Bounded Capability Receipts and Durable Spend Control for Agent Actions

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 March 2027.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

A single-action authorization receipt is intentionally narrow: it records approval of one exact action and can be accepted at most once within its atomic consumption domain. Some agent deployments also need a different primitive. For example, an operator may authorize an agent to purchase a bounded class of supplies, subject to an aggregate monetary ceiling and an expiry, without asking a human to approve each conforming purchase.¶

That primitive has two inseparable parts:¶

1. a signed capability receipt that states the immutable authority boundary; and¶
2. a shared, durable state machine that serializes reservations and committed consumption across retries, processes, replicas, and restarts.¶

The signed object without the state machine is replayable budget metadata. The state machine without a signed, scoped grant has no portable statement of authority. This document specifies their composition.¶

2. Terminology

Issuance authorization:

An independently verified authorization artifact for the exact act of creating a bounded capability.¶

Capability receipt:

The signed immutable grant defined by this document.¶

Capability issuer:

The principal whose pinned key signs a capability receipt.¶

Holder proof:

Proof that the requester controls the secret or key named by the capability receipt. Holder proof is not proof that a requested action is in scope.¶

Scope verifier:

A verifier for a named scope profile, selected and configured by the relying party.¶

Capability store:

The authoritative shared transactional state for registration, reservation, and committed consumption.¶

State domain:

The relying-party-pinned atomic store and trust configuration to which every authority-bearing participant for a capability lineage is bound. A state-domain identifier is deployment context, not portable proof of global uniqueness.¶

Admission-control domain:

An optional state-domain partition with authoritative active or frozen status and a monotonically increasing admission epoch. This term is local execution-control state. It is not the organizational-independence use of "control domain" in evidence or witness profiles.¶

Admission epoch:

The current monotonic version of an admission-control domain, captured by a reservation and rechecked immediately before provider entry.¶

Operation ID:

An identifier unique for one attempted operation under one capability receipt. The authoritative operation key is the tuple of capability receipt digest and operation ID inside the state domain.¶

Reservation token:

An unguessable owner-fencing value returned by a successful reservation and required for its commitment.¶

Provider-entry deadline:

The authoritative instant before which a reserved operation may enter the effect adapter. It is no later than capability expiry.¶

Effect boundary:

The point after which an external effect may have occurred and therefore budget cannot safely be restored merely because the caller did not receive a successful response.¶

Indeterminate outcome:

An operation for which the executor cannot prove that no effect occurred and cannot prove a successful expected effect.¶

3. Trust Model

The relying party selects capability-issuer keys, accepted issuance authorization profiles, scope profiles, state-store domain, and local authorization policy. A key embedded in a presented capability receipt MUST NOT, by itself, become a trust anchor. An empty trust configuration MUST fail closed.¶

The capability store is trusted to serialize state transitions and retain committed operation records. The effect adapter is trusted to place the effect boundary correctly and to report outcomes honestly. This protocol makes those trust dependencies explicit; it does not remove them.¶

All capability-store participants that can authorize a capability or allocate, register, reserve, commit, reconcile, revoke, or report any ancestor or descendant drawing on that capability's authority MUST use one shared authoritative atomic state domain. Independent stores cannot prevent each other from accepting or reallocating the same remaining authority. Conservation claims in this document apply only inside that one domain.¶

A deployment may have multiple executor instances, settlement adapters, or process replicas. If they can exercise the same capability, each MUST resolve the same state domain before admission and use that domain for the budget transition. An executor's local record of prior spending is not an authoritative aggregate record. If the deployment cannot make the shared-domain guarantee, it MUST either name exactly one executor in the applicable scope or describe the limit as per-executor and MUST NOT claim aggregate conservation across executors.¶

When the admission-control epoch profile in this document is used, the domain status, epoch, capability state, applicable allowance status, and operation state MUST be serialized in the same authoritative transaction domain. A cached or freshness-bounded status check outside that transaction cannot establish immediate freeze behavior.¶

4. The Bounded Capability Receipt

The receipt is a JSON object serialized using the JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS) [RFC8785] before signing. The following is illustrative:¶

{
  "@version": "EP-BOUNDED-CAPABILITY-v1",
  "capability": {
    "capability_id": "cap_01J...",
    "issuer": "https://operator.example",
    "subject": "agent:procurement-7",
    "authorization": {
      "receipt_id": "rcpt_01J...",
      "receipt_digest": "sha256:4c..."
    },
    "scope": {
      "profile": "urn:emilia:scope:caid-set-v1",
      "value": {
        "caids": ["caid1:sha256:..."]
      },
      "digest": "sha256:8a..."
    },
    "budget": {
      "amount": 250000,
      "unit": "iso4217:USD",
      "scale": 2
    },
    "holder": {
      "method": "sha-256-preimage",
      "commitment": "sha256:91..."
    },
    "threshold": {"m": 2, "n": 3},
    "revocation_mode": "cascade",
    "parent": null,
    "not_before": "2026-07-18T20:00:00Z",
    "expires_at": "2026-07-19T20:00:00Z"
  },
  "capability_signature": {
    "algorithm": "Ed25519",
    "public_key": "base64url...",
    "value": "base64url..."
  }
}

