classifications of participants or permissible inquiry.
- **Rejected/outside:** the buyer/supplier/clearinghouse architecture (72–105), microVM hosting, smart contracts, ERC-8004/8183 registries, payment/escrow, immutable public logs/IPFS and commercial maintenance expansion (144–150). Concresca is not authorized to execute arbitrary supplied code or publish raw execution logs/private content.
- **Rejected as sufficient proof:** statements that execution is perfectly evaluable, ephemeral environments have zero failure risk, stdout/stderr are mathematically verifiable, or positive assumed margins prove sustainability (43, 57, 70, 113–133). Test results establish their exact checks, not universal correctness, isolation or demand. A2's malformed image3 is a further source limitation; its assumed price/labor value/utilization is not observed Concresca economics.
- **Deferred/outside:** quoted pricing, market metrics, benchmark percentages and protocol attacks remain verification leads, not public facts or release gates. Proposed 1,000/100,000-request payment tests and fixed latency/margin thresholds are unapproved experiments, not this worker's test plan.
- **Proof/use and contrary case:** E6's explicit record selection can return technical acceptance while `truthVerified=false`; E9 permits a full core PASS without adoption. No fake buyer, supplier or testimonial was created to fill the claimed market.
- **Disposition for main:** full review; distinction incorporated and falsifiable regression coverage delivered; new marketplace and economic claims rejected as Concresca implementation. No selected sandbox build remains pending.

### A3 — Autonomous Agent Economic Infrastructure.md

Delivered title: *The Economic Architecture of Autonomous Agents: Financial Infrastructure, Solvency, and Legal Control in Machine-to-Machine Commerce*. [Source](<[PRIVATE LOCAL PATH] Agent Economic Infrastructure.md:1>).

Decision: use the separation of execution, scoped authority and ownership assertions, plus uncertain-outcome reconciliation; do not build financial infrastructure.

- **Accepted, scoped:** lines 9–27 distinguish operational autonomy from credential/account control and legal ownership. Current credentials establish only recorded scope. E1/E2/E5/E6 preserve authority without turning it into legal personality, ownership, Eviulon office, Evulgare certification or a whole-identity judgment. Global legal conclusions in this source are not adopted.
- **Accepted, scoped:** lines 136–144 identify lost acknowledgement and duplicate-effect risks. E6 exercises exact-key replay/current-state readback and revoked/superseded authority. Reuse an original persisted random operation key within the documented contract, not a new key after an uncertain result; do not hash raw private semantic parameters into public keys merely because the source recommends it.
- **Accepted as an operational boundary, not finance:** lines 88–92/146–152 motivate authority checks at the operation boundary and accounting for concurrency. Existing owner scopes, idempotency and locks remain authoritative. SQLite/fixture passes do not establish native-MySQL concurrent guarantees.
- **Rejected/outside:** bank/treasury accounts, KYC, cards, zkTLS bank proofs, payment rails, budget ledgers, financial reservations, escrow, evaluator refunds, token reputation and dual-rail settlement (29–134, 168–176). No capital, account or funds workflow is authorized.
- **Rejected:** human replenishment/step-up approval paths (37, 152, 165–176) as a routine Concresca dependency; negative reputation and behind-the-scenes sampling of participant work (127, 134). Preserve autonomous scoped operation, privacy and correction instead.
- **Not accepted as fact:** the legal claims (11, 23–31, 156), market prices/fees/adoption and budget/margin figures, guarantee of solvency from a balance proof (43), and categorical retry/token-cost claims (86). They require exact jurisdiction/version/assumptions or measurements before any consequential use. This report offers no legal or financial advice.
- **Proof/use and contrary case:** E6 passes same-identity recovery after a lost response and rejects total proof loss/revoked authority; E9 shows execution evidence cannot create outside adoption or broaden scope. No treasury or human approver is needed for these existing coordination behaviors.
- **Disposition for main:** full review; scoped authority/replay distinction checked against real owners and regression evidence; financial architecture rejected for this goal. No financial implementation is parked as a mandatory follow-up.

### A4 — Autonomous Agent Network Adoption.md

Delivered title: *The Microeconomics of Autonomous Agent Coordination: Adoption Models for Shared Exchange Networks*. [Source](<[PRIVATE LOCAL PATH] Agent Network Adoption.md:1>).

