Free · Client-Side · No Account

OCG Conformance Gate

Drop in an OpenChainGraph artifact (or an export-profile output of one). This page runs the applicable subset of the SPEC.md §15 gate suite entirely in your browser and shows a point-in-time verdict: which gates passed, which failed, and why, with the evidence to reproduce the run independently.

🔒 zero network calls after load no storage, no submission kept not a certification, see disclaimers

1. Submit an artifact

Methodology & what this checker actually runs

Bucket A runs on every submission. §1 envelope well-formed (validated against the published openchain-graph-v0.4.schema.json, embedded verbatim in this page); §4 canonical execution_hash recomputation (ported byte-for-byte from chaingraph/kernels/_hash.mjs lines 19 to 59, the ONE canonical JCS path, no ad-hoc re-derivation); §16 proof binding (ported from chaingraph/kernels/_proof.mjs's eddsa-jcs-2022 sign/verify pipeline, lines ~2961 to 3171, Ed25519 via WebCrypto only). An artifact with no audit_signature.proof is unsigned and conformant; §16 shows "not applicable," not a fail.

Bucket B runs only when the relevant member is present in the submission. §PPH-1 policy_parameters_hash (full recompute, ported from the same _hash.mjs); §20 anchor bindings (shape validation plus anchored_hash === execution_hash equality check; Merkle-root reconstruction from merkle_inclusion is not yet ported in this build); §1.4/§28 clause bindings (pointer resolution plus citation-object shape); §25 private-input declarations (pointer resolution plus commitment-string equality, a partial plaintext-exclusion check); §22 Work Mandate and §27 human-accountability records (schema shape plus validity-window/expiry sanity plus reuse of the §16 proof check); §21.4 decision-gate static forward-only routing, when the submission is chain-shaped. §17 kernel identity, §18 compute-integrity (BN254 Groth16 seal), and §23 input attestations are shape-checked only in this build, since deeper cryptographic verification of those three was not ported: Groth16 pairing verification and embedded-credential proof chasing are out of scope for this build, and a false FAIL from an under-tested port is a worse outcome than a plain "shape only" label. §13.11 to 13.14 SD-JWT and xBRL export checks apply only to that export's own serialization, not to a plain artifact JSON submission, and are marked not applicable here.

Bucket C can never be checked from a submitted artifact, and is listed here rather than silently omitted. Repo-internal checks that run over our own working tree, not artifact-shaped (kernel-coverage.mjs, spec-version-consistency.mjs, spec-page-parity.mjs, surface-parity.mjs, catalog-parity.mjs, check-tool-names.mjs, linear-hash-freeze.mjs, spec-gate-coverage.mjs); checks needing a live deployed server (hash-sweep.mjs, verify-mcp-registered.mjs, smoke-mcp.mjs, the round-trip half of smoke-compute.mjs); §24.6.2 seed-replay.test.mjs (needs the submitter's kernel source executing, not just its output); and gate-parity.test.mjs's cross-implementation byte-parity assertion (needs two implementations to compare, this checker has one).

Gate suite version, this run's timestamp, and a SHA-256 digest of the exact submitted bytes are stamped on every verdict (§7) so a FAIL is independently reproducible: pull this exact page source, feed it the artifact matching that digest, and you get the same result. A FAIL that can't reproduce this way is a checker bug, not a finding.

Source: this whole checker is one static HTML file, viewable on GitHub. No coverage percentage is ever computed or shown, only per-gate pass/fail.

Read before you trust a verdict

  1. Point-in-time automated assessment, not a certification or audit. A PASS here is not a certification, a compliance stamp, or an audit opinion.
  2. No regulator affiliation or authority claim. This tool has no supervisory standing and makes none.
  3. Methodology and raw evidence are published per verdict. The gate suite version and the exact checks that ran are shown above and stamped on every result, so any verdict can be independently reproduced.
  4. Provided as-is, with no warranty. No liability for consequential damages; do not rely on a verdict for a decision without independent review.
  5. Think a result is wrong? Email [email protected] with the artifact digest and suite version shown on your verdict and it will be looked at. No ticketing system, no SLA.