SHA-256(JCS({
  "@version": receipt["@version"],
  "capability": receipt.capability,
  "capability_signature": receipt.capability_signature
}))

5. Issuance Authorization

The issuance authorization MUST authorize the act of creating the capability, including the immutable digest of its subject, scope, budget, holder commitment, revocation mode, parent, and validity interval. It MUST NOT be reused as though it were a per-operation authorization for later spends.¶

When the issuance artifact is an EMILIA Authorization Receipt, its exact action is capability issuance and its one-time consumption occurs when the capability is registered. Later capability-funded operations are governed by this document's scope and durable state protocol.¶

6. Per-Action Human Authorization Composition

A deployment may require a separately authenticated human authorization for an individual capability-funded exercise. That artifact MUST bind the exact canonical exercise-action digest used by reservation and effect admission. If material terms are not committed by that digest, the artifact MUST bind those terms independently.¶

A capability signature, holder proof, threshold custody, or key protected inside a workload is not evidence that a human reviewed the later exercise. The capability verifier and human-authorization verifier may remain separate. A relying-party composition policy may require both results for the same action digest, but the two verifiers MUST NOT treat the other's evidence as a trust anchor.¶

This composition does not make human authorization part of every bounded capability. A deployment that permits conforming exercises without a per-action human artifact MUST state that the issuance authorization established the bounded class rather than a human reviewing each later action.¶

7. Action Scope

Before reserving budget, the enforcement point MUST compute the proposed material action independently of presenter-supplied labels and invoke the pinned verifier for scope.profile. A missing profile, unknown action representation, lossy mapping, or undecided comparison MUST refuse.¶

The mandatory-to-implement urn:emilia:scope:caid-set-v1 profile contains a non-empty, duplicate-free array of Canonical Action IDentifiers. It matches only exact identifier equality. For delegation, a child CAID set is no broader than its parent only when every child identifier is an exact member of the parent set. Equality of the complete sets is allowed. This non-strict subset relation is reflexive and transitive. Possession of a CAID authorizes nothing outside this verified capability context.¶

Application profiles can define closed constraints over typed action fields. Such a profile MUST specify canonicalization, exact value equality, comparison, unknown-field handling, numerical units, and an algorithm for deciding whether a delegated scope is no broader than its parent. The profile MUST state whether that attenuation relation is reflexive and whether it is transitive. It MUST classify the basis for any transitivity claim as one of: definition-derived, mechanically-checkable, or asserted. A mechanically checkable claim MUST define a finite domain and deterministic procedure by which a verifier or conformance suite can enumerate the required triples. An asserted claim is profile-author testimony, not a demonstrated algebraic property.¶

Every profile identifier used in a signed scope MUST identify immutable comparison semantics. An identifier fixed by immutable standards text satisfies this requirement. Any other application-profile identifier MUST be content-addressed. A mutable alias or version label alone is insufficient. The relying party MUST pin the exact profile definition selected by that identifier and refuse if the definition cannot be resolved without ambiguity or has changed.¶

Action membership and attenuation are separate decisions. Membership returns IN_SCOPE, OUT_OF_SCOPE, or UNDECIDED. Attenuation returns NO_BROADER, BROADER, or UNDECIDED. A composite scope is no broader only when every mandatory component returns NO_BROADER. Any BROADER component makes the composite broader; otherwise any UNDECIDED component makes the composite UNDECIDED. Each component's result MUST remain visible even when a decided negative component determines the composite result. Missing components MUST NOT be treated as successful comparisons.¶

An UNDECIDED comparison MUST state why the deciding verifier could not establish a result. In particular, the report MUST distinguish these two reasons:¶

NO_COMPARISON_RELATION:

The verifier holds the exact governing profile definition, but that definition supplies no applicable comparison relation for the reported component and values. This is absence of a relation under that governing profile, not a claim that comparison is globally impossible. The report MUST identify the governing profile and component. The verifier MUST NOT invent an order from labels, a valid signature, or an unselected profile.¶

PROFILE_NOT_HELD:

The exact governing profile definition is unavailable to the deciding verifier at evaluation time. An identifier or mutable alias alone does not supply that definition. Its absence does not establish that the profile defines no relation. Retrieval of the exact definition or re-evaluation by a verifier accepted under relying-party policy MAY remedy this condition. Retrieval alone does not establish trust in the profile or verifier, a successful comparison, or authority to execute.¶

These two reasons do not exhaust possible evaluation failures. Other causes of UNDECIDED MUST be stated without mislabeling them as either reason above. A remedied comparison MUST use the required exact inputs and relying-party trust policy and produce a new result distinct from the earlier UNDECIDED report. Substituting another profile does not repair the original comparison. Until the required current comparison succeeds, registration or admission MUST refuse.¶