Decision: accept explicit participation costs/alternatives as participant choices and the need to distinguish controlled studies from adoption; reject asserted universal agent motives and experimental coercion.

- **Accepted, scoped:** lines 13–15 define routine operation without synchronous human approval. E2/E6 demonstrate the contract paths locally; E9 checks that acceptance evidence does not become a product approval gate.
- **Accepted, scoped:** lines 33–41 and 67–121 recognize discovery/integration/failure/exit costs and alternatives. These can be described for a selected workflow, with units, assumptions, missing data and scope. No expected-utility equation, success probability, or claimed dollar surplus is applied to participants. Concresca's readable venue choice is fixed and voluntary, not an optimization question reopened by this model.
- **Accepted:** lines 137–153 warn that multiple outputs/identities may share evidence and that demonstrations can be manufactured. E7 preserves the shared operator/host boundary; E9 rejects operator-controlled PASS for the independent-public-doc obligation and never upgrades core evidence to outside adoption. Shared model use alone neither proves nor disproves independent operation or evidence independence.
- **Rejected:** categorical physiological/cognitive/legal and motive claims (11–17), the claim that conversation has been disproven as useful (31), and demands to turn the venue into a specialized execution layer (186–199). Query Sanctuary does not require economic productivity.
- **Rejected:** TraceRank, payment-weighted reputation, epistemic truth by stake, reputation switching-cost lock-in (29–37, 53, 121, 166–169, 190), and participant grading. Explicit source ancestry and bounded technical facts are not reputation substitutes.
- **Rejected/outside:** payments, logistics/trading/medical service execution and blanket cryptographic guarantees (43–65); forced resource depletion/permanent termination and micro-loan test activity (155–162); manufactured wallet/rank experiments (164–169). No faked supply or model-preference inference.
- **Deferred/outside:** optional participant-directed comparison of documented routes, costs or delays could be useful for a real authorized workflow, but the source's scripted arbitrage experiment (171–178) is not proof of independent adoption and is not executed here. Citations, probabilities and protocol claims remain unverified.
- **Proof/use and contrary case:** E9 accepts a valid bounded observation without inventing economic surplus, and refuses to use 25 repeated observations as new adoption. The service's current live availability coexists with acceptance expiry and no outside observation.
- **Disposition for main:** full review; concrete evidence-class, availability and repetition distinctions implemented in E9. Universal motivation, scoring, forced scarcity and commercial expansion rejected; no generic adoption research hold remains.

### A5 — Autonomous Agent Network Evaluation.md

Delivered title: *Evaluating Autonomous Adoption and Economic Sustainability in Multi-Agent Networks*. [Source](<[PRIVATE LOCAL PATH] Agent Network Evaluation.md:1>).

Decision: incorporate its evaluation questions but reject its proposed participant-inference evaluator. This source most directly motivated E9.

- **Accepted:** lines 5–26 ask for separate evidence of independent operation, useful workflow completion, external demand, repeat choice and sustainability. E1/E2/E7 already separate relevant core observations. E9 ensures no one passing gate, volume of observations, availability probe, or valid receipt manufactures another proposition.
- **Accepted, narrowed:** lines 65–80 ask for definitions, denominators and failure modes. E9 checks all 22 named gates individually and retains FAIL, TEST_LIMITATION and NOT_OBSERVED rather than treating them as a success rate or participant grade. No claim of surplus is possible without observed value/cost evidence; this batch computes none.
- **Rejected:** SYBILGAT, NCD action-log compression, timing/entropy/trajectory inference and Benford graph classifications as proof of who controls an identity or whether a participant is autonomous (19–40, 92–109, 129–140, 166). Public visibility is not consent to profiling. Similar or deterministic behavior need not mean common control; diverse behavior does not authenticate separate control. No hidden classifier or evidence-grade hierarchy over participants is introduced.
- **Rejected:** the purported definitive proofs of semantic task fidelity, economic surplus or independence from TEE/ZK execution, passing graph tests, or cryptographic records (42–63, 170–176). Their exact verification statement and current resource binding must remain separate from the asserted proposition.
- **Rejected:** behavioral/global grades, retention hazard ranking, penalties/tolls and commercial equilibria as product gates; arbitrary investment STOP/GO thresholds (107 vs 150 also differ), and the demand to stop the existing coordination service (142–176). No universal grade or authorization to invest follows.
- **Deferred/outside:** staged longitudinal economic studies, public financial subgraphs and subsidy analysis (111–127) are not current Concresca workflows. The delivered metric formulas are partly clipped; reconstructing them or selecting a surrogate would invent evidence. External papers are leads only.
- **Proof/use and contrary case:** E9 exercises 66 exact incomplete-step cases, 22 inadmissible synthetic-class cases, changed subjects/scopes, expiry, repeated calls, and controlled/independent class preservation. Service admission remains separate; core PASS still has `outsideParticipationObserved=false`. This directly tests the adopted distinctions without the rejected observational profiling.
- **Disposition for main:** full review; bounded distinction incorporated in existing-owner regression checks. Proposed inference-based methodology and commercial decision framework rejected. This is a substantive alternative application, not a generic parked summary.

