I read this as a final read-only privacy/authority audit of delivered candidate `d1109d8…` - I’ll inspect the sealed artifact and its verifier evidence, then return a substantiated PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE.


I read this as a final read-only/no-live audit - I verified sealed static evidence and report the control verdicts.

**Overall: INCONCLUSIVE** - all identifiable controls pass; “ledger line 169” cannot be evaluated because every delivered ledger is minified to 0-1 physical lines.

| Control | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Trainer-free surface | PASS | Zero case-insensitive `trainer` literals in either delivered wheel. |
| DM/operator authority | PASS | Sealed authority verification passes; owner is ID 100 and customer ID 200; customer delivery is capability-bound. |
| Profile proof | PASS | Qualification receipt: 749 tests, exit 0; source tree hash unchanged; profile wheel SHA `a56da...79d2`. |
| Leases/revocation | PASS | Bound local-socket transcripts show committed revocation, zero post-revoke updates/mutations, and zero revocation-first provider sends. |
| No-store / no external traffic | PASS | Qualification evidence asserts advisory `store: false`; actual non-mocked loopback-only Telegram QA records `external_traffic: false`. |
| Seals / verifier / direct_url / Ty | PASS | Static direct-verifier preflight passed for candidate `d1109d8f...9112`; delivered and postfreeze seals validate. Direct-url projection is sealed PASS with Ty `0.0.21` binding. |
| Cleanup | PASS | Socket/server/watcher cleanup all true; terminal journal has no active, pending, orphan, or unknown operations. |
| Ledger line 169 | INCONCLUSIVE | Candidate-authority ledger has one physical line; onboarding ledgers have 0-1 lines. There is no delivered ledger line 169 to assess. |

I ran only the verifier's static delivered-bundle/preexecution checks; I did not invoke its runtime bootstrap or any live service/network activity.


I read this as a targeted ledger re-audit - I will inspect physical line 169, then validate only its named bindings against the sealed roots.


I read this as a targeted ledger re-audit - I validated physical line 169 and its sealed-root bindings only.

**Revised final: PASS**

Line 169 is authoritative for candidate `d1109d8f...9112` and matches the prefreeze, postfreeze-receipt, and delivered roots:

- All file-valued SHA-256s named on the line match their sealed bytes, including both wheels, corrected Ty wheel, candidate/product/expected-state records, profile receipt/output, lifecycle/socket evidence, authority documents, logs, and seals.
- Recomputed canonical candidate derivation, Ty raw/semantic fingerprints (809 diagnostics), and authority-chain heads all match line 169.
- Profile source-tree digest is consistently bound before/after qualification as `b34b...3747`.
- Delivered seal inventory validates: 482 sealed entries, no invalid entries or unsealed extras; the seal self-file is correctly excluded. Prefreeze inventory remains byte-identical in delivery, and the postfreeze seal is byte-identical between receipt and delivery.
- Root constraints match: all three roots are mode `0500`, have zero symlinks and zero writable paths.
- The ledger's operational constraints remain intact: Task 26 incomplete, Task 27 not started, release unauthorized, no commit, and zero Telegram/live-customer actions.

This supersedes the prior `INCONCLUSIVE` result caused solely by checking the wrong ledger location.