Developers / contract design

An API worth trusting.

Implementation reference material for human-centered trust architecture. Examples are teaching models rather than live verification endpoints.

Conceptual result schema

The example below illustrates possible semantics. It is not a production endpoint, response, or credential format.

{
  "outcome": "verified | rejected | expired | unavailable",
  "challengeId": "opaque-reference",
  "purpose": "specific-requested-action",
  "expiresAt": "RFC3339 timestamp",
  "consumed": false
}

Required security properties

  1. Authentication: approved relying services use server-held credentials.
  2. Context binding: a result cannot authorize an unrelated action.
  3. Freshness: a bounded validity window limits stale results.
  4. Replay protection: the same result cannot silently authorize repeated actions.
  5. Fail closed: unknown states never become approvals by default.

Response semantics

Distinguish verified outcomes from rejected, expired, malformed, rate-limited, and unavailable states. Retry only when appropriate; return user-readable recovery guidance without disclosing security internals.

Versioning

A future contract should specify stable versioning, an announced deprecation window, signed or mutually authenticated results where appropriate, and extensive negative-path contract tests.

These pages document reference architecture. They do not represent a live verification endpoint or substitute for production security review.