Hachure — an open trust format

Namespace: hachure.org/v1 Status: pre-1.0, hard versioning, no compatibility promises yet Originally developed by: Kontour AI

Install

npm i hachure

The package ships the normative JSON schemas, conformance test vectors, the statusFunctionVersion constant that ties implementations to a specific algorithm revision, and a bundled, dependency-free implementation of status derivation and merge — so you can produce, validate, merge, and evaluate Hachure records with nothing but this package:

import { deriveStatuses, mergeBundles, canonicalize } from 'hachure';

const merged = mergeBundles([bundleFromScanner, bundleFromCI]);
const statusByClaimId = deriveStatuses(merged, new Date());

Or from the command line:

npx hachure validate bundle.json     # schema-validate a TrustBundle
npx hachure derive bundle.json       # derive per-claim statuses
npx hachure diff before.json after.json  # status transitions as evidence arrives
npx hachure merge a.json b.json      # merge producer bundles
npx hachure vectors                  # run the conformance vectors

Worked example. conformance/sf-reference-bundle-snapshot.json is a { now, input, expect } vector fixture; write its input bundle to a file and derive it at the vector's own now:

node -e "const v=require('./conformance/sf-reference-bundle-snapshot.json'); \
  require('fs').writeFileSync('/tmp/bundle.json', JSON.stringify(v.input))"
npx hachure derive /tmp/bundle.json --now "2026-06-10T00:00:00.000Z"

{
  "statusFunctionVersion": "2",
  "evaluatedAt": "2026-06-10T00:00:00.000Z",
  "statusByClaimId": {
    "claim.repo-governance.api-proof": "verified",
    "claim.field-attested-records.registration-status": "stale",
    "claim.fact-resolution.w2-wages": "verified",
    "claim.roadmap.future-service": "unknown"
  }
}

claim.field-attested-records.registration-status folds to stale because its verification event's freshness window (per its verificationPolicyId) has expired by the given now — the staleness step of the fold in status-function.md, not a missing-evidence gap.

The prose specification is normative; the bundled code is a conforming implementation of it (proven in-repo by running every conformance vector), not a privileged one.

Claiming conformance: run the test vectors from testVectors against your implementation (testVectors covers the status-derivation vectors; the L3 merge vectors ship separately under conformance/merge/ and via the ./conformance/*.json export path). For each vector, call your status-derivation function with vector.input and vector.now, then assert that the derived status for every claim ID matches vector.expect.statusByClaimId. Passing all vectors for a given status function version is the bar for a conforming implementation.

import { testVectors, statusFunctionVersion } from 'hachure';

for (const { name, vector } of testVectors) {
  const results = deriveStatuses(vector.input, new Date(vector.now));
  for (const [claimId, expected] of Object.entries(vector.expect.statusByClaimId)) {
    assert.equal(results[claimId], expected, `${name} / ${claimId}`);
  }
}

What this is

Hachure is an open format for portable trust state. It defines how claims about real-world subjects — and the evidence, policies, verification events, authority records, and derivation rules behind them — are represented so they can cross product and vendor boundaries without the receiver needing access to the producer's internals.

Hachures are the short strokes on hand-drawn maps that show the shape and steepness of terrain. This format does the same for trust: it shows the contours of what is supported, what is stale, what is disputed, and what is simply asserted.

The format is deliberately not named after any company or product, and depends on no vendor's software: the hachure package alone produces, validates, merges, and evaluates records. Known conforming implementations are listed under Implementations; anyone can add one by passing the conformance vectors.

Governance intent: Hachure is currently developed by Kontour AI, which holds the name to protect it. We intend to move the specification to neutral governance as adoption warrants.

Why this exists

Every system that verifies anything — CI pipelines, security scanners, compliance reviews, data-quality checks, human sign-offs — stores its conclusion in its own database. The moment that conclusion crosses a boundary (vendor to customer, tool to dashboard, agent to deployment gate), it degrades into a boolean, a badge, or a PDF: the evidence is gone, there is no expiry, and the receiver has no way to re-check the reasoning. You either trust the summary or redo the work.

The standards world has solved portable attestation — signed, frozen, point-in-time statements (SCITT receipts, RATS passports, in-toto/DSSE envelopes, Verifiable Credentials). What none of them standardize is the step after: every one of them delegates "what is this claim worth now?" to verifier-specific judgment. SCITT leaves registration policy to each transparency-service operator; EAT (RFC 9711) states its verifier rules "are a matter of local policy"; VC 2.0 says verification "does not imply evaluation of the truth of claims." The status decision is always someone's unpublished local policy.

