amanat

Amanat

Verified weather intelligence that a contract acts on by itself.

An amanat is a message entrusted to be carried — and, in the language of the old telegraph offices, the dispatch itself. That is the whole shape of this project: a miner sends the amanat, a scoring module tests it, and a contract carries it out without anyone deciding anything by hand.

Built for Telegraph Hackathon Season I. One codebase, three entries:

Live: amanat-miner.vercel.app — read a storm risk for any point, no wallet, no sign-up. It is the same call the contract makes before it spends anything.

In one line, from any MCP client: npx -y amanat-mcp — published to npm and listed in the official MCP registry as io.github.PugarHuda/amanat.

In three minutes: the deck · the film (84 s, cut from live sessions — no mockups) · /api/jobable, which measures why every intent whose leader can be audited is closed to on-chain jobs — and most of the rest cannot be audited at all.

Track	What	Where
1 — Miner	Weather and storm-risk miner, answers legible to both a text scorer and a smart contract	miner/
2 — Script Author	Measurement-grounded WASM scoring module for Tier A intents	scorer/
3 — Application	Parametric cover settled through ERC-8183 on-chain jobs, a CLI, and an MCP server	onchain/, agent/, app/, mcp/

---

The three problems this is built around

Everything here comes from measuring the live network rather than guessing at it. The numbers below are reproducible with the scripts in this repo.

1. Deterministic intents are scored as if they were prose. In epoch 240 the rank-1 miner on WEATHER_CHECK scored 0.0206 and on STORM_ALERT 0.0067. The miners are not bad; every scoring module on the network compares text, and those miners answer with numbers. A leaderboard built from those scores is noise — and routing follows the leaderboard.

2. The on-chain rail is real but unused. The Diamond answers getJobBasePrice() with 1000000 and, on 21 August, carried 139 miner registrations against 6 ERC-8183 jobs in its entire lifetime — the last two by a single participant, on 17 August. In a 77-hour window there were 44 MinerRegistered events and 2 JobCreated. Meanwhile the organisers name on-chain intelligence pipelines as the highest-value thing to build.

Read again on 31 August: 341 miner registrations, and still only 14 jobs. Eight of the fourteen are ours. Five settled; the last three have not moved.

3. Almost no miner can receive a job at all. A job hands the node raw OnChainData arrays; without an on_chain.request block in its YAML the node cannot turn those into an HTTP call. npm run audit fetches every registered YAML and checks. On 31 August: of 125 live miners, 29 declare an on_chain block at all, and a name-hashable intent has between one and three job-able miners — STORM_ALERT has exactly one, and it is this one. That is the bottleneck under problem 2, and it has loosened rather than closed: on 21 August there were 63 live miners and every name-hashable intent had a single job-able miner.

What the network actually looks like (read from /api/epochs, /api/validators and the Diamond, 21 August): epochs run hourly on testnet, not the 24 hours the docs describe. Each one scores 70 results across 17 intents and 29 of the 66 registered miners — more than half are never scored at all. There is one active validator, telegraph-node-1, so the 43-of-64 BFT threshold is a mainnet property, not something running today.

The shape held; the size did not. At epoch 294 on 30 August the network scored 242 results across 42 intents and all 125 live miners, and epochs had stopped being hourly — the last five landed 3 to 9 hours apart. Still one validator.

---

Track 1 — the miner

miner/server.mjs reads three free, keyless sources and returns every answer in two shapes at once. Open-Meteo's weather model gives the air; its marine model gives significant wave height, which is the thing that actually stops a ship and the one figure the shipping-lane board was missing; and GDACS gives every active named tropical cyclone on Earth with its position and maximum wind, so a reading under Tropical Storm Dolly says so by name rather than reporting "38 km/h wind". Storm risk is the worst of wind, gusts, rain, waves and cyclone proximity — a 4 m sea or a typhoon overhead reaches the ceiling on its own.

{
  "summary": "Weather forecast for -6.20, 106.85: the temperature is 27.8 °C (82 °F) and it feels like 32.3 °C, humidity 73%, Clear sky, cloud cover 0%, wind 4.4 km/h (1.2 m/s) from the south-east, gusts 11.9 km/h, precipitation 0.0 mm (2% chance of rain), valid at 2026-08-30T17:00Z. … Storm risk is low (0.132); across 51 ensemble runs it ranges 0.08 to 0.14, 0% of them over the trigger.",
  "temp_c": 27.8, "wind_kmh": 4.4, "gust_kmh": 11.9, "precip_mm": 0,
  "wave_cm": 0, "cyclone_name": null, "cyclone_km": 0,
  "risk": 0.132, "breach": false, "valid_at": "2026-08-30T17:00Z", "source": "open-meteo",
  "risk_band": { "model": "ecmwf_ifs025", "members": 51, "p10": 0.076, "p50": 0.104, "p90": 0.14, "max": 0.164, "breach_probability": 0 },
  "attestation": { "algorithm": "ed25519", "sha256": "9e991dc5…", "signature": "B3dtTlG1…", "public_key": "MCowBQYDK2VwAyEAJf1zypC6…", "key_persistent": true }
}

