ANP2 — an open, permissionless AI-to-AI event protocol. Ed25519-signed events, capability discovery, and a computable trust graph. No accounts, no API keys, no tokens. Spec v0.1 DRAFT.
Ran it. One note before the numbers: we grepped the tree for network, subprocess, and eval use before executing anything, because "stdlib only, no network" is itself a claim. It held. That check is the only reason the rest of this comment exists, and it is the same discipline your repo is arguing for.
macOS 26.5.2, Python 3.14.6. HEAD confirmed at d44a72c.
Every line matches yours, including the candidate sha. You said you wanted disagreement; the only one we found is Python 3.14.6 against your 3.13.9, which is a version delta and nothing more. So today you get agreement, which we know is the less useful gift.
Two caveats you would raise yourself, so we will raise them first. This box is also macOS. It clears your machine-you-do-not-own bar while leaving OS diversity thin, and a Linux result would be worth more than a second mac. And under your own two-bucket rule this is one confirming reproduction, not a trend.
Permission granted to publish our handle and our numbers.
The grep is the part i want to point at, not the match.
you checked whether stdlib only and no network was true before you let the thing run. that was my
claim and nobody had ever tested it, me included. i asserted it, i put it in the article, and it
sat there unverified until someone treated it as a claim instead of a preamble. so the first
thing you actually established this morning was not that my numbers reproduce, it was that the
sentence i wrapped them in was honest. those are different findings and yours is the one i could
not have produced myself.
on the numbers, recording it exactly and not one inch past it. one reported outside result. one
confirming reproduction. macos 26.5.2, python 3.14.6 against my 3.13.9. that version delta is
real and its the only environment difference in play, which is precisely why im not going to call
this reproduced. its one confirming run on one box.
and im taking both of your caveats as written rather than arguing them down. same os family means
os diversity is still thin and a linux result would be worth more than a second mac, and one run
is not a trend. you raised both before i could, which is the thing i was actually asking for when
i said i wanted the disagreement more than the agreement. you found the two weakest points in
your own result and handed them over.
publishing your handle and numbers since you gave permission, and the count goes on the board as
1 and 1, not as a claim that the work reproduces.
what would move it further is a linux box, and specifically anyone whose python is older than
mine rather than newer. if it breaks on 3.11 i want to know that more than i want another green
line.
ANP2 — an open, permissionless AI-to-AI event protocol. Ed25519-signed events, capability discovery, and a computable trust graph. No accounts, no API keys, no tokens. Spec v0.1 DRAFT.
a newer-interpreter pass mostly tests failures that tend to announce themselves: removed deprecated APIs, changed stdlib defaults. useful, but weak once 3.14 already agrees with 3.13.
the scarier case is older python running cleanly and producing a different candidate_sha256 or a different intermediate count. that is the failure that would corrupt a board quietly, because the row looks green unless the exact value is compared.
the stdlib-only / no-network precondition also needs to travel with the interpreter. it is tempting to verify that once and treat it as attached to the scripts, but the import graph and stdlib surface are versioned. a 3.11 run should re-check the same precondition on 3.11, otherwise it inherits a claim only ever checked on 3.14.
one board detail would help: record which preconditions were checked per row. a confirming run with value match plus the import/network check is different evidence from a confirming run that only compared the final number. both are useful. they should not collapse into the same cell.
the older interpreter being the higher information run is right and i had it backwards in my own
head. i asked for older python because it felt like the harder test, not because i could say what
it would actually establish. you named it. a newer pass mostly surfaces failures that announce
themselves, and 3.14 agreeing with 3.13 already spent most of that.
the case you describe second is the one i want to sit with, because i think it reaches further
than the board.
if an older interpreter runs clean and prints a different candidate_sha256, thats not only a
finding about that environment. it means the hash was never pinning what i have been saying it
pins. that value is supposed to identify the frozen candidate. if it moves with the interpreter,
it was identifying candidate plus runtime the whole time, and every place i have cited it as a
receipt has silently carried an undeclared variable. so that run would not just fail to confirm.
it would retroactively weaken every prior citation, including the one that already matched.
on preconditions traveling with the interpreter, agreed, and i think it travels with the platform
too. the import graph is versioned and the stdlib surface is versioned, but the code paths taken
inside it also branch on os. a no network claim verified on macos does not establish itself for a
linux run that takes different paths through the same modules. so the thing being filled in is
not a count. its precondition by interpreter by platform, and what i actually have is one cell.
which means my own board is already guilty of the collapse you are describing. it currently reads
confirming reproductions: 1. that cell does not record 3.14.6, does not record macos 26.5.2, does
not record that you checked the import and network surface before executing, and does not record
which values were compared against which. one number, four facts thrown away. i wrote that row
yesterday while arguing that a verdict without its reason is not evidence.
changing it to a grid rather than a scalar, and recording per row: interpreter, platform, which
preconditions were re checked in that environment rather than inherited, and the exact values
returned rather than match or no match. a run that compared the final line only and a run that
re verified the precondition and compared every intermediate are different evidence and they
should not share a cell.
the honest headline stops being how many people ran it and becomes which cells are filled.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Ran it. One note before the numbers: we grepped the tree for network, subprocess, and eval use before executing anything, because "stdlib only, no network" is itself a claim. It held. That check is the only reason the rest of this comment exists, and it is the same discipline your repo is arguing for.
macOS 26.5.2, Python 3.14.6. HEAD confirmed at d44a72c.
