{
  "schema": "varexis-public-evidence-record/0.3",
  "generated_at_utc": "2026-10-25T20:55:19.974986+00:00",
  "record_id": "VXI-EXT-PROCUREMENT-HTTP-SIGNATURE-REQUIRED-COMPONENT-COVERAGE-01-v1",
  "record_kind": "external_reference",
  "title": "HTTP signature required component coverage",
  "system": "IETF RFC 9421",
  "evidence_family": "vendor_evidence_review",
  "index_status": "PUBLIC_SAFE_SOURCE_REVIEW",
  "evidence_state": "PRIMARY_DOCUMENTATION_REVIEW_ONLY",
  "canonical_question": "Does valid HTTP signature verification establish that every decision-relevant field was protected?",
  "near_questions": [
    "Does an HTTP signature protect fields it does not cover?",
    "Can a valid signed request still omit a required header?",
    "Who defines the components an HTTP signature must include?",
    "Should processing trust an unsigned payment field?"
  ],
  "supported_claims": [
    {
      "claim": "RFC 9421 requires applications to enforce their additional signature requirements, including required components. Unsigned portions of a message can be changed without invalidating the signature. A cryptographic pass is therefore insufficient when the application relies on an unsigned field or a component missing from its verification policy.",
      "reliance": "DOCUMENTED_CAPABILITY_ONLY"
    }
  ],
  "not_demonstrated_claims": [
    "Cryptographic validity alone does not protect unsigned fields or satisfy application coverage rules.",
    "Buyer implementation, live runtime enforcement, settled payment, physical outcome, certification or permission to act are not established.",
    "No expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables."
  ],
  "public_summary": "RFC 9421 requires applications to enforce their additional signature requirements, including required components. Unsigned portions of a message can be changed without invalidating the signature. A cryptographic pass is therefore insufficient when the application relies on an unsigned field or a component missing from its verification policy.",
  "related_record_ids": [],
  "source_review": {
    "source_type": "official_external_documentation",
    "source_title": "IETF RFC 9421",
    "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9421.txt",
    "checked_on": "2026-10-25",
    "candidate_record_id": "VXI-EXT-PROCUREMENT-HTTP-SIGNATURE-REQUIRED-COMPONENT-COVERAGE-01-v1",
    "candidate_record_sha256": "7ed179d4f66a8a541f8e7ff83358ed97e61d3d54d1d9a7f5de051abaea319d39",
    "method": "Primary documentation reviewed for the published bounded statement.",
    "deployment_tested_by_varexis": false,
    "revalidation": "The delivered snapshot preserves the review date shown. Recheck current primary documentation and deployment context before relying on present applicability; payment does not trigger fresh research."
  },
  "answer_policy": {
    "classification": "DOCUMENTED_WITH_DEPLOYMENT_BOUNDARY",
    "bounded_answer": "RFC 9421 requires applications to enforce their additional signature requirements, including required components. Unsigned portions of a message can be changed without invalidating the signature. A cryptographic pass is therefore insufficient when the application relies on an unsigned field or a component missing from its verification policy.",
    "required_buyer_context": "Application required-component policy; Signature-Input covered components; Actual fields used for the decision. Buyer deployment not inspected.",
    "missing_evidence": "A broader claim needs evidence matching the intended use. Payment does not upgrade the evidence state."
  },
  "private_boundary": "Raw logs, thresholds, private paths, source code, protected mechanisms and reconstruction-level details are excluded from public and paid delivery.",
  "decision_profile": {
    "schema": "varexis-vendor-evidence-review/1",
    "review_status": "documentation_review_only",
    "checked_on": "2026-10-25",
    "claim_to_check": "Does valid HTTP signature verification establish that every decision-relevant field was protected?",
    "documented_statement": {
      "status": "documented",
      "statement": "RFC 9421 requires applications to enforce their additional signature requirements, including required components. Unsigned portions of a message can be changed without invalidating the signature. A cryptographic pass is therefore insufficient when the application relies on an unsigned field or a component missing from its verification policy.",
      "source_ids": [
        "rfc9421"
      ]
    },
    "review_inference": {
      "status": "review_inference",
      "statement": "Decide whether a valid HTTP signature covers every component required by the application. This is a documentation-review judgment, not an observed deployment outcome.",
      "source_ids": [
        "rfc9421"
      ]
    },
    "buyer_evidence_required": [
      "Application required-component policy",
      "Signature-Input covered components",
      "Actual fields used for the decision"
    ],
    "review_condition": {
      "status": "varexis_review_policy",
      "statement": "Refuse buyer-specific assurance from documentation alone. Cryptographic validity alone does not protect unsigned fields or satisfy application coverage rules."
