Protocol Evaluation Sheet

Use this sheet before opening a full spec.

Candidate

• Protocol name:
• Domain:
• Short description:
• One-sentence value proposition:
• Standards-backed candidate or internal sketch:

Peers

• Peer 1:
• Peer 2:
• Peer 3:

Peer-Owned Facts

• What is each peer authoritative for?

Shared Claim

• What cross-peer outcome are we trying to evaluate?

Proof Needs

• Inclusion needed?
• Exclusion needed?
• Completeness needed?
• Freshness or timestamp needed?
• Revocation or supersession needed?

Composition

• Are verified bundles composed into higher-order claims?
• Do those higher-order claims become certification facts?
• Which downstream mode applies: trust certifier, audit through, or mixed?

Software Role

• Safest role for us:
• Risky role to avoid:
• IP, license, governance, or accreditation concern:

Infrastructure Path

• Signed roots only?
• Witness feed?
• On-chain metadata roots?
• Scripted claim-history anchor?
• Who stores proofs?
• Who receives proof requests?
• What must travel in the proof bundle?

Fit Rubric Score

• Multi-peer truth:
• Statefulness:
• Negative claims:
• Selective disclosure:
• Composed outcome:
• Dispute or audit pressure:
• Why signatures alone fail:

• Certification ladder:

• Total:

Decision

• Why this is a good fit:
• Why this may not be worth it:
• What has to be researched next:
• Next step: