BRON LAW: the /verify sample bundle
===================================

This folder is a provenance manifest and everything needed to check it, so that
a reader with no account and no connection to the firm that produced a filing
can decide for themselves whether the filing tells the truth about the sources
it cites.

The matter is fictional. The authorities are real.

  sample.manifest.json
      The manifest: bronlaw-provenance-manifest/1. One assertion per citation
      occurrence in the filing, each with the source it rests on, the language
      it relies on, and the verdict of a check anyone can re-run.

  sample-filing.txt
      The filing's exact text. Every start/end offset in the manifest indexes
      this file, and body.document.contentHash is its SHA-256.

  Tiara-v-Marsh-McLennan_110-So3d-399.txt
  Comptech-v-Milam_753-So2d-1219.txt
      The two Supreme Court of Florida opinions the filing quotes, as text, as
      fetched from Google Scholar's case-law index on 2026-09-03. The manifest's
      source.contentHash for each is the SHA-256 of the file's bytes. They ship
      as text rather than PDF so that a browser can re-derive the quotations;
      a PDF's bytes can be hashed anywhere but its text cannot be read without
      an extractor.

What the manifest says about the filing
---------------------------------------

Six citations. Three are recorded as verified: the source was in the file, was
read, and the quoted language was found in it. One is recorded as failed: the
filing quotes Comptech as saying recovery is "not barred", and the opinion says
"not precluded". One is advisory: Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer was in the
producer's file but was never opened, so its language was never compared, and
it is deliberately not shipped here. One is unresolved: Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.380(a) is not a document in the file at all.

A verifier answers two questions and must keep them apart. "Is this manifest
true?": yes, if every claim in it re-derives from the evidence you supply.
"What does the filing say about itself?": one citation declared unverified,
which the Comptech text you hold will confirm. A manifest that honestly
discloses a defect is the format working. Only a manifest that contradicts the
evidence fails.

Running it offline
------------------

The verifier is MIT-licensed, has no runtime dependencies, and is the same code
that built this manifest. With the command-line build:

  node cli.mjs sample.manifest.json --filing sample-filing.txt --sources .

Exit code 0 means the manifest held and something was actually checked; 1 means
it contradicted the evidence you supplied; 3 means nothing substantive was
supplied, so nothing was re-derived. With the single-file browser build, open
verify.html from a file:// URL with the network off and drop these files onto
it. Either way, nothing is uploaded and nothing phones home.

What is pinned, and what is missing on purpose
----------------------------------------------

envelope.generatedAt is a fixed instant, 2026-09-03T00:00:00.000Z, so that
regenerating this bundle from the repository's fixtures yields identical bytes.
The envelope sits outside the digest by design; it is unsigned context.

There is no timestamp anchor. This digest was never committed to a ledger, and
the manifest records null rather than a status it does not have. A fresh
OpenTimestamps proof would in any case be "pending" for about a day; a manifest
that called one "confirmed" on the way out the door would be lying next to a
page of checkable facts.

Regenerate from the repository with:

  cd frontend && npx tsx scripts/buildVerifySample.ts