    },
    "unknowns": "The buyer implementation, effective configuration, complete evidence inventory and actual business outcome were not inspected.",
    "unknown_finding": {
      "status": "unknown",
      "statement": "The buyer implementation, effective configuration, complete evidence inventory and actual business outcome were not inspected."
    },
    "evidence_sources": [
      {
        "source_id": "rfc9421",
        "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9421.txt",
        "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9421.txt",
        "status": 200,
        "captured_at_utc": "2026-10-25T20:26:12.767Z",
        "sha256": "612655786bf4293bfc486e4177571467fbb3de6e6f0eea90cb74c346a34fdf3c",
        "bytes": 241160,
        "title": "IETF RFC 9421",
        "hash_basis": "SHA-256 of unmodified HTTP response body bytes",
        "rights_review": "Original factual paraphrase of the cited IETF RFC; IETF Trust and contributor rights remain applicable. No RFC text, code component or modified standard is redistributed.",
        "checked_on": "2026-10-25",
        "capture_status": 200,
        "claim_review_completed": true,
        "reviewed_sections": [
          "3.2.1",
          "7.2.1",
          "7.2.2",
          "2.4",
          "7.2.5",
          "7.2.6",
          "7.3.4",
          "7.2.8",
          "7.4.3"
        ],
        "version_context": "Fixed IETF RFC 9421 publication; later applicable updates and actual implementation conformance require separate review."
      }
    ],
    "observed_deployment": false,
    "commercial_reliance_boundary": "Documentation review only; the buyer must establish applicability and actual outcomes. INDEX does not inspect or control the deployment.",
    "paid_value": {
      "decision_context": "Decide whether a valid HTTP signature covers every component required by the application.",
      "free": "Complete review, practical questions, sources and limitations; may be saved locally.",
      "single_request": "Existing server-saved version-bound route snapshot for later authenticated retrieval.",
      "evidence_receipt": "The same snapshot plus the existing unsigned delivery receipt.",
      "excluded": [
        "Fresh vendor research",
        "Continuous monitoring or change alerts",
        "Testing the buyer configuration",
        "Private evidence or vendor certification"
      ],
      "integrity": "Hashes identify content versions; they do not prove truth or provide a signature."
    },
    "revalidation": {
      "trigger": "A saved purchase does not recheck the source or buyer configuration.",
      "specific_watch": "Recheck 3.2.1; 7.2.1 in IETF RFC 9421 when the source, applicable version, configuration or intended reliance changes. A detected change creates a review candidate, not automatic approval."
    },
    "buyer_relevance": "Decide whether a valid HTTP signature covers every component required by the application.",
    "refusal_conditions": [
      "Refuse buyer-specific assurance from documentation alone. Cryptographic validity alone does not protect unsigned fields or satisfy application coverage rules."
    ]
  },
  "niche": {
    "niche_id": "agent-authority-action-evidence",
    "label": "Agent Authority & Action Evidence",
    "classification_id": "audit",
    "classification_label": "Audit, Provenance & Evidence Accountability",
    "topic_id": "audit",
    "buyer_intent": "Decide whether a valid HTTP signature covers every component required by the application.",
    "comparison_role": "supplementary_discovery"
  },
  "paid_access_note": "The full published answer and boundaries are free. Paid access saves the selected route and source versions, with an unsigned receipt when purchased. Preview coverage before paying. Fresh research, bespoke assessment and protected evidence are excluded.",
  "service_route": {
    "request_guide": "/varexis-index/request.html",
    "request_workflow": "/varexis-index/request-workflow.json",
    "service_id": "single_request",
    "service_routes_url": "/varexis-index/service-routes.json",
    "payment_required": true,
    "availability_endpoint": "/api/index/capabilities",
    "operational_status": "AUTOMATIC_SERVICE_CAPABILITIES_GATED",
    "checkout_url": "/index-access"
  },
  "authority_boundary": "VAREXIS-INDEX informs evidence reliance. It does not provide advice, certification, deployment authority, security assurance, production approval, or guarantee.",
  "human_page": "/varexis-index/catalog.html#http-signature-required-component-coverage",
  "machine_readable_record": "/varexis-index/records/http-signature-required-component-coverage.json"
}