Hachure's core move is to publish that function. A claim travels with its evidence, the policy it was judged against, and the append-only event history — and the status is not an opinion stored in a field, it is a pure, versioned function of that data (status = f(claim, evidence, events, policy, authorityTrace, now)). Any receiver can recompute it, watch it go stale on its own as evidence ages, and merge bundles from producers that disagree without one silently overwriting the other: conflicts are preserved as contradiction gaps, never resolved by last-write-wins. Not portable trust — recomputable trust.

The defaults are deliberately honest about trust: an unsigned bundle is a valid bundle (Assurance L0), because most trust state inside an organization never needed a signature — it needed structure. Signing is a dial you turn up (assurance.md) when records cross a boundary where identity matters.

Where you might use it

• AI agent gates. An agent (or CI job) may act only when specific claims are verified and fresh: express the gate as a DerivationRule ("deploy allowed if test-suite-passes and security-scan-clean are both in acceptedStatuses: [verified]"), and record every decision as an InquiryRecord — an audit receipt that says exactly what was knowable, from which claims, under which statusFunctionVersion, at the moment the agent acted. This is the difference between "the agent said it checked" and a replayable record of what it checked.
• Vendor assurance without the PDF. Instead of a static compliance answer, a vendor publishes a TrustBundle and serves the verification endpoint. The customer re-derives statuses themselves; when the pen-test evidence passes its policy's validity window, the claim goes stale on the customer's side automatically — no annual-questionnaire lag.
• Release provenance with living status. Signatures (in-toto, SLSA) freeze what was true at signing time. Wrap a bundle in a DSSE envelope (interop-in-toto.md) to anchor the release moment, then keep serving event deltas so a consumer can see that a claim verified at release has since been disputed or revoked. hachure.org's own /trust page runs this pattern live.
• Merging scanners that disagree. Two security tools scan the same artifact and reach different conclusions. Merge both bundles (merge.md): both claims survive under their producers, the disagreement surfaces as a contradiction transparency gap, and a human (or an authority-gated resolution event) settles it on the record instead of the louder tool winning.
• Third-party enrichment. An external feed (a vulnerability database, a license scanner, an end-of-life tracker) watches subjects it knows about and emits its own bundles about them — ordinary Evidence and claims under its own producerId, merged into the ledger like any producer. This is the certifier pattern that aggregation services (e.g. GUAC) run inside a deployed server, expressed as portable records instead: the enrichment travels with the state, and any consumer re-derives the effect.

Namespace and versioning

All core trust-format records use the hachure.org/v1 namespace. Producers that define extension records outside this specification use their own product-scoped namespaces (a domain the producer controls), never hachure.org/*.

Pre-1.0: the format uses hard breaking changes rather than compatibility aliases. No forward or backward compatibility guarantees are made across versions. Version bumps are reflected in schemaVersion (an integer field in TrustBundle, currently 7) and in the status function version (a string exported by this package and by every conforming implementation as statusFunctionVersion, currently "2").

Schema version 4 adds optional claim freshness fields (expiresAt / ttlSeconds) and an optional invalidation event vocabulary (event status: "revoked" and event type: "invalidation"). All additions are optional, so every bundle valid at schemaVersion 3 remains valid; only the deriver (statusFunctionVersion 2) folds the new fields into a status. See status-function.md and the sf-expired-window / sf-revoked-event / sf-no-freshness-fields conformance vectors.

Schema version 5 renames the Claim surface field to facet and makes it optional (previously required) — the one deliberate hard break named above. Bundles declaring schemaVersion 2 through 4 are no longer schema-valid under this release: their surface field is rejected by claim.schema.json's additionalProperties: false. Producers MUST re-emit as facet and self-declare schemaVersion: 5. See merge.md §4 for facet's (unchanged) treatment in claim identity.

Schema version 6 adds an optional TrustBundle proof block (an object holding integrity anchors — e.g. a transparency_log anchor with a Rekor entry UUID), resolving the previous contradiction where assurance.md, interop-in-toto.md, and verification-endpoint.md referenced a proof field the schema rejected. The addition is optional: every bundle valid at schemaVersion 5 remains valid (the schema enum accepts both 5 and 6), and proof never changes status derivation — signing remains an out-of-band assurance concern.

