Public review signals

What reviewers are finding so far.

This page summarizes what people have reported while trying to break DBaD’s logic, trace model, validation assumptions, and governance boundaries.

These counts are descriptive only. They are not a score, not a system-health grade, and not a risk verdict.

  • 5 reports
  • No score
  • No risk grade

Quick orientation

Total reports 5 public logic-review reports submitted so far.
Most common issue type logic_gap
Most common severity label high

Last updated: 2026-05-30 UTC

Public summary of submitted DBaD logic-review findings

Try to break DBaD Submit finding

Start Here

Choose whether you want to inspect runtime proof, review current findings, or submit a new issue.

Boundary First

All counts on this page are descriptive only. They do not rank DBaD, grade its risk, or convert the review backlog into a score.

Reviewer Snapshot

These are the simplest public counts, kept separate from deeper runtime aggregates.

Total Reports

5

Most Common Issue Type

logic_gap

Most Common Severity

high

Runtime Trace Aggregates

These counts come from stored DBaD traces. They are structured aggregates only, not a score, inference, risk grade, or system-health claim.

See bridge context

Observed Outcomes So Far

unknown

Most common recorded outcome across 96 stored traces.

  • unknown: 87
  • upheld: 3
  • reversed: 1
  • escalated: 0
  • incident: 5
  • no_observed_issue: 0

Expectation vs Observed Outcome

  • Expected outcome recorded: 9
  • Matches: 4
  • Mismatches: 3
  • Pending observation: 2

Mismatch pairs:

  • no_observed_issue -> incident: 2
  • upheld -> incident: 1

Outcome vs Blind Spots

  • unknown: 87 traces, 3 with blind spots, 3 with open blind spots
  • upheld: 3 traces, 1 with blind spots, 0 with open blind spots
  • reversed: 1 trace, 0 with blind spots, 0 with open blind spots
  • escalated: 0 traces, 0 with blind spots, 0 with open blind spots
  • incident: 5 traces, 1 with blind spots, 1 with open blind spots
  • no_observed_issue: 0 traces, 0 with blind spots, 0 with open blind spots

State-Transition Evidence Coverage

  • Traces with supported transitions: 16
  • Traces missing evidence on at least one supported transition: 12
  • Traces with all supported transitions evidenced: 4
  • Supported transitions total: 25
  • Supported transitions with evidence: 9
  • Supported transitions missing evidence: 16

Completeness Attestation Status

unknown

  • unknown: 66
  • declared_complete: 25
  • partial: 4
  • not_attested: 1

Common Issue Types

  • documentation_confusion: 1
  • false_confidence: 2
  • logic_gap: 2

Severity Mix

  • critical: 1
  • high: 4

Most Reported Problems

  • Late restoration can mask historical contamination during downstream trust inheritance (logic_gap · critical)
  • Legacy ethics calculator lacks current DecencyMeter advisory boundary warnings (documentation_confusion · high)
  • High DecencyMeter scores can be mistaken for DBaD governance approval without trace status (false_confidence · high)

Frequent Phrases

  • trace: 20
  • boundary: 18
  • not: 18
  • trust: 17
  • decencymeter: 17
  • score: 16
  • dbad: 14
  • state: 12
  • only: 12
  • node: 12
This page is intentionally simple.

It shows recurring logic-review signals, not a full issue tracker or a claim that DBaD is complete.

The v2.2 runtime demo shows the current integrity stack reviewers can challenge.

v2.2 demo · DecencyMeter bridge · Scoring anomalies · Pressure tests · Try to break DBaD · Submit a logic-review finding · Peer review · Examples