hosted/IF_EMOTION_TRACE_E2E_WALKTHROUGH_016cca78-6f9d-4ffe-aec0-99792d383ca1.md

# One End‑to‑End Trace (User → Retrieval → Decision → Audit Proof)

This document answers:

“Show me ONE end‑to‑end trace: user request → retrieval → decision → audit query that proves chain‑of‑custody. Walk me through how I would independently verify it.”

It uses a real reference trace so every step is reproducible.

---

## Trace used (reference bundle)

- Trace ID: `016cca78-6f9d-4ffe-aec0-99792d383ca1`
- Evidence bundle (static mirror):
  - `https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/emo_trace_payload_016cca78-6f9d-4ffe-aec0-99792d383ca1.tar.gz`
- Evidence bundle (Forgejo raw):
  - `https://git.infrafabric.io/danny/hosted/raw/branch/main/emo_trace_payload_016cca78-6f9d-4ffe-aec0-99792d383ca1.tar.gz`
- Tarball SHA256:
  - `7101ff9c38fc759a66157f6a6ab9c0936af547d0ec77a51b5d05db07069966c8`
- IF.TTT chain record (PQ‑anchored):
  - `https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/emo_trace_payload_016cca78-6f9d-4ffe-aec0-99792d383ca1.ttt_chain_record.json`
  - `https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/emo_trace_payload_016cca78-6f9d-4ffe-aec0-99792d383ca1.ttt_chain_ref.json`

---

## The trace, end‑to‑end (what actually happened)

**User request** (from `payload/trace_payload.json`):

```
In English: Summarize what this system can and cannot prove about an LLM answer, in plain language, and include the Trace line. If you cite clinical context, include [Source: ...] tags.
```

**Retrieval** (from `payload/trace_events.jsonl`, event type `retrieval_done`):

- `retrieval_event_id`: `c9b3ebf0-15bb-4c80-8c94-574ba5324954`
- `retrieved_citations`: `if://citation/3862ce4a-bca5-4090-b5e9-5652fee391ae/v1`

**Decision** (from `payload/ttt_signed_record.json`, `guard` object):

- `decision`: `allow`
- `enabled`: `true`
- `vulnerability`: `0.05`

**Audit chain head** (from `payload/ttt_signed_record.json`, `trace_chain`):

- `event_count`: `6`
- `head_hash`: `200c83313376e05577e98d59cd13f2441cccb211f9a9a0927c4ceaf8033827f5`

This is the “receipt” that binds the final output hash to the chain of events.

---

## How to independently verify chain‑of‑custody

These steps work without access to the backend, just the public artifacts.

### 1) Download and verify the bundle hash

```bash
curl -fsSL -o emo.tar.gz \
  'https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/emo_trace_payload_016cca78-6f9d-4ffe-aec0-99792d383ca1.tar.gz'

sha256sum emo.tar.gz
# expected: 7101ff9c38fc759a66157f6a6ab9c0936af547d0ec77a51b5d05db07069966c8
```

This proves you have the exact bundle the operator claims to have published.

### 2) Run the verifier (manifest + chains + signatures)

```bash
python3 -m venv venv
./venv/bin/pip install canonicaljson pynacl
curl -fsSL -o iftrace.py 'https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/iftrace.py'

./venv/bin/python iftrace.py verify emo.tar.gz \
  --expected-sha256 7101ff9c38fc759a66157f6a6ab9c0936af547d0ec77a51b5d05db07069966c8
```

Expected result: `OK verify` plus checks for:

- `manifest: ok`
- `trace_events: ok` (hash chain)
- `req_seen_head: Ed25519 signature OK`
- `req_seen: ok` (Merkle root)
- `if_story: ok` (all event_hash references exist)

This proves the trace file, the summary, and the completeness ledger are internally consistent and untampered.

### 3) Prove completeness for this trace (REQ_SEEN inclusion)

```bash
tar -xzf emo.tar.gz
./venv/bin/python iftrace.py verify-inclusion payload/req_seen_inclusion_proof.json
# expected: OK
```

This proves **this trace’s request** is included in the hourly REQ_SEEN ledger, which is the bounded‑completeness claim.

### 4) Inspect the chain step‑by‑step (user → retrieval → decision)

```bash
python3 - <<'PY'
import json
from pathlib import Path
base = Path('payload')
trace_events = [json.loads(l)['event'] for l in base.joinpath('trace_events.jsonl').read_text().splitlines() if l.strip()]
for ev in trace_events:
    print(ev['idx'], ev['type'], ev['event_hash'], ev['prev_hash'])
PY
```

Expected sequence (from this bundle):

- `0 req_seen` → `09ce8a52ff9070ee…`
- `1 request_received` → `f9f93f15b8278a4e…`
- `2 retrieval_done` → `7ec94771dcaed85c…`
- `3 prompt_built` → `ec84acc6f4df6edd…`
- `4 model_done` → `94321445f1b3c560…`
- `5 trace_finalizing` → `200c83313376e055…`

You can see the exact retrieval event (`retrieval_done`) and its hash in the chain.

### 5) Verify decision + output binding (signed summary)

```bash
python3 - <<'PY'
import json
from pathlib import Path
rec = json.loads(Path('payload/ttt_signed_record.json').read_text())
print('trace_id', rec['event']['trace_id'])
print('guard decision', rec['event']['guard']['decision'])
print('response_sha256', rec['event']['response_sha256'])
print('trace_chain', rec['event']['trace_chain'])
PY
```

This proves that the **decision** and the **final output hash** are bound into the signed summary that also contains the chain head.

---

## What this proves (and what it doesn’t)

**Proves:**

- The request, retrieval, decision, and output are tied together in a hash‑chained event log.
- The output hash is bound to a signed summary that includes the chain head.
- The request is included in the REQ_SEEN ledger for its hour (bounded completeness).
- The bundle you verified is exactly the published artifact.

**Does not prove:**

- That the output is factually correct in the outside world.
- That requests dropped before the backend witness boundary were seen.

---

## Optional: registry corroboration (IF.TTT)

If you have access to the IF.TTT registry, you can verify the PQ‑anchored record by comparing:

- `emo_trace_payload_016cca78-6f9d-4ffe-aec0-99792d383ca1.ttt_chain_ref.json`
- The tarball SHA + bundle content hashes

This corroborates that the published bundle hash was anchored in the registry under the cited handle.

---

If you want the same walkthrough for the newer v3.2 methodology‑hardening bundle, say the word and I’ll generate the equivalent one‑pager for trace `96700e8e-6a83-445e-86f7-06905c500146`.