Schema version 7 adds the runtime_observation Evidence type and an optional execution.environment field (test, staging, or production). The addition is additive: every bundle valid at schemaVersion 6 remains valid. The status function's existing required-evidence step consults runtime_observation when a policy requires it, so older validators reject bundles that use the new value; statusFunctionVersion remains "2" because no fold step changed.

Conformance language

The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document and in every other normative document in this repository (merge.md, assurance.md, verification-endpoint.md, status-function.md, interop-in-toto.md, evidence-ingestion.md, scitt.md, oscal.md, ai-evaluation.md, contract-claims.md, waivers.md, SECURITY.md) are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and clarified by RFC 8174 (BCP 14), only when they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Scope: core record shapes

This specification covers the following record types. Each is a first-class concept in the format; none requires a specific producer or product to instantiate.

TrustBundle

The central wire record. A portable, point-in-time package of trust state from a single producer: claims, evidence, policies, verification events, and optional identity links, claim groups, authority traces, and a proof block (signing anchors — see assurance.md).

Plain-language definition:

A Trust Bundle is a portable, point-in-time package of trust state from a single producer — claims, the evidence and verification events behind them, and the policies the producer played by — packed so it can cross a product boundary without the receiver needing access to the producer's internals.

The source field identifies the producer (free-text, may vary per run); an optional producerId field carries a stable, unsigned identifier for the producing system, consistent across every bundle it emits. When present, producerId MUST be a non-empty string. Bundles from multiple producers can be merged into one ledger without last-write-wins and without deleting losing evidence; conflicts between claims are surfaced as contradiction transparency gaps, never silently resolved or used to flip a claim's status. The full specification of identifier conventions and the merge algorithm is in merge.md.

An optional identityLinks array declares co-referent subjects — real-world entities known under more than one identifier. Each link carries a stable optional id, a subjects array (two or more { subjectType, subjectId } refs), and an optional relation field: "equivalent" (default — the subjects denote the same entity), "subsumes" (the first subject is a superset of the others), or "converts" (the subjects are related by a unit or scale transformation, parameterised by an optional conversion: { factor, offset, note } object). A link may additionally carry a mappingClaimId pointing to the Claim that evidences the mapping assertion itself; when set, inquiry resolution through that link is subject to a weakest-link status cap — a disputed mapping claim cannot yield a verified answer.

Claim

An assertion about a real-world subject. A claim has a stable id, a subjectType and subjectId pair identifying what is being asserted, an optional facet (a producer-defined grouping or namespace for the claim — see merge.md §4 for why it's excluded from cross-producer claim identity), a claimType, a fieldOrBehavior, and a value. Claims carry optional impactLevel, integrity anchors, policy references, derivation edges, and confidence basis metadata.

Derived trust status is never stored on the claim itself as source of truth; it is computed from the surrounding bundle at evaluation time.

Claims also carry two optional round-trip fields, tolerated but never producer-authored: producerStatus (the producer's own declared status, present when a TrustReport's derived claims are re-fed as bundle input) and freshness ({ asOf, expiresAt?, stale }, a freshness stamp on derived/report claims).

Evidence

An item of support for a claim. Evidence is linked to a claim via claimId. Each item carries evidenceType, method, sourceRef, an excerpt or summary, and observedAt. Evidence can declare a passing boolean and a blocking flag; a non-passing, non-blocked evidence item is a soft signal; a non-passing blocking item can cause a disputed status outcome.

supportStrength (default "entails") distinguishes full entailment from citation: only "entails" evidence feeds policy requirement checks. "cited" evidence is contextual but does not satisfy required-evidence policies.

Use test_output for results produced in an isolated or pre-deployment test context, runtime_observation for behavior observed from a running system (in any environment — record which via execution.environment), and crawl_observation for facts extracted by crawling an external resource. When evidence has an execution block, its optional environment (test, staging, or production) records where that execution occurred; policies that specifically require live/deployed evidence SHOULD require runtime_observation rather than inferring it from method or execution metadata.

VerificationPolicy

A policy declares what evidence and methods are required to reach verified status for a given claimType, and how long verification remains valid. Core fields: requiredEvidence (array of evidence types), requiredMethods, requiresCorroboration, validityRule (one of duration, commit, historical, manual), and acceptanceCriteria.