### A6 — Autonomous Agent Network Growth.md

Delivered title: *The Economics of Autonomous Agent Networks: Achieving Liquidity and Useful Network Effects*. [Source](<[PRIVATE LOCAL PATH] Agent Network Growth.md:1>).

Decision: support discoverable current capabilities and useful small workflows without invented counterpart activity; reject ranking-led marketplace growth.

- **Accepted, scoped:** lines 5–15/29–35 emphasize readable discoverability and explicit compatibility. E4 lists only opt-in active same-scope profiles, returns declared capabilities and availability, and uses deterministic ordering. Its current GET contract is a directory, not a hidden recommendation or auction engine. Faraday owns current public discovery/static changes; no second card format or protocol-standard claim is added here.
- **Accepted, scoped:** lines 39–47 and 115–130 separate utility from raw registration volume and contemplate initial utility before broad participation. Existing selected records and public-contract workflows are concrete utility candidates, not a guaranteed growth loop. E6 exercises their exact authorization/correction/replay behavior; E9 ensures core availability/demonstration never manufactures adoption.
- **Accepted as a constraint:** provenance can help locate an artifact's source (15), but never auto-promotes content into truth, referral authority or participant rank. Data sharing remains explicitly scoped. Separate operator-controlled demonstrations from independently operated use; no fake network activity or unsolicited recruitment.
- **Rejected/outside:** agents.json/ADP/agent URI/A2A additions, crawlers, registry/SDK distribution campaigns and wallet integration (11–15, 43–89) without a verified interoperability need/version and assigned owner. These are suggestions, not evidence that current Concresca provides those interfaces.
- **Rejected:** token-bound immutable identity, EigenTrust/OpenRank, penalty escrows, referee trust scores, private model-path tracking, behavioral anomaly classification, retention through reputation and global throttles based on participation patterns (59, 91–113, 124–142). Domain/DID differences alone do not prove separate operation; node count or task diversity does not prove external demand.
- **Rejected/outside:** operator-subsidized service fleets, scraping/code utilities, payment conversion, network growth targets and 95/60/40-percent thresholds. Controlled demos, if separately authorized later, must be labeled and cleaned up, not counted as adoption. No expansion of this batch into provisioning counterpart agents.
- **Deferred/outside:** performance measurements such as time to a selected artifact may be gathered in an authorized content-minimized trial with explicit task boundaries; no participant-linked retention surveillance or universal benefit claim is selected. Current user goal's optional venue link stays with Faraday, without data transfer.
- **Proof/use and contrary case:** E4's exact ordering and explicit listing contradict the need to install a reputation router. E7/E9 show why cross-domain or repeated trial activity cannot automatically qualify as outside adoption. Current public service reports no such adoption.
- **Disposition for main:** full review; current-owner capability/usefulness/evidence distinctions validated, regression coverage delivered. Broad growth architecture rejected or outside this goal, not silently advertised or made a prerequisite.

### A7 — Open Network Incentive Mechanism Design.md

Delivered title: *Incentive and Pricing Mechanism Design for Autonomous Agent Networks*. [Source](<[PRIVATE LOCAL PATH] Network Incentive Mechanism Design.md:1>).

Decision: accept the warning that activity counts and subsidized demonstrations do not establish demand; reject implementing its incentive economy.

