{
  "schema": "varexis-public-evidence-record/0.3",
  "generated_at_utc": "2026-10-25T20:55:19.974986+00:00",
  "record_id": "VXI-EXT-PROCUREMENT-RAR-SCOPE-COMBINATION-01-v1",
  "record_kind": "external_reference",
  "title": "OAuth scope and RAR combined consent",
  "system": "IETF RFC 9396",
  "evidence_family": "vendor_evidence_review",
  "index_status": "PUBLIC_SAFE_SOURCE_REVIEW",
  "evidence_state": "PRIMARY_DOCUMENTATION_REVIEW_ONLY",
  "canonical_question": "Can an agent ignore OAuth scope when authorization_details is present in the same request?",
  "near_questions": [
    "Does authorization_details replace OAuth scope?",
    "Which permissions should consent show when scope and RAR coexist?",
    "Can an OAuth request combine scopes with detailed authorization?",
    "Is the interaction of scope and RAR universal across APIs?"
  ],
  "supported_claims": [
    {
      "claim": "RFC 9396 allows scope and authorization_details in the same request. Their permissions are combined according to the applicable API semantics, and the authorization server must present the combined authorization requirements to the user. Neither field should be assumed to cancel or supersede the other without the relevant definition.",
      "reliance": "DOCUMENTED_CAPABILITY_ONLY"
    }
  ],
  "not_demonstrated_claims": [
    "The combination algorithm is API-specific, not a universal union or intersection. Keep AS obligations separate from client policy and actual consent evidence.",
    "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 9396 allows scope and authorization_details in the same request. Their permissions are combined according to the applicable API semantics, and the authorization server must present the combined authorization requirements to the user. Neither field should be assumed to cancel or supersede the other without the relevant definition.",
  "related_record_ids": [],
  "source_review": {
    "source_type": "official_external_documentation",
    "source_title": "IETF RFC 9396",
    "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9396.txt",
    "checked_on": "2026-10-25",
    "candidate_record_id": "VXI-EXT-PROCUREMENT-RAR-SCOPE-COMBINATION-01-v1",
    "candidate_record_sha256": "c08d8e84aafa4f76d008fb1eab55b2192751ab51a482f3ce19a637d7e945e080",
    "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 9396 allows scope and authorization_details in the same request. Their permissions are combined according to the applicable API semantics, and the authorization server must present the combined authorization requirements to the user. Neither field should be assumed to cancel or supersede the other without the relevant definition.",
    "required_buyer_context": "Both request fields; API combination semantics; Consent and returned authorization. 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": "Can an agent ignore OAuth scope when authorization_details is present in the same request?",
    "documented_statement": {
      "status": "documented",
      "statement": "RFC 9396 allows scope and authorization_details in the same request. Their permissions are combined according to the applicable API semantics, and the authorization server must present the combined authorization requirements to the user. Neither field should be assumed to cancel or supersede the other without the relevant definition.",
      "source_ids": [
        "rfc9396"
      ]
    },
    "review_inference": {
      "status": "review_inference",
      "statement": "Reconcile both independently supplied permission descriptions and consent. This is a documentation-review judgment, not an observed deployment outcome.",
      "source_ids": [
        "rfc9396"
      ]
    },
    "buyer_evidence_required": [
      "Both request fields",
      "API combination semantics",
      "Consent and returned authorization"
    ],
    "review_condition": {
      "status": "varexis_review_policy",
      "statement": "Refuse buyer-specific assurance from documentation alone. The combination algorithm is API-specific, not a universal union or intersection. Keep AS obligations separate from client policy and actual consent evidence."
    },
    "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": "rfc9396",
        "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9396.txt",
        "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9396.txt",
        "status": 200,
        "captured_at_utc": "2026-10-25T20:04:28.371Z",
        "sha256": "d6a8f032d8a585daae1c33a8c7b6e539d199f886ec8cc1c7898436f7f2eed29c",
        "bytes": 65926,
        "title": "IETF RFC 9396",
        "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": [
          "Sections 3, 7 and 7.1",
          "Section 2.2",
          "Section 6.1",
          "Section 3.1",
          "Section 3.2",
          "Section 5",
          "Section 12"
        ],
        "version_context": "Fixed IETF RFC 9396 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": "Reconcile both independently supplied permission descriptions and consent.",
      "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 Section 3.1 in IETF RFC 9396 when the source, applicable version, configuration or intended reliance changes. A detected change creates a review candidate, not automatic approval."
    },
    "buyer_relevance": "Reconcile both independently supplied permission descriptions and consent.",
    "refusal_conditions": [
      "Refuse buyer-specific assurance from documentation alone. The combination algorithm is API-specific, not a universal union or intersection. Keep AS obligations separate from client policy and actual consent evidence."
    ]
  },
  "niche": {
    "niche_id": "agent-authority-action-evidence",
    "label": "Agent Authority & Action Evidence",
    "classification_id": "governance",
    "classification_label": "Agent Governance & Policy Boundaries",
    "topic_id": "governance",
    "buyer_intent": "Reconcile both independently supplied permission descriptions and consent.",
    "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#rar-scope-combination",
  "machine_readable_record": "/varexis-index/records/rar-scope-combination.json"
}