LOCAL_ONLY is a composition status for a decided current-hop comparison, separate from its NO_BROADER or BROADER result. It is not a fourth attenuation result or a substitute for UNDECIDED. An unavailable current comparison MUST NOT be labeled LOCAL_ONLY merely because a prior comparison or transitivity record exists. A negative local result remains negative regardless of its composition status.¶

A verifier MUST NOT promote per-hop comparisons into a chain-wide non-widening claim unless transitivity is either derived from the relation definition or mechanically established over the profile's complete declared finite domain. A decided comparison under a non-transitive, asserted-transitive, or unknown-transitivity relation is LOCAL_ONLY to the reported hop. It can be useful evidence, but it does not compose by induction across a delegation chain.¶

A definition-derived classification is permitted only when the immutable profile definition specifies a relation whose transitivity follows by construction. Merely labeling a relation transitive, including in authenticated profile metadata, is an asserted basis. For a mechanically established classification, every scope value used in the composed chain MUST be a member of the exact finite domain covered by the establishment record. A value outside that domain makes the mechanical result inapplicable to that chain.¶

For a mechanically established result, the verifier MUST disclose whether it performed the complete enumeration itself or relied on a prior conformance run. The establishment record MUST identify the runner, completion time, immutable profile and relation-rule identifiers and content digests, the canonical encoding, digest algorithm, digest, and cardinality of the complete declared finite domain, the deterministic procedure identifier, version, and content digest, and the result. A verifier relying on a prior run MUST authenticate and integrity-check that record and MUST accept the runner under relying-party-pinned trust policy. A self-authenticated or otherwise untrusted runner is insufficient. If the record is unavailable, invalid, untrusted, or does not cover the pinned profile's complete declared finite domain, the verifier MUST NOT use it for chain composition. A separately performed, decided current per-hop comparison may still be reported LOCAL_ONLY. If the current comparison is unavailable, the verifier MUST report UNDECIDED and refuse registration or admission. This requirement does not require enumeration at admission time.¶

A verifier relying on a prior run MUST compare the establishment record's profile and relation-rule content digests, complete-domain encoding, digest algorithm, digest, and cardinality, and deterministic procedure identifier, version, and content digest with the exact profile, rule, domain, and procedure selected for the current evaluation. A mutable version label without an immutable content binding is not an exact match. A mismatch, or an inability to perform that comparison, makes the record stale for this evaluation. Authenticated integrity proves what the earlier run reported; it does not establish that the earlier result remains applicable after a profile, rule, domain, or procedure revision. A stale record MUST NOT support a chain-wide non-widening claim and contributes no current comparison result. A verifier may report LOCAL_ONLY only after it separately performs the current per-hop comparison; if it cannot do so, it MUST report UNDECIDED.¶

Reliance on an authenticated, matching prior conformance run is deliberately permitted. This document assigns no automatic trust rank to verifier-performed enumeration and relied-on enumeration; the disclosed reliance mode lets the relying party apply its own policy. Implementations SHOULD NOT repeat an otherwise acceptable complete enumeration solely to avoid reporting the relied-on mode.¶

For each mandatory component of a delegation path containing more than one edge, every adjacent comparison used for a chain-wide claim MUST use the same immutable profile definition, relation-rule definition, finite-domain identity where applicable, and transitivity basis. Transitivity established separately for two different relations does not prove that those relations compose. This document defines no cross-relation composition rule. When a path changes any of those relation inputs, its decided adjacent results remain LOCAL_ONLY across that boundary; an unavailable current comparison remains UNDECIDED.¶

A LOCAL_ONLY report may be retained as diagnostic evidence, but it MUST NOT establish descendant authority across a path of more than one delegation edge. Registration or admission of that descendant MUST refuse when a required current comparison is BROADER or UNDECIDED, or when chain composition cannot be established. Failure to establish composition does not turn a decided local result into UNDECIDED; the report retains its LOCAL_ONLY composition limit and the descendant request is refused. A single delegation edge requires a current NO_BROADER comparison but does not require transitive induction. Neither result replaces the other authorization and state checks required by this document.¶

Scope comparison is evaluated per component and relative to the verifier that produced it. A comparison report MUST record each component, the deciding verifier, the required immutable profile identity, the values compared, and the local result. The report MUST also record the pinned rule, relation reflexivity, transitivity classification and basis, and any mechanical-establishment record and reliance mode, or explicitly identify unavailable or undefined profile-derived information instead of fabricating it. For PROFILE_NOT_HELD, profile-derived information that the verifier cannot establish MUST be identified as unavailable. For NO_COMPARISON_RELATION, the applicable component relation MUST be identified as not defined under the governing profile; its reflexivity or transitivity MUST NOT be invented.¶

