realize

Context & intent

A generator’s confidence does not replace evaluation. Finite, explicitly modeled problems allow a separate checking process to make the basis of a verdict visible.

Evaluate proposals independently and communicate the result without hiding incomplete coverage.

Project context and development approach

This is an independent project from my portfolio across FractalDesignZ and ZuluYokohama. My practice centers on directing work with substantial assistance from agentic AI and development harnesses. The mechanisms and evidence below describe this project; they do not attribute every component to manual authorship or a specialist review.

Read how I work with AI →

Implemented mechanisms

1. A finite checking kernel evaluates declared specifications and candidate operators.
2. Verdicts distinguish PASS, COUNTEREXAMPLE, UNSAT, and UNKNOWN.
3. CLI and MCP interfaces expose the checking workflow and certificate output.

Evidence & merit

Source review describes implementation; recorded tests describe the cases that were exercised; functional review considers observed behavior. Independent specialist validation is a separate activity and is claimed only when documented. An automated checker does not itself establish independent professional review.

The reviewed source separates checker imports from the generator and retains specification and digest checks. Incomplete coverage or exhausted checking budgets can produce UNKNOWN.

The system proposing a result does not determine that it passes its own evaluation.