# Independent Provenance Review

## Review identity

- Component:
- Replacement milestone:
- Implementation record path:
- Candidate revision:
- Reviewer:
- Domain reviewer (if required):
- Review date (UTC):
- Reviewer independent of implementation: yes/no

## Evidence checks

- [ ] Behavioral contract predates or is independent from implementation work.
- [ ] Normative and public sources are listed with revisions and evidence paths.
- [ ] Contributor source-exposure disclosures are complete.
- [ ] Required separation/counsel decisions are attached.
- [ ] No copied source, comments, tests, identifiers, non-normative constants, or distinctive internal structure were found.
- [ ] AI inputs and human review satisfy the contributor guide.
- [ ] Intentional incompatibilities are approved and versioned.
- [ ] Conformance, malformed-input, security, resource-limit, and fuzz evidence meets the component gate.
- [ ] Bundle graph, native hashes, SBOM, ownership inventory, and clean-install graph agree.
- [ ] Licenses, patents, trademarks, and specification terms have an explicit disposition.

## Similarity and provenance review method

- Files and revisions reviewed:
- Comparison method and tools:
- Findings:
- False positives and disposition:

## Verification summary

| Gate | Evidence | Result | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Contract compatibility |  |  |  |
| Security/resource limits |  |  |  |
| Fuzz/conformance |  |  |  |
| Cross-platform |  |  |  |
| Artifact ownership |  |  |  |

## Decision

- Engineering provenance decision: approve/reject/needs-work
- Capability gate may be marked achieved: yes/no
- Public clean-room/proprietary claim approved by this review: no
- Required follow-up:
- Reviewer signature/date:
- Counsel approval reference (required for public claim):