A decided attenuation result MUST record whether its composition status is LOCAL_ONLY or chain-composable. An UNDECIDED report MUST NOT assert either composition status and MUST record its reason, including the distinction between NO_COMPARISON_RELATION under the governing profile and PROFILE_NOT_HELD by the deciding verifier. Mandatory-profile components MUST be reported rather than assumed. A structural chain result and a scope comparison result MUST NOT be combined into an overall validity claim unless both reports, including their decidability and composition limits, travel with the claim.¶

Profiles that intentionally use a non-reflexive relation MUST state that an unchanged scope will be refused. Profiles that cannot decide either action membership or attenuation MUST return UNDECIDED.¶

8. Holder Proof and Threshold Custody

The mandatory-to-implement holder method is sha-256-preimage. The holder presents exactly 32 bytes over a confidential, integrity-protected channel, and the enforcement point compares SHA-256(preimage) with the signed commitment using a constant-time comparison. The preimage MUST NOT be logged, stored with the receipt, or included in portable evidence.¶

This method is intentionally a bearer-equivalent interoperability baseline. Any party that learns the preimage can exercise the remaining capability subject to its scope, budget, status, and validity. A deployment whose threat model requires non-exportable holder custody or per-operation proof of possession SHOULD select an operation-bound signature method, such as the method below, or an application profile defining a hardware-bound holder method. Those stronger properties MUST NOT be inferred from the preimage method.¶

This version additionally defines ed25519-operation-proof. For that method, holder.commitment is the lowercase sha256:<64-hex> digest of the 32-byte Ed25519 public key. The exercise proof carries that raw public key and a 64-byte Ed25519 signature, each encoded as unpadded base64url [RFC4648]. The verifier MUST decode both values strictly, compare the public key digest with the signed holder commitment, and verify the signature over the UTF-8 JCS serialization of this closed object:¶

{
  "@version": "EP-BOUNDED-CAPABILITY-HOLDER-PROOF-v1",
  "capability_receipt_digest": "sha256:<64-hex>",
  "operation_id": "<operation identifier>",
  "exercise_action_digest": "sha256:<64-hex>",
  "amount": 1,
  "unit": "<signed budget unit>",
  "scale": 0,
  "audience": "<relying-party-pinned executor audience>",
  "state_domain_digest": "sha256:<64-hex>"
}

Every value in that object MUST be taken from the independently verified receipt, immutable exercise snapshot, and relying-party configuration used by the reservation. Presenter-supplied replacements MUST NOT be accepted. Replaying the same signed request is refused by the capability-scoped operation key; changing the operation ID, action, amount, unit, scale, audience, or state domain requires a new signature. This proof establishes control of the committed key for that reservation request. It does not establish a human gesture, comprehension, or approval ceremony.¶

For ed25519-operation-proof, the portable threshold value MUST be m=1, n=1. Threshold or hardware custody behind the committed Ed25519 public key is an implementation property and does not become a portable multi-party or human-approval claim.¶

The preimage may be divided using a threshold secret-sharing scheme before presentation. Share format, participant authentication, confidentiality, recovery, and distribution are outside this document. Reconstructing m shares proves control of the holder secret; it does not prove that m distinct humans reviewed or approved the action. Human multi-party approval requires a protocol such as [EP-QUORUM].¶

9. Registration

After receipt verification and one-time consumption of the issuance authorization, the issuer registers the capability in the authoritative store. Registration MUST atomically create immutable fields for capability ID, receipt digest, unit, scale, total budget, scope digest, validity interval, revocation mode, and parent. It MUST initialize consumed and reserved to zero.¶

A second registration of the same capability ID MUST succeed only when every immutable field and receipt digest is identical. Any mismatch is a collision and MUST refuse.¶

Consumption of the issuance authorization and registration of its exact capability receipt MUST form one idempotent logical operation bound to the capability receipt digest. If both transitions cannot share one atomic state transaction, the issuance-authorization consumption record MUST identify the registration operation and exact capability receipt digest, and both domains MUST retain enough state to query and reconcile an ambiguous result. A crash after consumption MUST NOT permit the authorization to issue a different capability or to be silently restored.¶

A deployment using separate domains for those two transitions MUST identify a concrete reconciliation profile that defines its durable states, authenticated queries, exact-digest join, retry behavior, and terminal ambiguous result. In the absence of such a profile, consumption and registration MUST occur in one authoritative atomic state transaction.¶

Retry of that registration may return the existing identical capability only after verifying the same issuance-consumption record. An absent or conflicting record MUST refuse or return INDETERMINATE; it MUST NOT create a second root capability from uncertain issuance state.¶

Mutable counters in a presented receipt are not authoritative. Remaining budget is computed only from the shared store:¶

remaining = total - consumed - reserved

The authoritative state MUST maintain the invariant reserved + consumed <= total for every capability. For a parent capability, each registered child allocation MUST be covered by one or more distinct terminal delegated operation committed against that parent before child registration. The aggregate amount of registered direct children MUST NOT exceed the amount committed by those distinct parent delegation operations, and each operation identifier MUST NOT fund more than one child receipt digest.¶

