Receipts

Field Test 001: Status, October 13, 2026

Private run. Results sealed. Publication on hold.

The protocol for this test is at https://edai.quest/field-tests/001-jev-calibration. Its pre-registration is on Hedera mainnet, topic 0.0.9376001, sequence 1. This note is new and dated. The frozen protocol files and their hashes are untouched.

Before running anything, I asked TypeSafe in writing for consent to publish results, citing Section 16.4 of their Master Customer Agreement. I asked three times: September 30, October 6, and October 10.

On October 12 (Central), TypeSafe support replied: “We don’t currently have the legal capacity to manually review or approve specific use cases,” and referred me to their Master Customer Agreement and Acceptable Use Policy.

That isn’t a yes or a no. Section 16.4 asks for prior consent before publicity, and I don’t have it. So publication is on hold. The protocol, its Hedera record and its frozen files are unchanged.

I will run the frozen protocol once, privately, exactly as registered, for my own learning. This is my commitment, made before any run:

  1. The results stay sealed until TypeSafe consents to publication or I have clear legal footing to publish.
  2. If that happens, I publish everything, whatever the results show, with this record attached.
  3. If it never happens, nothing is published, whatever the results show.

Whether results are ever published will not depend on how Jev performs. This note is fingerprinted on Hedera so that commitment can be checked.

As I read TypeSafe’s Acceptable Use Policy, a private calibration run through the official API is allowed. The items are drawn from public U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcripts, and each one asks who spoke a given passage. Only the answer key is sealed. Nothing in the set is built to break the model’s rules; the published protocol describes the design. (I’m not a lawyer; this is my reading.)

The full exchange is in the outreach record: typesafe-outreach.md.

One correction, on the record: in my emails I described Section 16.4 as requiring consent “before I state publicly that I used the API.” That was my shorthand, and it isn’t precise. The clause bars either party from using the other’s name, brand or logo, or publicly announcing that the parties have entered into the agreement, without the other’s prior consent. The point of my request was the same, but I paraphrased it, and I want that visible.

Gage Cass Woodle