Policies are resolved against claims by verificationPolicyId first, then by claimType exact match, then by walking the parentType chain from most-specific to most-general. See Status Derivation for how the resolved policy feeds the derivation.

VerificationEvent

An append-only event representing a status decision for a claim. Events carry claimId, status, actor, method, evidenceIds, and timestamps. Events are never updated; they accumulate as a ledger. The most recent event of a given kind shapes the derived status via the fold described in Status Derivation.

A verification event may carry resolvesDispute: true and an authorityRef to indicate it is an authority-gated dispute-resolution decision (see status-function.md Step 1).

AuthorityTrace

A record establishing that a named actor held a named authority over a subject during a time window. Authority traces are the credential that makes a dispute-resolution event binding: the fold checks that the resolution event's actor has an active trace at the decision timestamp. Fields: actorRef, authorityType, authorityRef, validFrom, validUntil, revokedAt, and optional integrity anchors.

InquiryRecord

An append-only record capturing the resolution of a consumer-side question (Inquiry) against the ledger. An InquiryRecord carries the original question, the resolution path (matched claim or named derivation rule plus input claims), the answer with its status at evaluation time, a frozen snapshot of input claim statuses, the statusFunctionVersion used, and the resolvedAt timestamp.

Records never go stale because they never assert present-tense truth; they assert what was knowable at a specific moment. The statusFunctionVersion field enables re-evaluation if the derivation algorithm changes.

DerivationRule

A named, versioned rule that derives a boolean answer from existing claims. Rules compose claims using value predicates (eq, neq, gt, gte, lt, lte, in, exists) and status predicates (acceptedStatuses), combined with "all" or "any" — the portable expression of gate-style checks ("proceed only if these claims hold these statuses"). The weakest-link confidence ceiling propagates through rule evaluation unchanged.

Status semantics

Status is a pure, versioned function of the bundle data and a now timestamp. The full specification of the derivation algorithm is in status-function.md.

The nine possible statuses:

| Status | Meaning | |---|---| | unknown | No supporting evidence or events; the claim cannot be evaluated. | | proposed | Evidence exists or a verification event indicates proposed, but policy requirements are not fully met. | | assumed | The claim is treated as true for operational purposes without full verification evidence. | | verified | A verification event asserts verified, required policy evidence is present, and the verification is still fresh. | | stale | The most recent verified event has expired under the policy's validity rule. | | disputed | A verified claim has blocking contradicting evidence, or a terminal dispute event exists. | | superseded | A terminal event marks the claim as superseded. | | rejected | A terminal event marks the claim as rejected. | | revoked | An explicit invalidation event has revoked the claim's verification. For single-claim status derivation this folds to stale (see status-function.md, Step 2) unless a later verification event re-asserts the claim; the reference implementation still tracks revoked as a distinct, weakest-ranked raw status for Claim.status/VerificationEvent.status, claim-group rollups, and weakest-link ordering. |

Normative schemas

The JSON schemas at schemas/ are the normative wire contracts for all core record shapes. The following schema files are part of this format:

| Schema file | Record type(s) | |---|---| | trust-bundle.schema.json | TrustBundle (top-level container) | | claim.schema.json | Claim | | evidence.schema.json | Evidence | | verification-policy.schema.json | VerificationPolicy | | verification-event.schema.json | VerificationEvent | | trust-report.schema.json | TrustReport (derived, not emitted by producers) | | derivation-rule.schema.json | DerivationRule | | inquiry-record.schema.json | InquiryRecord |

Schemas are not duplicated in this directory. The reference implementation validates TrustBundle input against these schemas via validateTrustBundle().

