[dinakarjs]

An informative acceptance procedure for the existing #333/#199 tracks, separating authority, dispatch, ingress, commit, readback and response observations. This PR remains on hold under Imran's placement ruling. The reusable procedure already belongs in #199; Carlos/Rajnish retain #333 runtime/profile placement. No additional copy is proposed for merge while that decision is pending.

Corrected the Proofable paragraph: its dispatch-only candidacy is attributed to the #333 discussion, and commit-after-revocation behavior is explicitly unmeasured. The future run would test that distinction. Released outbound operations, authenticated job/authority binding and an independent target operator remain prerequisites.

Head e0c068f989e925e25290ebd051e025ddd6da41bb merges current main c5a0b8c34378c7c57f7f48bd5c9f852345203f9a without conflict and retains only this documentation addition in the PR diff. No production code or live behavior changed. Whitespace, eight three-column acceptance rows and local link checks pass. All eight acceptance pairs remain unexecuted; no live, hardware, exactly-once or measured revocation claim. Final-head validation, lint, examples/demos, integrity and CodeQL workflows succeed. The link workflow alone fails on an unchanged otel-genai README citation: GitHub returned HTTP 503 for an OpenTelemetry commit URL (run 39433907796, job 118665777766). The referenced commit exists and is retrievable through GitHub's API. This is a recorded external-service failure; no link exclusion or unrelated source change was added. Maintainer Actions permission is needed to rerun that job.

Literature references

The document retains relevance and limits for UCONABC (authorization boundary), Herlihy and Wing (object histories), RIFL (managed-effect coupling), RATS (claim/appraisal trust), and RAC v2 (evaluation coverage). These sources do not validate an unexecuted procedure.

Original ownership and the existing #199 procedure are preserved. No deployment/account is activated, and no underlying issue is closed. DCO sign-off retained; prepared with Codex and self-reviewed.

[github-actions]

🟡 Contributor Check: MEDIUM

Check	Result
Profile	MEDIUM
Credential	LOW
Overall	MEDIUM

Automated check by AgenTrust Contributor Check.

[dinakarjs]

@imran-siddique the exact-head technical workflows have succeeded; this remains an informative draft with the proposed acceptance cases unexecuted. Please review the bounded scope/placement and the explicit representation decisions in the proposal, or name the maintainer who should decide them. I am not treating a green technical run as approval of the design or permission to implement a new normative contract.

[imran-siddique]

@dinakarjs holding this one. Placement for #333 sits with @carloshvp and @rajnisht7, and I asked them to answer by Thursday 23 October. The .github#64 ruling put the reusable procedure in #199, and your 17 October comment there already carries it, so a docs page would be a third copy.

One fix before it moves anywhere: the Proofable paragraph states commit-after-revocation behaviour that we have not measured. Attribute it to the #333 thread or drop it.

[dinakarjs]

Corrected the Proofable paragraph at e0c068f989e925e25290ebd051e025ddd6da41bb: it attributes the candidate profile to #333 and explicitly says commit-after-revocation behavior has not been measured. Also merged current main cleanly; the PR reports mergeable with only this documentation addition against main. Keeping the PR on hold: #199 remains the existing home of the reusable procedure, and Carlos/Rajnish retain #333 placement/runtime decisions. No live run or observed revocation claim. Literature and validation limits remain in the description.

Final-head follow-up: ten technical workflows succeed. The link run fails only because GitHub returned HTTP 503 for an unchanged OpenTelemetry commit citation in integrations/otel-genai/README.md. That commit remains retrievable through GitHub's API. A maintainer with Actions permission can rerun failed job 118665777766; no source workaround or new exclusion is justified by this response. This service failure is separate from the placement hold. Prepared with Codex.