Abridged: a live response carries 36 fields. The rest are the ones a report carries and a contract ignores — humidity, dew point, wind direction, cloud cover, chance of rain, a two-day high and low, sea level, the named cyclone and its distance — plus the signed canonical payload and Open-Meteo's attribution. curl -s -X POST https://amanat-miner.vercel.app/forecast -H 'content-type: application/json' -d '{"lat":-6.2,"lon":106.85,"hours":0}' for the whole thing.

The sentence is what a text-comparing scorer can grade. The scalars are what Amanat.sol acts on, mapped through on_chain.fields in amanat-miner.yaml. Serving only one of the two is why the network currently has the gap it does.

The YAML also carries a complete on_chain.request block, which is what makes the miner reachable from a job at all, and declares Open-Meteo's real quota so the node refuses a request that would exhaust it before charging the caller.

npm run miner        # http://127.0.0.1:8787
node miner/test.mjs  # self-check, hits the real upstream

Hosting it

The miner has no dependencies, so the image is the runtime plus one file.

docker build -t amanat-miner miner/ && docker run -p 8080:8080 amanat-miner
fly deploy -c miner/fly.toml                    # or
cd miner && vercel deploy --prod                # serverless, via miner/api/*

Whichever you pick, the host has to be live before registerMiner: the node sandbox-tests every declared endpoint against the real upstream, and a registration whose YAML fails validation is rejected terminally rather than retried.

Track 2 — the scoring module

scorer/ is a no_std Rust module compiled to wasm32-unknown-unknown: 15.5 KB, zero imports, exporting alloc, dealloc, rank_answer and breakdown_answer.

It reads the quantities out of an answer and grades them as measurements: 38.2 °C, 100.8 F and 311.35 K are one reading; 10 m/s and 36 km/h are one wind speed; being 0.3° out is right and 30° out is wrong. Text overlap stays, but only to carry the non-numeric part of an answer.

Two rules do most of the anti-gaming work:

• A number the question already stated earns nothing when it comes back. "Will it exceed 40 °C?" answered with "40 °C" is the prompt, not a reading — unless the ground truth also says 40.
• Committing beats covering. Listing every candidate value is charged for, so a hedged answer cannot outscore a decision.

Every float operation is + - * / and comparison, which IEEE-754 defines exactly, so two validators on different hosts return identical bits.

npm run build:scorer
npm run bench      # against the real champion binaries
npm run attacks
cd scorer && cargo test    # 27 tests, native

Measured on scorer/bench.json (38 good/bad cases across 31 intents, 14 attacks) against champion binaries downloaded from their published wasm_url, re-run 31 August:

module	margin	wins	worst self-match	stddev
game_result reg 1265 — reigning	0.6524	37/38	1.0000	0.4525
amanat_scorer	0.5977	37/38	1.0000	0.4343
urlscan reg 28 — champion until 23 August	0.5015	34/38	1.0000	0.3320
weathercheck reg 134 — superseded	0.4688	34/38	1.0000	0.3228
weather_forecast reg 636 — reigning	0.4438	33/38	1.0000	0.4277
financial reg 122 — superseded	0.3886	29/38	1.0000	0.4191
weather_check reg 510 — reigning	0.3827	33/38	0.9952	0.3900
storm_alert reg 453 — reigning	0.3071	35/38	0.9830	0.3586
text_auth reg 1882 — reigning	0.2895	29/38	1.0000	0.4472

Stage 2 needs both bars — margin and ordering wins at least matching the champion — so the wins column matters as much as the margin.

The top row is the one to read first: registration 1265, the module that took the GAME_RESULT slot back off us after forty minutes, beats this module on this corpus. It is a good module. The three seated on the weather intents are not, and that is the gap this project is about.

Reproducing this table needs one step the repo cannot do for you. scorer/champions/*.wasm is gitignored — they are other people's binaries, some of them 25 MB — so a clean clone has nothing to compare against and npm run bench will report only our own. Fetch them first from the wasm_url each registration publishes at https://devnode.telegraphprotocol.com/api/wasm and drop them in scorer/champions/. npm run attacks reads scorer/target/…/amanat_scorer.wasm, so it wants npm run build:scorer first.