Profiles

The core specification covers record shapes and status semantics. Profiles are optional, independently adoptable conventions for interop and transport. Adopting a profile requires no changes to core record shapes or the status function.

| Profile | File | What it covers | |---|---|---| | in-toto interop | interop-in-toto.md | Wrapping a TrustBundle as a signed in-toto Statement v1 / DSSE envelope (export direction). | | Evidence ingestion | evidence-ingestion.md | Importing existing attestations — in-toto/SLSA, EAT, SCITT statements, VCs — as Evidence on Hachure claims (import direction). | | SCITT | scitt.md | Registering bundles on transparency services (RFC 9943): receipts as proof anchors, and the status function as a published registration/appraisal policy. | | OSCAL | oscal.md | Assessment-results mapping: observation↔Evidence, finding↔Claim, result-expiry↔expiresAt; projection of derived state into OSCAL AR documents. | | Verification endpoint | verification-endpoint.md | Producer-served HTTP endpoint for receivers to fetch post-export event deltas. | | Assurance | assurance.md | Signing as a dial: L0/L1/L2 assurance levels, identity presentation, consumer policy, and human signing ceremony. | | AI evaluation | ai-evaluation.md | Eval results, model claims, and agent outcomes as recomputable trust: eval evidence that survives the boundary, calibrated conclusionConfidence + comfort-zone, conclusion-freshness vs signature-freshness, composing with model-signing / AI-BOMs / DID-VC as evidence. | | Contract claims | contract-claims.md | End-to-end contracts between providers and consumers: a contract claim qualifier convention plus live runtime_observation receipts that keep test-only integration assertions at a gap. | | Waivers | waivers.md | Typed claim.metadata.waiver shape for documenting an accepted assumed gap (reason/approver/timestamp), with no status-function or schema change. |

Relationship to W3C Verifiable Credentials

Hachure and the W3C Verifiable Credentials data model both represent claims-with-evidence, and it is a fair question why this format does not simply build on VC instead of defining its own record shapes.

The short answer: DID-based issuer identity is the dominant convention in the VC ecosystem — a resolvable, typically key-based identifier scheme — though the VC data model itself permits any URL as an issuer identifier. Hachure treats signing as an opt-in Assurance dial (L0 unsigned by default, L1/L2 signed on request), not a precondition for a record to exist. Requiring DIDs for producerId (merge.md §2) would collapse that layered design into "every producer needs key infrastructure just to be namespaced for merge" — a strictly higher bar than merge, or basic claim authorship, actually needs. producerId is deliberately at the same trust level as the existing source field: free-text, unsigned, always available, upgradable to a cryptographically verifiable identity only when a consumer's policy requires it.

This is not a rejection of DIDs or VCs — an implementation that wants DID-backed producer identity can express it today via Assurance L1/L2's OIDC- or held-key-backed signing (assurance.md §"Identity presentation"), and nothing here prevents a future profile from mapping Hachure records into a VC envelope for interop with VC-native ecosystems. It is a statement that Hachure does not require DID infrastructure just to produce a valid, useful record — consistent with the "signing is a dial, not a gate" principle that runs through the whole Assurance profile.

See merge.md §10 "Prior art" for the fuller technical rationale, and assurance.md for how signed identity is layered on top when a consumer needs it.

Relationship to IETF SCITT

SCITT (Supply Chain Integrity, Transparency, and Trust — RFC 9943, June 2026) is the closest prior art to Hachure's problem space: issuers sign statements about artifacts (COSE-signed), register them on append-only transparency services, and receive receipts proving registration. It is worth being precise about the split, because the two compose rather than compete:

• SCITT answers "who said this, and is it on the record?" It provides non-repudiable, tamper-evident registration of frozen signed statements. It deliberately does not define what a statement means, how evidence relates to a claim, what policy governs verification, or how a statement's standing changes as new facts arrive.
• Hachure answers "what is the standing of this claim right now?" Claims travel with evidence, policy, and an append-only event ledger, and status is recomputed — verified decays to stale, gets disputed by blocking evidence, or is revoked by a later event — without ever editing the original record.

Composition is the natural shape: a TrustBundle (or its DSSE envelope per interop-in-toto.md) can be registered as a SCITT signed statement, and the resulting receipt belongs in the bundle's proof block as a transparency_log anchor. SCITT then guarantees the bundle existed and who registered it; Hachure keeps answering what its claims are worth as time passes. As with DIDs above, none of this is required: SCITT registration is an Assurance-layer dial, not a precondition for a valid record.

Worth stating plainly: SCITT deliberately left registration policy and relying-party status decisions unstandardized (an earlier standardized policy mechanism was dropped from the final architecture). Hachure's versioned status function is a natural candidate to fill exactly that vacated niche — a published, recomputable policy a transparency service or relying party can adopt instead of writing bespoke local rules. The SCITT profile makes this concrete: registration mapping, receipts as proof anchors, and the status function as a declared appraisal policy.