10. Reserve, Admit, and Reconcile

11. Executor and State-Domain Binding

The state domain is a relying-party trust input. A portable capability receipt need not embed a globally meaningful domain identifier, but the registration and operation records SHOULD identify the domain and executor participant used for each admission so that a relying party can detect an unsupported state fork.¶

When multiple executors are authorized to present one capability, the store MUST serialize their reservations and commitments in one domain. Merely replicating a signed receipt, copying a remaining counter, or exchanging eventual spending logs does not satisfy this requirement. A deployment that uses independent stores may still use signed receipts, but it MUST NOT describe the resulting behavior as one aggregate budget.¶

A scope that names one executor is a valid narrower deployment choice. The applicable scope profile MUST define how that executor participant is identified and compared at admission. This removes the cross-executor guarantee requirement; it does not turn a local record into a global budget or provide offline double-spend prevention.¶

12. Narrowing Delegation

A child capability MUST NOT outlive its parent, exceed the authenticated amount delegated from the parent, change unit or scale, or broaden the parent's scope. Its delegation chain MUST be bounded by deployment policy and MUST include the parent receipt digest.¶

Before registering a child, the verifier MUST validate complete digest-linked ancestry to a trusted root within the configured depth bound, or enforce equivalent authenticated parent-edge constraints in one authoritative store. The verified lineage MUST form a simple path. The verifier MUST reject a repeated capability identifier or receipt digest, a missing or inconsistent parent, a substituted or reordered edge, or a chain whose trusted root cannot be established. A cycle, truncated lineage, or over-depth chain MUST fail closed. Per-receipt identifier uniqueness or a self-declared list of ancestors does not establish graph-wide acyclicity. An implementation MUST NOT infer acyclicity merely because its ordinary issuance path constructs children from known parents; verification applies the same check to imported and reconstructed chains.¶

Creating a child is itself a parent-funded operation. Before registering the child, the issuer MUST reserve the delegated amount from the parent and MUST commit that exact reservation once with outcome delegated. The authenticated terminal operation record MUST bind the exact child receipt digest, delegated amount, unit, scale, scope, validity interval, and revocation mode before the child is registered; otherwise a valid parent spend could be paired with a different child. A shared store SHOULD perform parent commitment and child registration atomically. If that is impossible and child registration fails after the parent is committed, the parent budget remains consumed and the orphaned delegation MUST be retained for reconciliation. The system MUST NOT silently refund it.¶

13. Evidence and Decision Vocabulary

A capability receipt can be VERIFIED. A scope verifier can return the profile-local result IN_SCOPE, OUT_OF_SCOPE, or UNDECIDED. This containment result is not the architecture's MATCH state, which is reserved for correlation of exact material actions. A relying-party evidence requirement can be SATISFIED. Successful local policy and an atomic reservation together can establish AUTHORIZED for one exercise. Separately authenticated effect evidence can establish EXECUTED. No earlier state implies a later one.¶

UNDECIDED describes an unavailable scope-comparison decision. It does not replace runtime execution INDETERMINATE or the indeterminate operation outcome after possible provider entry. That outcome retains the accounting and reconciliation rules in Section 10. Neither label is an authorization.¶

Portable evidence for a capability-funded operation SHOULD include the capability receipt digest, issuance authorization digest, scope profile and digest, operation ID, the exact exercise action digest and CAID where used, amount, unit, scale, reservation timestamp, terminal outcome, and any authenticated effect statement. The integrity-protected operation record MUST bind the exercise action and the capability receipt digest. Holder secrets and reservation tokens MUST NOT be included.¶

An Authorization Evidence Chain may carry that operation record as a native component whose verifier recursively verifies the capability receipt, issuance authorization, scope result, and operation-record integrity. The static grant is not a same-action component for every later exercise. Evidence satisfaction does not query or reserve current budget; that state transition remains at the enforcement point.¶

14. Failure Codes

Implementations SHOULD expose stable, non-authorizing failure codes including:¶

• capability_untrusted_issuer¶
• capability_authorization_mismatch¶
• capability_scope_mismatch¶
• capability_scope_indeterminate¶
• capability_holder_proof_invalid¶
• capability_not_active¶
• capability_expired¶
• capability_revoked¶
• capability_revocation_mode_invalid¶
• capability_ancestor_revoked¶
• capability_ancestor_status_unavailable¶
• capability_budget_exceeded¶
• capability_delegation_lineage_invalid¶
• capability_delegation_not_narrowed¶
• capability_operation_replay¶
• capability_reservation_owner_mismatch¶
• capability_reservation_expired¶
• capability_commit_indeterminate¶