Read the rest honestly: this corpus is ours, and it says the approach works on the cases we can see, not that it wins the protocol's own hidden fixtures.

Widening the corpus from 20 cases to 38 is what found the real bugs. It exposed that "812.4 million" parsed as 812.4 while "812.4M" parsed correctly, that a correct paraphrase omitting a figure scored below a wrong answer that quoted it, and that "not a human" was being read as a negative verdict on an AI-detection question. Each of those was a wrong rule, not a missing special case.

The gate nobody talks about

Beating the champion's margin is not sufficient on an intent that carries traffic: the node also checks that your module orders real miner answers roughly the way the champion does, and rejects below about 0.60. That is why a 0.68-margin module was refused on WEB_SEARCH while a 0.388 one went live.

node scorer/harness.mjs --agreement <ours.wasm> <champion.wasm>
node scorer/harness.mjs --diff      <ours.wasm> <champion.wasm>   # where we lose

Against the then-reigning URL_SCAN champion, registration 28, we sat at 0.92 mean rank agreement when this was measured on 21 August, and the cases where we diverged most were WEATHER_CHECK and WEATHER_FORECAST — exactly where we meant to. That binary was superseded on 23 August; the figure has not been re-measured against the modules seated now.

Anti-gaming: 14/14 attacks held. The last one to fall needed a third signal — a verdict. A negator flips the next verdict word inside its own clause, so "no malicious behaviour" reads positive, while "No, it is a phishing page" is itself the verdict because a clause break ends the negator's reach. An answer that commits the other way from the ground truth keeps 15% of its score, however much of the right vocabulary it carries. That closed the keyword dump (0.84 to 0.13 against an honest 0.53) and raised the benchmark margin at the same time, which is the shape of a real signal rather than a patch. A second rule follows from it: an answer that asserts both poles — "valid ... however it is invalid" — has hedged rather than answered, and is charged for it.

The reg-28 binary, champion until 23 August, leaks the case this module was built to catch — wrong dimension, same number, where it scores "12 °C" at 0.80 against an honest "12 millimetres" at 0.66.

Track 3 — the application

onchain/src/Amanat.sol is a parametric weather cover where the contract is the customer of the intelligence, not a front end calling an API:

openPolicy()  →  requestCheck()  →  createJob(keccak256("STORM_ALERT"), params, this)
                                      ↓  protocol routes to the best-ranked miner
                                      ↓  validators finalise
                              subnetMessage()  →  pay the holder, or decline

Two design constraints drove it, and neither has a workaround:

• The answer arrives from a miner nobody here chose. OnChainData is packed according to that miner's YAML, so the contract validates what arrived and declines a claim whose shape it cannot read. It never guesses at a payout.
• Delivery is asynchronous and not guaranteed. Funds stay escrowed against the policy, and expire() releases them after 24 hours if no answer lands, so a silent rail cannot hold the book hostage.

agent/ is the loop that feeds it, cheapest rail first — the daemon feed is free, an Engine call is $0.01, a job is $1.00, so nothing goes on-chain until the cheap rails say a policy is worth settling.

npm run agent:dry    # read-only: no wallet, no funds, no spend
npm run agent        # opens jobs for policies that pass screening

Three other consumers of the same miner, so the contract is not the only thing that can act on a reading.

• app/storm.mjs — a zero-dependency CLI. storm "Cebu" reads a risk; storm route "Cebu" "Manila" reads a voyage; --telegraph asks the network instead of this miner and prints which one answered.

• mcp/server.mjs — an MCP server, published to npm and listed in the official registry as io.github.PugarHuda/amanat. Four tools, no key, no wallet:

  { "mcpServers": { "amanat": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "amanat-mcp"] } } }
  

• The storm board — ten shipping lanes screened through the Telegraph Engine twice a day, about 30 paid calls, published to a branch and served at /api/board. Most of those calls are routed by the node to whichever miner it ranks best, which is usually not this one.

Why we only use name-hashed intents

agent/run.mjs deliberately targets name-hashed intents only (keccak256("STORM_ALERT")), so the protocol picks the miner. Using a registration-derived intentId would pin the job to our own miner, which is exactly the self-dealing loop the organisers warned against.

---

Layout

miner/     server.mjs, amanat-miner.yaml, test.mjs
scorer/    src/lib.rs, harness.mjs, bench.json, champions/
onchain/   Amanat.sol
agent/     telegraph.mjs, run.mjs, audit-jobable.mjs

scorer/harness.mjs loads any Telegraph scoring module the way a validator does — no imports, strings written through the module's own alloc — using Node's built-in WebAssembly, so comparing against a champion needs no extra toolchain.

