Robotics evidence guide · automated editorial preparation, not expert review
What a robotics artifact digest can and cannot prove
A matching digest establishes agreement with a referenced byte representation under the chosen algorithm. It does not show who created the artifact, whether a sensor told the truth or whether all trials were supplied.
Evidence and interpretation
Maha’s executable example demonstrates a narrow integrity boundary: canonical JSON is hashed, but the verifier also regenerates the expected experiment. W3C’s provenance overview supplies background for recording derivation; it does not make the local digest an authenticity certificate. For external evidence, a useful record must identify the trusted reference and the origin of that trust. Comparing two values supplied by the same untrusted sender adds little assurance about the physical event.
Proposed evidence workflow
- Specify exact bytes or canonicalization rules and identify where the expected digest came from.
- Verify completeness and authorized origin separately from byte identity.
- Retain failure reasons when a package matches its own hash but lacks a trusted reference.
Worked illustration
Deleting a failed trial and computing a new hash creates a self-consistent file. Our fixed-plan verifier still refuses it because the regenerated twelve-trial package differs. A generic hash-only check would not detect that missing trial.
Limits
The example is neither a signature system nor a general robot-log verifier. Its expected package comes from the same implementation.
Sources and review
Locator: Abstract; §1 Introduction; §2 Document Roadmap
PROV describes entities, activities and agents involved in producing information, with representations for derivation and versioning.
Boundary: This overview is a non-normative Working Group Note. A provenance description does not authenticate an observation.
Inspection and reuse basis
Selected sections inspected 2026-09-15. Original paraphrase and link only; no third-party text or diagrams redistributed. This is not independent expert review of this article.