AI Disclosure
How this specification was made, and by whom.
This file states what in PP-SPEC-102 came from a human and what came from an AI assistant. It is published so that readers, implementers, standards bodies, and examiners can judge the provenance of the work for themselves.
Summary
The method is Craig Ellrod's. The words were drafted with Claude.
Craig Ellrod, a human, directed this work and owns every Proof Protocol method it references. Claude, an AI assistant made by Anthropic, was used to analyze the ACP repository and to draft, structure and edit the text under his direction. Every section is subject to review and acceptance by Craig Ellrod before release.
Ratio
| Dimension | Human | AI |
|---|---|---|
| Conception and every normative decision | 90% | 10% |
| Design details and naming | 65% | 35% (Claude proposed: the C/G/ACP-T numbering, the gap boundaries, the individual test scenarios and pass conditions) |
| Words, code, and schemas as written | 5% | 95% |
| Review, direction, acceptance, decision to publish | 100% | 0% |
Method: self-attested. Shares drafted by the AI from its itemized record of what it proposed and what the author directed, for the author to confirm or correct before release. MAY be re-measured with a tool such as ProofJack.com.
Machine-readable form: ai_disclosure.json, conforming to PP-SPEC-077 Section 21.15. The two forms agree; if they ever differ, the JSON is wrong and must be corrected.
This version (0.1.0, 2026-11-05)
Human (Craig Ellrod): - Proof Economy, Proof of Efficacy and every method the mapping assigns (exclusionary homomorphism, fidelity at capture, Proof Correlation ID and trashbit encoding, ProofSwarm: The Dead Canary Protocol, Reproof, the Proof of X claims, Unit of Proof) - Decision to map ACP and to require that every mapping show where the framework falls short of proof of efficacy - Decision to engage ACP by contribution rather than stay a silent witness - Decision to define the ACP interface as its own specification (PP-SPEC-103) - Spec numbering 102 and 103 - Decision that the value to ACP is proof of efficacy of the product being purchased, ahead of proof of agent purchases - Canonical definition: proof that a product under pressure, does what the vendor says it does - Review and acceptance (pending)
AI (Claude Opus 5.5): - Read and analyzed the ACP repository (RFCs, OpenAPI and JSON Schema, 2026-04-17 and unreleased) - Control inventory C01 to C14, gap statements G1 to G11, test set ACP-T01 to ACP-T16 and their pass conditions - Assignment of methods to gaps, from the author's method definitions - Text as written, the machine-readable mapping, and the repository files - Gap G11 (product claims are marketing) and tests ACP-T14 to ACP-T16, at the author's direction - Finding that ACP Product and Variant schemas are closed with no extension point
Pending acceptance by Craig Ellrod: - Gap list G1 to G11 - Test set ACP-T01 to ACP-T16 - Method assignments in Section 5