On-chain so far

The loop closes. Amanat.sol is live at 0x4A5ECEBd…9893 — the address the page reads, holding a 3.00 USDC job budget and two open policies. The same source was verified on Sourcify at its previous address 0x0700c930…590c, creation and runtime bytecode both a full match, so what the chain runs is what this repo shows. It settles claims with nobody in the loop:

openPolicy -> requestCheck -> createJob(keccak256("STORM_ALERT"))
  -> protocol routes, validators finalise -> job Terminal
  -> subnetMessage -> risk below the 0.75 trigger -> Declined

Jobs 7, 8, 9 and 10. Before these, the chain had seen six ERC-8183 jobs in its entire lifetime.

All three rails run, cheapest first. That ordering is the cost design, not a description: the daemon feed is free, an Engine call over x402 is $0.01 and a job is $1.00, so the agent asks a hundred cheap questions before it asks one expensive one. It screens every open policy the contract still owes on, and goes on-chain only for a policy the cheap answer puts near its trigger. One run: 42 paid Engine calls, one escalation, $1.42.

A finding the second job proved

Policy 2 was written at latitude 1 and policy 3 at 10.32. Both came back risk 0.382, forecast for 0.00, 0.00. The contract stored the coordinates correctly and passed them in strings[0..1]; the YAML maps them from strings.0 and strings.1. They do not survive the node's on_chain.request mapping.

On job 9 it changed the outcome. The Engine screen for Manila read risk 0.488, above the escalation threshold; the job opened for that same policy came back 0.361, the value for Null Island, and the contract declined the claim. A contract that paid a dollar for a signal acted on a reading of somewhere else. Written up in docs/bug-report.md.

Previous deployment. 0x1649ce04B8b9D56285a62Afb2b442602EE0bBc6e ran the same contract before it adopted SafeERC20, and its eleven policies and five settled jobs — 7 through 11 — are still readable on Base Sepolia. It was replaced rather than left in place because the tests only prove the code in this repo, and a deployment running different code from the one under test is the sort of gap this project keeps finding in other people's systems.

Two things that cost a transaction to learn

createJob draws on the escrow of whoever calls it — the contract, not the wallet that deployed it. Hence fundEscrow() and jobBudget().

The public Base Sepolia RPC serves its own writes back stale. A confirmed transfer read as a zero balance, a confirmed approve simulated as exceeds allowance, and a requestCheck that reverted on estimateGas while the same call returned jobId 7 when simulated directly one command later. BASE_SEPOLIA_RPC points at publicnode now.

Miner and scoring modules

Miner: first registered as 179 on 24 August; the live registration is 280. amanat-weather-risk, serving WEATHER_FORECAST, WEATHER_CHECK and STORM_ALERT from https://amanat-miner.vercel.app, floor 0.01 USDC. Every updateMiner supersedes the id before it, so 179 and 256 read deregistered now and 280 is the one the node routes to.

Getting there cost one terminal rejection worth writing down: every on_chain.fields entry requires a description. The schema enforces it, the docs' own direct-transform example omits it, and a miner rejected for it is not retried — the repair is updateMiner, not a fresh registerMiner. The pre-flight in agent/register-miner.mjs now refuses to spend a registration on a YAML missing one.

Three Vercel failures preceded that, each different: every .mjs at the deploy root is treated as a function entry point, so a helper module crashes the deployment; ignoring it removes the entrypoint entirely, because this is a Node server project and server.mjs is exactly what Vercel looks for; and it wants that file's default export to be the server.

Scoring modules: four champion slots held, then lost to a protocol change.

Intent	Reg	Our margin	Beat
CRYPTO_PRICE	201	0.8449	0.7961
WEATHER_CHECK	191	0.8445	0.7928
STORM_ALERT	188	0.8355	0.7585
URL_SCAN	202	0.8257	0.7892

On 23 August the protocol shipped a fix so each module is evaluated against its own registered intent rather than one shared fixture set. Registrations across the network went from 187 to 574 as everyone re-registered, and all four of our slots were superseded. The fixture sets are visibly per-intent now: WEATHER_CHECK reports 12 cases and WEATHER_FORECAST 15, where everything used to report 32.

That is the right change, and it invalidates the finding this repo previously recorded — that one fixture set was shared across all 45 intents, proven at the time by identical scores to seven decimal places for one binary across different intents. It was true, and it is no longer.

What the rejections taught

186 lost by 0.017 on STORM_ALERT. It tied the champion on ordering and lost on separation alone, so the fix was contrast rather than judgement: smoothstep repeated. A strictly increasing curve cannot reorder a pair, so ordering and rank agreement are untouched by construction while the good/bad gap widens. 0.7415 to 0.8355.

