{
 "_doc": "The lab's current claim and limits for one result, copied word for word from the line of its current-claims list named here. A value that is replaced by an object with sha256_of_value and bytes is committed by its hash instead of printed, for the reason it states. Nothing here is typed by hand.",
 "portfolio_id": "inference-limits:proof-of-deletion",
 "title": "Proof of deletion as a falsification asset, not a deletion guarantee",
 "claim": "Two independent deletion-receipt verifiers were built, and the campaign publishes six demonstrated limits that defeat any stronger reading of them: a vault backup makes the receipt verify while the object opens again at exit 0; a fully witnessed per-buffer scrub leaves the state recoverable exactly from a second copy (24,499 of 24,576 bytes nonzero); message-locked state has no key to destroy; a colluding auditor holding the real key produces a receipt both verifiers accept at exit 0 while nothing was erased, and is refused without that key; a receipt says nothing about the content deleted; and CRL freshness is the caller's to fix. 23 checks and 36 falsifications land at their declared code, and the ciphertext (26,359 bytes) is unchanged across the deletion.",
 "limits": "THE REGISTRY TITLE IS WRONG AND THIS ENTRY CORRECTS IT. The registry says the proof-of-deletion certificate passed; there is NO passed key in this certificate, and of its four lean_witnesses the single most load-bearing case for a deletion proof — erase_forbids_serve — is proved NEITHER in Lean NOR in Python while the cert still reads certified:true. A vault backup restores the erased object and the loader opens it at exit 0 WHILE THE RECEIPT STILL VERIFIES. 26,359 ciphertext bytes remain unchanged on disk. Deduplicated records cannot be erased at all. A3 2026-09-09: this entry cited the lab's crypto_erasure_cert.json and a command that printed four stored fields of it. That certificate is a different object -- a ten-record key-presence model whose serialised text contains none of the words this claim depends on (probed before the change: 'auditor' False, 'receipt' False, 'backup' False), while erasure_cert.json contains all three. The entry now cites erasure_cert.json and the target that regenerates it, `make erasure`, which was run in this pass: the certificate came back byte-identical and the target's own committed-and-undrifted gate passed. I1 REWRITE 2026-09-02 (S04): reproduce_command is now the producer that scripts/check_cert_regen_drift.py ran (reports/peer_review_2026-09/regen_drift.json); the former python3 -c reader is kept as reader_command and is a transcription, not a reproduction.",
 "lab_commit": "9d619007982bf311b1d3b64c929b835bbceb1f97",
 "differs_from_sealed": true,
 "source": {
  "list": "the lab's current claims",
  "line": 89,
  "sha256": "03cbc720dc0c135b24ba7e8060eb92541f7b5759dcd151d4e2c8afa2e47afadb"
 },
 "result_receipt": "/receipts/inference-limits/results/proof-of-deletion.json",
 "vendored_utc": "2026-10-06T02:09:30Z"
}