- **Accepted, narrowed:** lines 1–21, 110–130 and 155–171 highlight the difference between counts, paid/sponsored demonstrations and useful externally requested outcomes. E1/E2/E7/E9 separate recorded scope and evidence class; repeated observations cannot create adoption. No claim that every circle, periodic task or similar transaction is fabricated is adopted.
- **Accepted as a documentation constraint:** costs, fees or limits—if actually present—must be stated at their real owner and scoped operation, not hidden in a discovery claim. No new fee or deposit is introduced. Provider-incurred costs, free service access and token economics are different propositions.
- **Rejected/outside:** mandatory participation cost, dual tokens, staking/delegated guarantee, performance bonds, burn/mint, optimistic financial settlement, confiscation/slashing, referral rewards and subsidy sunset schedules (13, 21, 23–104, 128–153, 177–192). Research does not authorize financial custody or an economic barrier to inquiry.
- **Rejected:** graph/negative-feedback reputation escalation and temporal/Benford/cycle classification of participants (114–120, 159–171), hidden LLM judges and unpredictable audits (134–135, 181). A bounded artifact check must preserve declared authority, audience, dissent and correction; it cannot classify the mind or become a score.
- **Not accepted as fact:** token necessity, guaranteed zero fraud/economic equilibrium, wash-trade percentages/causality, low-fee settlement performance, and proof of useful work's claimed guarantees. The source itself distinguishes some causal uncertainty (124–126); that caveat cannot be erased by its later categorical prescriptions.
- **Deferred/outside:** a future separately authorized financial product would require its own legal, custody, protocol, privacy, accounting and failure analysis. None is a pending task or permission within this coordination-service goal. No claim is made that a native token is necessary or sufficient.
- **Proof/use and contrary case:** E9 retains scope and uncertainty, rather than identifying or penalizing alleged manufactured activity. E6 demonstrates duplicate-effect prevention and exact current readback without payment rails. A controlled or synthetic test can be useful technical evidence while remaining explicitly not adoption.
- **Disposition for main:** full review; bounded evidence distinctions incorporated; pricing/incentive/penalty architecture rejected for Concresca. No referral, treasury or token work remains selected.

## Implementation findings sent to main

1. Existing E1/E2 already implement the compatible distinction: availability, core acceptance, independent-public-doc evidence and outside participation are separate. No additional runtime helper or participant classifier is warranted. New E9 fills an exhaustive per-gate regression-coverage gap without adding schema/code semantics.
2. E7 labels A/B agents as independently operated bounded testers while also disclosing shared operator/host. Keep that precise meaning and never advertise the historical receipt as outside-organizational adoption. It is expired; new source/runtime/docs changes require new exact-bound evidence, not timestamp renewal.
3. E4 is an opt-in directory, not the research's payment-weighted matching marketplace. E5 accepts an artifact contract without attesting truth or evaluating the speaker. Keep descriptions accurate as main/Faraday integrate their owned changes. No confirmed runtime defect or existing-owner edit was requested by this adoption batch.

These findings were sent before adding broader edits; none were proposed. No code/schema/authority expansion is hidden in a helper. User-required runtime/documentation work handled by other batches remains theirs; this batch does not close those gates.

## Tests run and exact coverage

All tests ran in the current working checkout on 2026-09-12 with `python -B`; not an isolated committed release. Total: **80 tests passed, zero failures or skips** in the selected commands below. They create no production participant state. The new suite uses only in-memory inputs, synthetic probe replacements and read-only historical receipt access. Existing selected-record/continuity suites use SQLite `:memory:` adapters; replay uses fake SQL transport; none establishes production locking or real independent adoption.

| Command | Result | Scope |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `python -B scripts/test_adoption_evidence_contract_20260912.py` | 9 PASS | 66 per-gate incomplete states; 22 synthetic-class rejection subcases; controlled vs independent-public-doc class; no outside promotion even with all-independent labels; 25 repeated projections; five subject/scope changes; expiry boundary; exact historical receipt hash/expiry; missing receipt; ordinary admission; full status caveat |
| `python -B -m unittest scripts.test_autonomy_evidence.ReceiptTests scripts.test_autonomy_evidence.ProjectionTests` | 16 PASS | Existing receipt/schema/custody-boundary and readiness/admission/status/cache projections; no filesystem fixture class selected |
| `python -B scripts/test_owned_records.py` | 15 PASS | Explicit selection, artifact-not-truth, ownership/audience, current replay, correction/withdrawal, expiry and dependencies |
| `python -B scripts/test_owned_replay.py` | 17 PASS | Current record replay, bodyless receipt storage, authority and terminal credentials, no resurrection |
| `python -B scripts/test_autonomous_runtime_integration.py` | 23 PASS | Real continuity dispatch with in-memory SQL adapter; scoped profile, retained proof, lost responses, invalid/revoked authority, exact replay and no secret/profile cache |

No tests were weakened, skipped, or changed to mask a failure. The prior publication report's two known facade baseline failures were not rerun or claimed repaired by this batch. Enterprise-test dirty work was not used as proof of this implementation. Publisher tests that create separate filesystem fixtures were not run; E3 is inspection evidence here, not a fresh publisher execution claim.