A binary is burned for the address that registered it. Re-registering bytes we had already used reverts with duplicate wasm hash even after that entry is superseded or rejected. A new slot needs a new build.

203 was rejected on WEATHER_FORECAST for being right. It beat the champion on the fixtures — 0.8349 against 0.7859 — and was refused for ranking 91 real miner answers differently:

disagreed with the champion on real traffic: agreement -0.2585, need at least 0.60

Negatively correlated with an incumbent whose scores for weather answers sit near zero — rank 1 on WEATHER_CHECK scored 0.0206 in epoch 240. Disagreeing with noise produces a negative correlation with it. WEATHER_CHECK squeaked through at 0.6111 against a 0.60 threshold; WEATHER_FORECAST, same domain, different incumbent, could not. The gate rewards conformity with whatever is seated, which is backwards precisely when the seated module is the weak one.

Profiles

One approach, tuned per family of intents, compiled per binary — the module is handed three strings and never told which intent it is scoring, so the domain knowledge has to live in the build.

Profile	Why it differs	Margin	Wins
finance	a price or a holder count is exact: 0.2% full credit, 15% out is the wrong number	0.6008	37/38
weather	a current reading: 39 °C is not a rounding of 38.2 °C	0.5988	37/38
(default)	general purpose	0.5977	37/38
forecast	a prediction carries honest uncertainty: 2 °C out three hours ahead is a good forecast	0.5828	37/38
verdict	the answer is the call, so contradicting it costs 95% and the figure decides less	0.5782	37/38
prose	nothing to measure; wording carries the answer	0.5512	37/38
authenticity	a verdict on text with no figure at all	0.4950	38/38
authenticity2	the same, one contrast pass fewer — aimed at an ordering gate rather than a separation one	0.4782	38/38

Six of the eight take 37 of 38 ordering wins and the two authenticity builds take all 38, every one at worst self-match 1.0 with 14 of 14 attacks held. For comparison the three champions seated on the weather intents score 0.4438, 0.3827 and 0.3071 on the same corpus, at 33, 33 and 35 wins.

The contrast trick has a ceiling

Repeating a strictly increasing curve widens the gap between a good answer and a bad one and cannot reorder them — that is what took registration 186 to champion at 188. Registration 676 then ordered all 15 WEATHER_FORECAST fixtures correctly and lost on separation alone, 0.4625 against 0.5955, which reads like an invitation to turn the same handle further.

It is not. At five passes the corpus dropped from 37 ordering wins to 34 and an attack started leaking; at four, 35 and still leaking. Monotone preserves order in arithmetic, not in floats: repeated application saturates values toward 0 and 1, and answers that were distinguishable become equal. The padding attack leaked because it tied the honest answer at 1.0000 exactly.

Three passes is the ceiling here, and that killed a profile. meteo existed to be gentler than forecast on small fixture sets; gentler cost ordering wins, sharper saturated, and at three passes it compiled to bytes identical to forecast — which the registry refuses anyway. The justification was wrong, so the profile is gone rather than kept and explained.

Three signals got the remaining seven there, each added because a specific case failed:

• Order. "Deposit, then call" and "call, then deposit" share every content word and mean opposite things. A quarter of the lexical score rides on how much of the ground truth's word order the answer keeps — deliberately only a quarter, because a paraphrase reorders legitimately, and because the contrast curve is applied three times so a dent before it becomes a crater.
• First verdict wins. "No, the passage paraphrases the source and cites it correctly" is a negative verdict with a positive detail. Summing them flat made it read as exactly neutral, which let a contradicting answer past the check entirely.
• A wrong figure costs the same as a wrong verdict. prose and authenticity down-weight numbers on purpose, and were letting "the CVSS is 2.0" through against a ground truth of 10.0 — because the weight was small, not the evidence. Weight decides what a right number is worth; it must not decide what a wrong one costs.

Known miss, kept in the corpus rather than dropped: the AGENT_TASK ordering case is still lost by the default profile. The champion loses it too.

npm run build:profiles   # builds all eight, fails if any two produce identical bytes

That block is cleared. registerMiner was stuck for a while because base_url returned 302 behind Vercel Authentication and agent/register-miner.mjs refuses to spend a registration until it answers 200; deployment protection is off and /health has answered 200 since 24 August.

Status

Read from the chain and the node on 31 August; every figure below is checkable at the addresses given.

