Application handoff
Workflow
Carry a source-aware answer into a downstream application.
Evidence to inspect
One record ID, field status and a named receiving boundary.
Acceptance question
Does the recipient preserve missing-value explanations?
Build around
a shared evidence contract.
Connect domain knowledge, applications and independent record checks without losing the declared basis at the boundary.
Scenario
Choose your integration boundary.
A concrete example makes the first evaluation easier to define.
Use this starting point →
Scenarios describe evaluation opportunities, not customer deployments or regulatory approvals.
Partnership paths
Own the boundary you can test.
Make the record usable.
Explore how a product displays source identity, evidence and signal status. Preserve the record when answers move into downstream workflows.
Own the source lifecycle.
Explore source preparation, version identity and retirement handling. Agree who owns the underlying source and its update process.
Keep handoffs explicit.
Map record generation, transport, storage and retrieval responsibilities. Test partial failures and missing disclosures at the boundary.
Check outside the producer.
Explore record integrity, public-key trust and disclosure review. The reference tools are a starting point for separate implementations and scrutiny.
Responsibility boundary
Agree who owns what before the record moves.
| Boundary | Nage | Partner | Customer / reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workflow boundary | Describe the record fields and stated verification scope. | Name the application handoff and preserve the disclosed field status. | Choose the workflow, source owner, reviewer and decision boundary. |
| Source lifecycle | Represent source identity, version and declared lifecycle events. | Integrate the owned source process and distinguish serving removal from artefact deletion. | Authorise source ownership, retention needs and retirement decisions. |
| Verification | Provide the public synthetic fixture and Nage-authored reference tools. | Implement the agreed checks and a trustworthy production key-distribution process. | Define acceptance criteria, unresolved risks and escalation ownership. |
Acceptance evidence
Test compatibility, behaviour and operations separately.
Compatibility
Schema round-trip, stable record ID, null and status preservation across the handoff.
Behaviour
Supported, contradicted and silent-source examples; explicit response when a required disclosure is absent.
Operations
Key lifecycle, source update and retirement, retention, partial failure and escalation evidence.
These are evaluation categories, not universal service commitments. The particular engagement must define its deployed boundary and acceptance evidence.
First discussion
Produce a boundary, a record and checks.
A useful first discussion produces a named integration boundary, one record example, an agreed disclosure scope and a small set of acceptance checks.
Commercial terms, service commitments and production responsibilities remain engagement-specific.
Research collaboration
Research participation is not production readiness.
Craton, contradiction detection and provenance questions remain separate research conversations.