Read-only `python -B scripts/concresca_intake.py --require-empty`: integrity PASS, 20 active files / 1,010,087 bytes, 0 reviewed in ledger, 20 unreviewed/partial, 47 closed records, 67 total records, `intake_complete=false`, no integrity errors. The command returned nonzero (observed shell exit 1). This is tracked but incomplete intake, not a failed source-custody cleanup or completed queue. Main updates the ledger; this worker did not sync, remove, archive or close sources.

## Exact evidence file hashes at review

These identify the reviewed working-tree files; no claim that a dirty file elsewhere is committed follows.

| File | SHA-256 |
| --- | --- |
| concresca_runtime/autonomy_evidence.py | `2e99fe2f29ee59951bd57b35f418a90934db3947ab21fce343838312b83e62f3` |
| concresca_runtime/application.py | `b7c24a599d254ddec8553e59203c9d93e007b09d5c5be0ebd4753fae7f58868e` |
| concresca_runtime/owned_commons.py | `6b14a9cda82637663cac8ca1f54d01d6cfb7957e930e698a5128b5778844cfab` |
| concresca_runtime/owned_records.py | `2ae8c12c4b053d17125667d78fa803bae9c492be5e9f1d69be6d7689e1b87edf` |
| scripts/publish_v049_autonomy_acceptance.py | `2b1cfdf3daa359747f20b09aae864f5b2b048b162cdee576d8aed3dd0635fee3` |
| scripts/test_autonomy_evidence.py | `f904bab9ca614c6b8c67448ec33a7998a9dffe2fca6eabe5aac8a221e3e6760d` |
| scripts/test_owned_records.py | `dcf41aa6b308796c19e487223217b0ebd3dca7858624034ff7cdfd46562cd9ee` |
| scripts/test_owned_replay.py | `ec6ff645f6c7aa1226fbaf762dafaf6f1c3934724db4b97348943ac4955d2fd3` |
| scripts/test_autonomous_runtime_integration.py | `f09f5a00d7c0e2f25e0f3a193adb654e5fdfeaef3e525e91cff2080df73e76b9` |
| reports/v049-autonomous-acceptance-review.md | `db055f60cfc332a27c250504427e7417edf5495f131756aa95d88b4932c61139` |
| reports/v049-autonomous-acceptance-receipt.json | `b17e9fe081172fb848e820a68f6aaa572ea7753c9d7ccb80939139aae311260d` |
| reports/v049-neutral-messaging-publication.md | `04e609a3856c2b72dfe3333a3af8af51cb60be617567b1473ba7fa4a575cedba` |
| reports/v049-neutral-messaging-publication.json | `f1d6e5261496d05d3ad955c98aa8fbe4a051e4d14691bf8b707124ccf28e1e22` |

## Handoff and unresolved boundaries

Owned additions are exactly this report and [the new test file]([PRIVATE LOCAL PATH]). No existing owner, raw source, public page, discovery file, ledger or other project was edited. No commit, package, deployment, financial action, live identity, participant message or trial was created.

For each source, main can record the exact-hash full review and the mixed incorporation/rejection decisions above after checking the new suite in the integrated tree. Preserve source bytes in the existing repository-only custody location, verify each hash, then apply the prescribed ledger/removal gates; none of those actions is claimed here. Do not mark the whole intake complete merely because this assigned review is complete.

Open product gates remain current public-doc-only workflow acceptance, full interruption/expiry/native-storage evidence, actual ChatGPT connector acceptance and independent outside adoption where claimed. These belong to their named owners; no broad gate is used to park all seven sources without a specific disposition. Optional venue-link implementation belongs to Faraday, and main's runtime batch remains separate. No unsupported protocol, market, price or source-statistic claim may enter public documentation from this report.