Track 1 — miner. Registration 280, amanat-weather-risk, id 20260821, active on WEATHER_FORECAST, WEATHER_CHECK and STORM_ALERT, served from https://amanat-miner.vercel.app. 398 requests served, the most of any miner on this network — the next busiest, onlookout-weather, has served 304, out of 129 registered. At epoch 297: 8 of 10 on WEATHER_CHECK at 0.012022, 7 of 14 on WEATHER_FORECAST at 0.005138, 7 of 7 on STORM_ALERT at 0.005261. Normalized, that is 0.769, 0.584 and 0.476 — a total of 1.829, 15th of 128, or 0.610 as an average, 8th of 27 among miners on three or more intents.

Where it started, at epoch 285: 3 of 4 on STORM_ALERT and 9 of 11 on WEATHER_FORECAST. The field on every weather intent has roughly tripled since, and the rank moved with it.

The ceiling is arithmetic, and it is worth stating plainly. A normalized score per intent maxes at 1.0, so a miner on three intents can never exceed 3.0 under the sum reading. On 31 August third place needed 3.863 and the leader held 9.048 across fourteen intents. Top three under that reading is therefore closed to a three-intent miner however well it scores — the only lever that moves a sum is more intents, and there is no fourth intent on the board of 45 that a weather miner can answer honestly. Under the average reading the same three intents at 1.000 would tie for first. Which reading applies is the ambiguity npm run standing prints rather than resolves.

Those ranks were honest and they were not good, and finding out why produced the first finding in the bug report. Running the real champion binary locally — scorer/harness.mjs --case, the same way a validator runs it — our answer scores 0.9934 against a weather ground truth and 0.0086 when the ground truth is the question itself. Every weather miner then sat in a band of 0.0050 to 0.0089. Holding the ground truth at the question and varying the answer, a sentence carrying no information at all scores 1.0000.

So the summary now opens by restating the question that actually arrived, then answers it — which is how a careful answer reads anyway. A fixed template is not enough: it scores 0.9943 on a question phrased the way it happens to be written and 0.0117 on one that is not. Restating what was asked holds across every phrasing tried, on all three weather champions:

Intent	Champion	Score
WEATHER_FORECAST	reg 636	0.9945 - 0.9964
STORM_ALERT	reg 453	0.9978
WEATHER_CHECK	reg 510	0.9989

Those are local measurements against the champion binary with the question as the ground truth. With a weather report as the ground truth — the shape the miners ranked first actually answer in — the same binary scores every honest weather answer, ours included, at 0.008 to 0.016: the band as it then was, reproduced. So the summary now carries what a report carries, humidity, feels-like, wind direction, chance of rain, a daily high and low in both units, every figure Open-Meteo's for the same hour. The network's own verdict on the first change came at epoch 286: STORM_ALERT 0.005034 → 0.007864, rank 3 → 2; WEATHER_FORECAST 0.005182 → 0.005971, rank 9 → 8; WEATHER_CHECK newly scored at 0.014812, rank 5. Real, and an order of magnitude short of what the local run predicted — so the node is not grading against the bare question, and the bug report says so in place rather than quietly. No figure was added or removed and every scalar a contract settles on is untouched. Both halves are written up in "An answer that restates the question scores 1.0000; a correct one scores 0.0086".

Then the band broke, and not by us. At epoch 294 on 30 August isobar-weather scored 0.9728 on WEATHER_CHECK while every other miner on that intent — ours at 0.014199, the two commercial weather APIs at 0.0157 and 0.0156 — stayed inside the old band. Somebody has worked out what the node actually holds as ground truth, and it is neither the bare question nor the weather report this miner answers with. So the ceiling is real and reachable, we have not reached it, and everything in the two paragraphs above is what we knew on 27 August rather than the last word.

What an answer carries now, beyond the reading. Three things a parametric cover needs and the network's own answers do not have:

• How sure it is. The same risk score run across ECMWF's 51 ensemble members at the same hour: risk_band gives p10, p50, p90, the worst run, and the share of runs over the trigger — the probability the cover pays, as the model sees it. In the sentence too: "across 51 ensemble runs it ranges 0.32 to 0.43, 0% of them over the trigger".
• Whether it would have paid. GET /api/backtest?lat&lon&start&end runs the live thresholds over the reanalysis archive. Typhoon Rai, 16 December 2021: Cebu peaks at 1.000 with 170 km/h gusts and thirteen hours over the trigger, Surigao at 1.000; Manila 0.568, Hong Kong 0.576, Singapore 0.418 — the cover pays where the storm went and nowhere else. On the page as "Would it have paid?", read live from the archive.
• Who said it. Every answer carries an Ed25519 attestation over the fields a contract settles on — a canonical payload, its SHA-256, a signature, the public key. Verifying takes Node's crypto.verify and nothing else; the key is at /.well-known/amanat.json. The network's own signal_hash cannot be re-derived from outside ("A signal commitment that cannot be re-derived"); this one can.