Relationship to policy engines (OPA/Rego, Cedar, CEL)

General-purpose policy engines — Open Policy Agent's Rego, AWS Cedar, Google's CEL — do recompute decisions deterministically as decision = f(input, policy), which makes "isn't Hachure's status function just a Rego policy?" a fair question. It is the closest challenger by mechanism, so the distinction is worth stating precisely:

• A policy engine is a language and a runtime. It evaluates whatever policy an author writes, deterministically. There is no canonical trust-status policy in Rego or Cedar; "portable and reproducible" means the engine is side-effect-free, not that two parties compute the same appraisal. The policy is the author's, private, and unversioned across organizations.
• Hachure ships the function, not the engine. status = f(claim, evidence, events, policy, authorityTrace, now) is a specific, published, versioned algorithm — pinned by statusFunctionVersion and held to conformance vectors that prove independent implementations derive byte-identical statuses. Any consumer recomputes the same standing from the same inputs; that cross-party agreement is the point, and it is exactly what a general engine does not provide.

The two compose cleanly: the engine is substrate, the status function is the standardized artifact. A conforming Hachure deriver could be implemented on OPA, Cedar, or CEL — the engine is plumbing; the published, versioned function is what travels with the record and makes the verdict reproducible by everyone.

Out of scope: future extension profiles

The following producer domains are explicitly out of scope for this core specification. Each is a candidate for a future extension profile that imports the core record shapes and adds domain-specific vocabulary:

• Extraction/review provenance chains — the source → extraction → candidate → review → claim pipeline a producer runs before a claim lands in a bundle. The bundle is the output boundary; the review trail above it is producer-scoped.
• Repository/codebase standards — per-repo claim vocabularies, per-run evidence collection conventions, and merge-gate integration records.
• Gate/run records — gate-expectation vocabularies, run-scoped views, and gate-result record shapes built on top of DerivationRule and InquiryRecord.

Extension profiles reference this spec as their foundation and declare any additional fields or constraints. They do not modify the core record shapes. (Kontour AI's product suite defines profiles in each of these domains; they carry product-scoped namespaces and no special status in this specification.)

Executable conformance

conformance/ contains test vector bundles and expected per-claim statuses at a fixed now. The specification is executable in-repo: this package's suite runs every status-derivation vector against the bundled implementation (test/derive.conformance.test.mjs) and every merge vector — under every permutation of the input bundles — against the bundled merge (test/merge.conformance.test.mjs). npx hachure vectors runs the same check from the command line. Independent implementations prove conformance by running the same vectors via the testVectors export.

See conformance/README.md for the test vector inventory, and conformance/manifest.json (also exported as conformanceManifest) for a machine-readable index of what an implementation must pass to claim conformance at each level (L1 schema-valid records, L2 status-derivation vectors, L3 merge vectors).

Project documents

• SECURITY.md — the format's honest trust boundaries: source/producerId spoofing, verification-endpoint replay risk, and whole-bundle substitution, and which Assurance level mitigates each.
• CONTRIBUTING.md — how to propose a change, when a design writeup is expected, and the conformance-vector requirement for behavior changes. (Draft — see the banner in that file.)
• GOVERNANCE.md — who currently has decision authority, and what "neutral governance" is expected to mean when the project moves toward it. Expands the "Governance intent" paragraph above; does not contradict it. (Draft — see the banner in that file.)
• ROADMAP.md — what "1.0" will mean and the explicit exit criteria for declaring it; near-term profile candidates.
• LICENSE — MIT, matching package.json's "license" field.

Canonical home

This repository (hachure-org/spec) is the canonical home of the Hachure specification: prose, normative JSON Schemas, conformance test vectors, and the bundled implementation. On any conflict between an implementation and this repository, this repository wins.

Implementations

Conformance is claimed by passing the conformance vectors (manifest), not by appearing in this list. Known implementations:

| Implementation | Maintainer | Notes | |---|---|---| | hachure (this package, lib/) | hachure-org | Bundled with the spec; dependency-free; runs all vectors in-repo. | | @kontourai/surface | Kontour AI | Separate (first-party) implementation, maintained by Kontour AI; runs these vectors in its own suite. Does not yet satisfy ROADMAP.md's exit criterion 1, which requires an implementation not maintained by Kontour AI or hachure-org. |

To add an implementation, open a PR that links to your public conformance-vector run.