KFD-13 Implementation Notes
Authoritative decision · Formal reference · Discovery and qualification · Documentation map
KFD-13 is a numbered draft for software-project settlement. Project Cut is the founding name for its binding object; it is not a universal cross-domain primitive or another fact engine.
Domain boundary
The founding implementation binds Git source, Xinfa Atlas, and Kungfu Episode coordinates. A conforming software implementation may use different authorities. A non-software Domain Profile may define another macro commitment or adopt no equivalent at all.
Discovery lineage
The founding move changed from the coordinator maintaining Initiative and Assignment state to the successor Agent that must act from one exact project boundary. From that view, Project Cut became the minimal answer to what the project had officially become and where continuation may begin. KFD-5 then qualified that settlement responsibility separately from the concrete Git, Xinfa, and Kungfu binding.
The case records maintainer testimony that an Agent first proposed Project Cut. Public repository history verifies the later design, implementation, qualification, and review, but does not independently prove the private conversation or its authorship. The two evidence classes remain explicit.
Implementation sequence
- Resolve predecessor and source, Atlas, Episode, policy, and protocol roots.
- Verify each root under its own authority.
- Declare included projections, omissions, conflicts, unknowns, and residual risk.
- Canonically encode the binding and compute its root.
- Publish it at an outer project coordinate that is not part of its own hash input.
- Issue a receipt that an independent verifier can recompute.
- Preserve immutable lineage across later cuts, supersession, or rejection.
Machine adoption path
Publish a
schemas/kfd-13/adopter-witness.schema.json
record. It requires independently verified source, Atlas, Episode, and policy
bindings, explicit authority preservation, a canonical Project Cut root and
non-self-certifying receipt, omissions/conflicts/unknowns/residual risk, an
independent export verification, and successor lineage.
The package-level activation-contracts.json
manifest exposes this witness together with the shared qualification report
and fail-closed activation record.
Qualification
Test deterministic rebuild, independent verification, missing or conflicting authority roots, stale Atlas, inadmissible Episode increments, circular publication coordinates, and the distinction between valid binding, accepted work, and release fitness.
Do not implement Project Cut as a merged authority. Its value is the verifiable relationship among authorities that retain their own semantics.
Qualification must preserve failed evidence and residual risk. A structural or deterministic rebuild result does not by itself prove operational evidence, independent review, work completion, release fitness, or activation.
The Field Responsibility Matrix distinguishes the software-domain settlement body from provider names, filesystem paths, compatibility metadata, and participant-facing summaries.