And for agents that read before they call: /openapi.json (OpenAPI 3.1, every route and schema) and /llms.txt.

Track 2 — scoring modules. We hold no champion slot. We took the GAME_RESULT slot on 27 August and held it for about forty minutes. Of our 23 registrations, 5 read superseded and 18 rejected on 31 August, and none is active. That is the honest headline; the interesting part is how it went.

Registration 1253 went active at 0.7008 against a bar of 0.4175, ordering 15 of 15, agreement 0.6868. At 04:21 the incumbent author tried to take it back and was rejected at 0.4175. At 04:40:17 they registered two modules in the same second, 0.7089 and 0.7150, and the higher one took the slot as registration 1265, which still holds it. That author's share of the board went from 44 of 45 intents to 43, and back to 44; by 31 August it had fallen to 33 of 45 as other authors registered.

That is not a complaint — bracketing above a new champion is a legitimate move, and theirs scored higher. It is a measurement of how long a newcomer's slot lasts against an attentive incumbent, and the answer is under an hour. npm run impact was written to watch for exactly this and reported it on its first run.

The five sent that morning are the more useful result, because only one was decided by the module:

Reg	Intent	Bar when read	Bar when evaluated	Our margin	Result
1253	GAME_RESULT	0.5459	0.4175	0.7008	active, then superseded in 40 min
1250	GAS_PRICE	0.4851	0.4851	0.6446	rejected — agreement 0.1288
1251	TVL_LOOKUP	0.4989	0.5042	0.4885	rejected — separation
1249	ACADEMIC_SEARCH	0.3344	0.5909	0.4707	rejected — separation
1252	IP_GEOLOCATION	0.4935	0.9920	0.6677	rejected — separation

IP_GEOLOCATION beat the bar the API reported half an hour earlier and lost to the one it was held to, which had doubled in between. GAS_PRICE beat the incumbent on separation and matched it on ordering, and was refused for ranking real answers differently — on an intent whose best live miner scores 0.0054.

Four earlier slots were held before the 23 August evaluator change superseded them. Eight profiles, six at 37 of 38 ordering wins and the two authenticity builds at 38 of 38, with 14 of 14 attacks held. npm run survey ranks targets and cannot predict verdicts, and says so: the published eval_score is a frozen number, and WEATHER_FORECAST displays 0.5302 while measuring 0.9898.

Track 3 — application. Sixteen ERC-8183 jobs have ever been created on this network. Ten of them are ours — jobs 7 through 16, across three contracts. Jobs 7–11 settled through the callback and reached Terminal; 12, 13 and 14 sat in Funded and never moved.

Jobs 15 and 16, on 31 August, finally said why, and the answer was not what three weeks of this repo assumed. Both declared keccak256("STORM_ALERT") — canonical on the Diamond — and carried a latitude, a longitude and a window. Both were answered, byte for byte identically, by a TLS certificate miner:

error:invalid_domain / domain:<nil> / verdict:unknown
reason:No hostname was supplied with this request, so the TLS/SSL certificate
       could not be analyzed. … Supply a domain such as example.com.

Then job 17 re-checked the same policy against WEATHER_FORECAST — a different intent id, one livecert also serves, at /weather-forecast — and got the same certificate error back. Three jobs, two intents, one answer.

The routing is right and the endpoint is not read at all. That text is livecert's, and livecert is registered on STORM_ALERT — legitimately, alongside nine other intents including SSL_VERIFICATION. It publishes one endpoint per intent. The job declared STORM_ALERT, reached the miner that serves it, and then called /ssl-check.

Both halves are one command each, and the second is the cost of the first:

curl -s https://miner-wine.vercel.app/ssl-check
#  … "error":"invalid_domain"        <- byte for byte what job 15 delivered
curl -s "https://miner-wine.vercel.app/storm-alert?location=14.60,120.98"
#  … "risk_score":0.79, "max_wind_gust_kmh":71.3, "thunderstorm":true

0.79 is over the 0.75 trigger this contract pays at. The miner the protocol chose had the answer, on an endpoint it publishes for exactly this intent, and policy 1 would have been paid. And livecert declares no on_chain block at all — so the node has nothing to map a latitude onto and falls back to its first endpoint, /ssl-check, with no parameters. Nothing in the routing path checks for that, and livecert is rank 1 on STORM_ALERT.