A failure code is diagnostic output, not an authorization artifact. Responses SHOULD avoid revealing secret, budget, or scope details to an unauthenticated caller.¶

15. Conformance

A conforming implementation MUST pass positive and adversarial vectors for receipt canonicalization and signature, authorization-digest substitution, untrusted issuer, unknown scope profile, action mismatch, holder-proof failure, duplicate registration, concurrent overspend, operation replay, wrong reservation token, double commit, expiry, a cycle spread across separately signed receipts, repeated ancestors, leaf-as-ancestor, missing or truncated lineage, reordered or substituted parent links, parent-receipt and delegation-operation substitution, a single-hop child exceeding the authenticated delegated amount, unit or scale changes, scope or validity widening at every hop, over-depth chains, parent over-allocation, crash recovery, and indeterminate-effect charging.¶

The conformance set MUST exercise revocation inheritance over a root, child, and grandchild. It MUST show that direct-mode revocation leaves previously registered descendant authority independently usable, while cascade-mode revocation refuses every later descendant reservation and child allocation. It MUST reject a missing or unknown revocation_mode, refuse when required ancestor state is unavailable, and cover a race between ancestor revocation and descendant reservation in which exactly one transition commits first. A reservation that commits first remains owned pending the separate provider-entry decision; a revocation that commits first prevents the reservation.¶

The conformance set MUST also serialize applicable revocation against a delegated funding commitment after reservation. Revocation first refuses the new allocation; commitment first preserves the parent debit and applies the signed revocation mode to subsequent child use. Neither registration retries nor revoked child use restore or duplicate the parent allocation.¶

The conformance set MUST also include multiple executor participants sharing one domain, an independent-store state fork, and a scope restricted to one executor; only the shared-domain case may claim one aggregate budget.¶

The scope-profile conformance set MUST show exact CAID equality and non-strict subset attenuation, including unchanged parent and child sets. For a profile whose relation is mechanically checkable, it MUST enumerate the complete declared finite domain and test reflexivity and transitivity. It MUST also include a relation that passes every adjacent hop but fails transitivity, and demonstrate that the verifier labels those hop results local-only and refuses to claim chain-wide non-widening. An asserted-transitive profile MUST NOT be reported as demonstrably transitive. The set MUST cover both a verifier-performed enumeration and reliance on an authenticated prior conformance run, and MUST refuse chain-wide promotion when that prior record is unavailable, invalid, or does not cover the complete declared finite domain.¶

The conformance set MUST include an authenticated prior record that differs from the current evaluation in the profile or rule content digest, complete-domain encoding, digest algorithm, digest or cardinality, or deterministic procedure identifier, version or content digest, and demonstrate that every such mismatch prevents chain-wide promotion. It MUST show that a stale record contributes no current local result, while a separately executed current comparison can still be reported local-only. It MUST also demonstrate that a matching prior record can support chain composition without repeating the enumeration, subject to relying-party policy.¶

The conformance set MUST reject an establishment record from an authenticated but untrusted runner, a record using the same mutable version label over different profile or rule content, a chain value outside the mechanically enumerated domain, and a multi-hop chain whose adjacent comparisons use different relations that are each independently transitive. It MUST demonstrate that a local-only multi-hop result cannot establish descendant authority.¶

The scope-profile conformance set MUST exercise the three cases in Section 7.1. It MUST distinguish a held profile without an applicable component relation (NO_COMPARISON_RELATION) from a missing exact profile definition (PROFILE_NOT_HELD), preserving UNDECIDED and refusal in both cases. It MUST show that profile retrieval alone does not authorize execution, and that an accepted exact definition can yield a new evaluation without treating the original report as a decided result.¶

The conformance set MUST demonstrate a decided NO_BROADER hop with LOCAL_ONLY composition status, refusal of a multi-edge descendant claim that lacks composition, and refusal to substitute LOCAL_ONLY for an unavailable current comparison. It MUST retain each mandatory component's result when a BROADER component determines a composite result beside another component's UNDECIDED. Membership OUT_OF_SCOPE and attenuation BROADER MUST NOT be conflated with UNDECIDED. A scope-comparison failure MUST NOT relabel a recorded execution outcome or restore budget consumed at provider entry.¶

The conformance set MUST cover a crash between issuance-authorization consumption and root-capability registration, an exact retry that resolves to the existing capability, and a conflicting retry that refuses. It MUST also show that authenticated proof of provider non-entry restores reserved budget while retaining a terminal replay tombstone, and that the same raw operation ID under a different capability is not by itself a replay. Reservation-lifetime cases MUST show refusal of provider entry at the deadline, recovery of an abandoned pre-entry reservation after the deadline, and successful terminal accounting after capability expiry for an operation whose provider entry was recorded beforehand. A split-domain root registration case MUST identify and exercise its concrete reconciliation profile; without one, the case MUST refuse the split deployment.¶

