{
  "schema": "varexis-public-evidence-record/0.3",
  "generated_at_utc": "2026-10-25T00:16:54.726Z",
  "record_id": "VXI-EXT-PROCUREMENT-PEPPOL-INVOICE-STATUS-SEQUENCE-GAPS-01-v1",
  "record_kind": "external_reference",
  "title": "Peppol invoice status sequence gaps",
  "system": "Peppol BIS Invoice Response 3.2 (November 2025 archive)",
  "evidence_family": "vendor_evidence_review",
  "index_status": "PUBLIC_SAFE_SOURCE_REVIEW",
  "evidence_state": "PRIMARY_DOCUMENTATION_REVIEW_ONLY",
  "canonical_question": "Must every Peppol Invoice Response status appear before an invoice is reported paid?",
  "near_questions": [
    "Must every Peppol invoice status be sent?",
    "Can the first invoice response already show payment?",
    "Do missing status messages prove skipped approval?",
    "How should an auditor interpret an incomplete invoice response sequence?"
  ],
  "supported_claims": [
    {
      "claim": "Invoice Response 3.2 does not require every intermediate status to be reported. A response carries the current status and the first response may begin later in the documented sequence. Missing intermediate messages alone do not prove that approval steps were skipped; assess the reporting agreement and available workflow evidence.",
      "reliance": "DOCUMENTED_CAPABILITY_ONLY"
    }
  ],
  "not_demonstrated_claims": [
    "Actual internal processing steps were not observed.",
    "No independent proof of contractual authority, goods receipt, bank settlement or legal compliance.",
    "Applies to the cited published profile; current deployment and release applicability require separate verification.",
    "Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act",
    "Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables"
  ],
  "public_summary": "Invoice Response 3.2 does not require every intermediate status to be reported. A response carries the current status and the first response may begin later in the documented sequence. Missing intermediate messages alone do not prove that approval steps were skipped; assess the reporting agreement and available workflow evidence.",
  "related_record_ids": [],
  "source_review": {
    "source_type": "official_external_documentation",
    "source_title": "BIS Invoice Response 3.2 — published November 2025 archive",
    "source_url": "https://docs.peppol.eu/poacc/upgrade-3/2025-Q4/profiles/63-invoiceresponse/",
    "checked_on": "2026-10-25",
    "candidate_record_id": "VXI-EXT-PROCUREMENT-PEPPOL-INVOICE-STATUS-SEQUENCE-GAPS-01-v1",
    "candidate_record_sha256": "4941a2d6a28826b7c9dd4cdd61d790ec1bc7c669e37f61dd548e953b88e9086a",
    "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": "Invoice Response 3.2 does not require every intermediate status to be reported. A response carries the current status and the first response may begin later in the documented sequence. Missing intermediate messages alone do not prove that approval steps were skipped; assess the reporting agreement and available workflow evidence.",
    "required_buyer_context": "Received response sequence; Agreed reporting requirements; Independent workflow or approval evidence. 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": "Must every Peppol Invoice Response status appear before an invoice is reported paid?",
    "documented_statement": {
      "status": "documented",
      "statement": "Invoice Response 3.2 does not require every intermediate status to be reported. A response carries the current status and the first response may begin later in the documented sequence. Missing intermediate messages alone do not prove that approval steps were skipped; assess the reporting agreement and available workflow evidence.",
      "source_ids": [
        "peppol-invoice-response"
      ]
    },
    "review_inference": {
      "status": "review_inference",
      "statement": "Distinguish omitted status reporting from missing approval work. This is a review judgment, not an observed buyer outcome.",
      "source_ids": [
        "peppol-invoice-response"
      ]
    },
    "buyer_evidence_required": [
      "Received response sequence",
      "Agreed reporting requirements",
      "Independent workflow or approval evidence"
    ],
    "review_condition": {
      "status": "varexis_review_policy",
      "statement": "Refuse an omitted-control finding based solely on absent intermediate status messages."
    },
    "unknowns": "Actual internal processing steps were not observed.",
    "unknown_finding": {
      "status": "unknown",
      "statement": "Actual internal processing steps were not observed."
    },
    "evidence_sources": [
      {
        "source_id": "peppol-invoice-response",
        "url": "https://docs.peppol.eu/poacc/upgrade-3/2025-Q4/profiles/63-invoiceresponse/",
        "final_url": "https://docs.peppol.eu/poacc/upgrade-3/2025-Q4/profiles/63-invoiceresponse/",
        "status": 200,
        "captured_at_utc": "2026-10-24T23:51:30.415Z",
        "sha256": "9597d591469224c58fb33b8918f824179556a0ceb374959feb8c8f1fc8243884",
        "bytes": 163004,
        "title": "BIS Invoice Response 3.2 — published November 2025 archive",
        "hash_basis": "SHA-256 of unmodified HTTP response body bytes",
        "rights_review": "Original factual paraphrase only. CEN/OpenPeppol reserve rights in their BIS documents. Raw captures remain private; no document, schema, code or modified standard is redistributed or relicensed.",
        "checked_on": "2026-10-25",
        "capture_status": 200,
        "claim_review_completed": true,
        "reviewed_sections": [
          "3.4 table3",
          "3.3",
          "3.3–3.4",
          "3.4.1"
        ],
        "version_context": "Explicit published November 2025 archive. The current root index is labelled DEV 2026-Q2 despite the official listing linking it; archived-profile applicability to a current deployment is not established."
      }
    ],
    "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": "Distinguish omitted status reporting from missing approval work.",
      "free": "Complete review, sources, practical questions 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 the applicable BIS release, recipient capability, ERP mapping and independent business outcome before relying on a current transaction."
    },
    "buyer_relevance": "Distinguish omitted status reporting from missing approval work.",
    "refusal_conditions": [
      "Refuse an omitted-control finding based solely on absent intermediate status messages."
    ]
  },
  "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": "Distinguish omitted status reporting from missing approval work.",
    "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#peppol-invoice-status-sequence-gaps",
  "machine_readable_record": "/varexis-index/records/peppol-invoice-status-sequence-gaps.json"
}