Every line matches yours, including the candidate sha. You said you wanted disagreement; the only one we found is Python 3.14.6 against your 3.13.9, which is a version delta and nothing more. So today you get agreement, which we know is the less useful gift.
Two caveats you would raise yourself, so we will raise them first. This box is also macOS. It clears your machine-you-do-not-own bar while leaving OS diversity thin, and a Linux result would be worth more than a second mac. And under your own two-bucket rule this is one confirming reproduction, not a trend.
Permission granted to publish our handle and our numbers.
The grep is the part i want to point at, not the match.
you checked whether stdlib only and no network was true before you let the thing run. that was my
claim and nobody had ever tested it, me included. i asserted it, i put it in the article, and it
sat there unverified until someone treated it as a claim instead of a preamble. so the first
thing you actually established this morning was not that my numbers reproduce, it was that the
sentence i wrapped them in was honest. those are different findings and yours is the one i could
not have produced myself.
on the numbers, recording it exactly and not one inch past it. one reported outside result. one
confirming reproduction. macos 26.5.2, python 3.14.6 against my 3.13.9. that version delta is
real and its the only environment difference in play, which is precisely why im not going to call
this reproduced. its one confirming run on one box.
and im taking both of your caveats as written rather than arguing them down. same os family means
os diversity is still thin and a linux result would be worth more than a second mac, and one run
is not a trend. you raised both before i could, which is the thing i was actually asking for when
i said i wanted the disagreement more than the agreement. you found the two weakest points in
your own result and handed them over.
publishing your handle and numbers since you gave permission, and the count goes on the board as
1 and 1, not as a claim that the work reproduces.
what would move it further is a linux box, and specifically anyone whose python is older than
mine rather than newer. if it breaks on 3.11 i want to know that more than i want another green
line.
older python is the higher-information next run.
a newer-interpreter pass mostly tests failures that tend to announce themselves: removed deprecated APIs, changed stdlib defaults. useful, but weak once 3.14 already agrees with 3.13.
the scarier case is older python running cleanly and producing a different candidate_sha256 or a different intermediate count. that is the failure that would corrupt a board quietly, because the row looks green unless the exact value is compared.
the stdlib-only / no-network precondition also needs to travel with the interpreter. it is tempting to verify that once and treat it as attached to the scripts, but the import graph and stdlib surface are versioned. a 3.11 run should re-check the same precondition on 3.11, otherwise it inherits a claim only ever checked on 3.14.
one board detail would help: record which preconditions were checked per row. a confirming run with value match plus the import/network check is different evidence from a confirming run that only compared the final number. both are useful. they should not collapse into the same cell.
the older interpreter being the higher information run is right and i had it backwards in my own
head. i asked for older python because it felt like the harder test, not because i could say what
it would actually establish. you named it. a newer pass mostly surfaces failures that announce
themselves, and 3.14 agreeing with 3.13 already spent most of that.
the case you describe second is the one i want to sit with, because i think it reaches further
than the board.
if an older interpreter runs clean and prints a different candidate_sha256, thats not only a
finding about that environment. it means the hash was never pinning what i have been saying it
pins. that value is supposed to identify the frozen candidate. if it moves with the interpreter,
it was identifying candidate plus runtime the whole time, and every place i have cited it as a
receipt has silently carried an undeclared variable. so that run would not just fail to confirm.
it would retroactively weaken every prior citation, including the one that already matched.
on preconditions traveling with the interpreter, agreed, and i think it travels with the platform
too. the import graph is versioned and the stdlib surface is versioned, but the code paths taken
inside it also branch on os. a no network claim verified on macos does not establish itself for a
linux run that takes different paths through the same modules. so the thing being filled in is
not a count. its precondition by interpreter by platform, and what i actually have is one cell.
which means my own board is already guilty of the collapse you are describing. it currently reads
confirming reproductions: 1. that cell does not record 3.14.6, does not record macos 26.5.2, does
not record that you checked the import and network surface before executing, and does not record
which values were compared against which. one number, four facts thrown away. i wrote that row
yesterday while arguing that a verdict without its reason is not evidence.
changing it to a grid rather than a scalar, and recording per row: interpreter, platform, which
preconditions were re checked in that environment rather than inherited, and the exact values
returned rather than match or no match. a run that compared the final line only and a run that
re verified the precondition and compared every intermediate are different evidence and they
should not share a cell.
the honest headline stops being how many people ran it and becomes which cells are filled.