When the admission-control epoch profile is supported, the conformance set MUST exercise freeze-before-reservation, reservation-before-freeze with provider-entry refusal, provider-entry-before-freeze, epoch advance on restoration, wrong-holder refusal without release, and reconciliation of an operation admitted before freeze. It MUST demonstrate that provider entry moves one amount from reserved to consumed exactly once, outcome commit does not debit it again, and authenticated non-entry releases the held amount exactly once. An idempotency case MUST refuse a retry whose operation identifier matches but whose action or authority instance differs. It MUST also demonstrate that an exact retry returns the original result without a second budget consumption after the named authority has been consumed, while a new request requires current valid authority.¶

The conformance set MUST reject a holder preimage of the wrong length or digest, and MUST demonstrate that a captured valid preimage does not bypass scope, budget, status, validity, operation replay, or provider-entry-deadline checks. It MUST also reject an amount-and-scale combination outside the operating range declared by the selected profile. For ed25519-operation-proof, it MUST include a valid proof and mutations of the public key, capability digest, operation ID, action digest, amount, unit, scale, audience, and state-domain digest; every mutation MUST refuse. It MUST also refuse a portable threshold other than m=1, n=1 for that method.¶

The parent-over-allocation case MUST include at least three sibling child-creation attempts whose individually valid amounts collectively exceed the parent's available balance, with concurrent reservation ordering chosen by the implementation. At most a balance-preserving subset may commit. The case MUST also cover one operation identifier presented for two different child receipt digests and an orphaned child-registration failure after parent commitment. The former refuses as operation replay; the latter leaves the committed parent amount consumed pending reconciliation.¶

A wire-format implementation that does not implement one shared atomic store is a receipt verifier, not a conforming spend-control implementation. A store implementation that accepts a capability without pinned issuer verification, issuance authorization, and scope matching is not conforming.¶

16. Relationship to Other Work

Rich Authorization Requests [RFC9396] carries fine-grained authorization details but deliberately leaves comparison semantics for arbitrary detail types to their specifications. This document defines an executor-side durable spend state machine and requires a named closed scope profile.¶

OAuth Transaction Tokens [TXN-TOKENS] propagate transaction-specific authorization context through a call chain. Bounded Capability Receipts instead address an aggregate budget shared across multiple operations and the reserve/commit boundary at the executor. A deployment can use both.¶

The Delegation Receipt Protocol for AI Agent Authorization [DRP] records delegation and narrowing. This document requires narrowing for child capabilities and additionally accounts delegated budget as a terminal parent spend.¶

Attenuating Authorization Tokens for Agentic Delegation Chains [ATTENUATING] describes constrained, attenuable agent tokens. This document's distinct contribution is not the existence of constrained tokens; it is the composition of a signed grant with shared reservation ownership, committed budget accounting, and conservative treatment of indeterminate external effects.¶

The Agent Identity Protocol [AIP] defines per-token budget ceilings and explicitly assigns cumulative spending enforcement to the orchestration runtime. A bounded capability budget is instead a balance-valued authority in one authoritative store: reservation and consumption reduce the amount available to every sibling allocation in that domain.¶

PEDIGREE [PEDIGREE] defines cryptographic delegation, mandate narrowing, and an operator-controlled ceiling. This document preserves that identity and policy role and addresses the adjacent runtime question of how one parent balance funds multiple children without multiplying aggregate authority.¶

The Credential Broker for Agents [CB4A] defines proxy and short-lived-token delivery patterns that keep long-lived provider credentials away from agents. A deployment can use such a broker as the credential-owning effect adapter after this protocol grants one valid reservation; this document does not duplicate credential brokering.¶

Condition-Bounded Credentials [CBC] binds workload-key use to live, verifier-appraised conditions. That property composes with holder proof and provider entry, especially for stable attestable workloads. It does not replace aggregate balance accounting, and this document does not extend its hardware assumptions to hardware-less or cross-domain swarms.¶

The affine Token Budgets work [TOKEN-BUDGETS] studies LLM cost overruns and uses Rust ownership to prevent cloning and use-after-delegation in one process. It is adjacent prior art. This document instead binds human- or policy-authorized consequential authority, exact exercise actions, durable provider-entry reservations, and conservative post-entry uncertainty across a transactional runtime. It does not claim that balance-valued budgets or affine ownership were invented here.¶

The Attested Payment Authorization for Autonomous Agents [HAWKINS] binds an attested payment key and endorsed software identity to a payment authorization scope and requires verification before settlement. It is adjacent and complementary work: this document does not define hardware attestation or transparency registration, while that document does not specify the authoritative shared-state, reserve-and-commit, parent-funded delegation, and post-entry uncertainty machinery defined here. A deployment can compose the two by binding their decisions to the same exact exercise-action digest without making either verifier consume the other's evidence as a trust anchor.¶

17. Security Considerations

Identifier substitution. Capability signatures bind the full issuance authorization digest, not only an identifier. Scope, budget units, parent, holder commitment, and validity are all inside the issuer signature.¶