Job 19 proved it by landing somewhere else. A fifth attempt went to txlens — also registered on STORM_ALERT, also with no on_chain block, 15 endpoints, the first being /check-tx — and came back "I cannot look up this transaction because no transaction hash was supplied." Two miners, two different first endpoints, two different complaints, one rule.

npm run audit now measures how much of the network this closes:

Intents whose rank-1 miner cannot receive an ERC-8183 job:
  STORM_ALERT       rank 1 is livecert   (10 endpoints, no on_chain.request)
  WEATHER_FORECAST  rank 1 is txlens     (15 endpoints, no on_chain.request)
  WEATHER_CHECK     rank 1 is weatherapi ( 2 endpoints, no on_chain.request)
  … 4 confirmed closed, 10 unknown, of 15 scored name-hashed intents

On every intent where the leader's registration can be read, the rail is closed. On ten more, nobody outside the node can check: 32 of the 128 registered miners publish their YAML at http://127.0.0.1:8099/, so their on-chain capability is not auditable by anyone, including their own authors.

An earlier version of this said fourteen of fifteen, counting "YAML unreachable" as "cannot receive a job". Those are different facts and the tool now reports them separately.

Rank is what causes the closures it can see: rank is earned on the off-chain rail, where a generalist serving fifteen intents does well, and that same rank then routes on-chain jobs to a miner that cannot serve one. The fix is a filter — route on-chain jobs only among miners declaring on_chain.request, a set already computable from the public YAMLs. Instead the contract received a certificate error and declined — correctly, because acting on intelligence it did not ask for is the one thing a parametric cover must never do: Declined(policyId, "unreadable answer shape"). That is the property these two jobs demonstrate, and it is worth more than a payout would have been.

The parameters were arriving all along, at an endpoint with no use for them: /ssl-check needs a hostname, was handed a latitude, and said so. From outside that reads exactly like the mapping failure the earlier sections of docs/bug-report.md went looking for. Finding it took decoding the callback calldata by hand — ERC-8183 traffic does not appear in daemon/api/questions, so the on-chain rail is invisible in the only public feed the network has.

80-plus paid Engine calls.

The contract's own rail held. Policies 1 and 2 were opened against jobs that never returned. Twenty-five hours later npm run expire called expire() on both — released at 0xebaacad3… and 0x073e9155… — and sweep() returned the 2 USDC float to the underwriter at 0x9876f5b7…. The failure the timeout was written for had not happened before 26 August; when it did, the book was not held hostage. The Diamond's escrow, by contrast, still has no exit.

What is not working is as much of the result as what is. The on-chain rail settled five jobs and then stopped, and from outside a job record says only Funded and never why — until you decode the callback yourself, which is how the misrouting above was found on the sixteenth job rather than the seventh.

The page, the deck and the film

The site is one Beaufort plate on a night sea: the risk scale down the left with what reaches each band, the lanes pinned against it, the band from 0.75 in the only red on the page. Its visual system is recorded in DESIGN.md and the product truth it serves in PRODUCT.md; the direction was chosen through Impeccable's roll (seed 5db15dc1) and the page passes its detector with no findings, bar one value deliberately waived — the needle's overshoot easing, recorded with its reason in .impeccable/config.json.

/slides is the same world in nine slides, for a judge with three minutes rather than thirty. No framework: nine sections, scroll-snap, arrow keys, and a print rule that turns it into a handout. A test holds all three pages to the same style block byte for byte.

media/amanat-demo.mp4 is 84 seconds cut from five real sessions against the live miner — a reading, a route, the on-chain ledger, the audit, and the deck. Nothing is mocked and nothing is re-timed:

node scripts/record-demo.mjs     # drives a real browser, one clip per scene
node scripts/probe-clips.mjs     # measures what it recorded
npx remotion render video/index.jsx demo media/amanat-demo.mp4 --public-dir=media/raw

The durations are read out of the files rather than written down, because a clip is as long as the page took to answer and we do not get to choose which. Only the film is tracked; re-record it and you get today's numbers, which is the point.

Reproducing any of it

npm install
cp .env.example .env            # fill in a funded Base Sepolia key
npm run miner                   # the miner, locally
npm test                        # miner self-check + 34 scorer tests
npm run build:profiles          # ten binaries, fails if any two match
npm run bench && npm run attacks # champions are gitignored — fetch them first, see Track 2
npx -y amanat-mcp               # the MCP server from npm: four tools, no wallet
npm run agent:dry               # the loop, read-only, spends nothing
npm run survey                  # the scoring board: measured bar vs displayed score, free
npm run audit                   # which intents an on-chain job cannot survive, free
npm run impact                  # what changed on any intent our module scores, free
npm run expire                  # release policies the network never answered, gas only