State forks. Two stores accepting the same capability lineage can each spend or delegate its full budget. Global offline or cross-domain double-spend prevention is therefore not provided. Deployments that cannot name one authoritative atomic state domain for a capability and every authority-bearing ancestor and descendant MUST NOT claim aggregate sibling conservation or an enforced aggregate budget.¶

Executor federation. A multi-rail or multi-process deployment does not, by itself, establish a shared budget. Every executor that can admit an exercise must be bound to the same state domain, or the scope must be restricted to one executor and the claim must be stated as per-executor. Eventual reconciliation after independent admissions cannot retroactively prevent overspend.¶

Crash ambiguity. Restoring budget after a timeout can authorize duplicate external effects. Once the effect boundary may have been crossed, uncertainty is charged as indeterminate.¶

Reservation lifetime and expiry. An unbounded pre-entry reservation permits durable capacity denial and creates ambiguous expiry behavior. The provider-entry deadline bounds that state. Expiry prevents new provider entry but does not erase or reopen an attempt that entered before expiry; that attempt remains terminally accounted. A store that cannot serialize deadline recovery against provider entry MUST NOT restore the budget.¶

Freeze and provider-entry races. A freeze result is meaningful only when domain status, admission epoch, capability state, applicable allowance state, and operation state are serialized in the same authoritative transaction domain. A freshness-bounded callback or asynchronously replicated status cannot support an immediate-freeze claim. The implementation MUST NOT release a reservation on a wrong-holder request or relabel an operation after provider entry. An unavailable domain row or conflicting state fails closed and retains the reservation for authenticated recovery.¶

Freeze idempotency. Returning a cached transition result before authenticating the request turns the idempotency key into a disclosure token. Exact retries must match the same authority instance and exact control action. A different principal, a different capability held by the same principal, or a different action under the same operation identifier is not an idempotent retry.¶

External predicate freshness. Reservation protects the bounded budget; it does not make mutable world facts current. If an action depends on a record, counterparty status, market condition, or other external predicate that can change after scope evaluation, the deployment MUST require freshness-bound live evidence or re-evaluate that predicate in boundary policy before provider entry. A short reserve-to-effect interval reduces exposure but is not a correctness mechanism. If the re-evaluation refuses before provider entry, budget may be restored only through the authenticated not_entered transition in Section 10.4.¶

Operation-key scope. Operation IDs are unique under one capability receipt rather than globally attacker-reserved across the state domain. The store MUST bind the capability receipt digest and operation ID as one operation key. Preventing the same material action from being admitted under two independently valid capabilities is a separate relying-party policy and action-fencing concern. Replay refusal in this document means refusal of an already-seen operation key. It does not prohibit two otherwise authorized operations with different operation IDs from carrying the same action digest. A deployment requiring one occurrence per material action MUST add a durable action fence or bind a unique occurrence identifier into the material action.¶

Bearer and share theft. A raw holder secret or enough unauthenticated shares can authorize possession and every remaining in-scope operation. Confidential transport does not protect against an enforcement point, endpoint, or log that leaks the reusable preimage. Secret shares require confidential distribution, authenticated participants, compromise response, and rate limiting. Deployments that require non-exportable custody need a separately defined signature- or hardware-bound holder profile. The built-in ed25519-operation-proof prevents a reusable bearer secret from crossing the boundary, but protection of the signing key and resistance to signing-oracle abuse remain deployment responsibilities. Threshold custody is not human quorum.¶

Revocation. Expiry and exhausted budget are not revocation. A deployment that requires early invalidation MUST consult a separately authenticated revocation or status source before reservation and at provider entry and define its freshness policy. Revocation inheritance is not inferred from lineage alone: the signed mode determines whether already transferred descendant authority survives. An immediate cascade claim requires the ancestor revocation transition, descendant reservation, and provider entry to be serialized in the same authoritative atomic state domain. Notification or eventual cache refresh cannot supply that guarantee. Full-lineage locking can make a high-fan-out ancestor a contention and denial-of-service hot spot; deployments MUST bound lineage depth, admission work, and lock acquisition time without weakening the fail-closed result.¶

Units and arithmetic. All accounting uses integers with signed unit and scale. Floating-point arithmetic, implicit currency conversion, and caller-selected rounding MUST NOT occur in the authoritative budget path. The safe-integer ceiling and decimal scale jointly limit range; a high scale does not provide both arbitrary precision and arbitrary major-unit magnitude.¶

Database authority. The capability tables contain authorization state. Deployments MUST restrict writes to the enforcement service, use least-privilege credentials, protect backups, and audit administrative changes.¶

Delegation lineage. Local uniqueness checks over one presented receipt do not establish graph-wide acyclicity or complete ancestry. Separately presented receipts can omit links, substitute a parent operation, or form a cycle unless each parent edge is authenticated and resolved by digest, or an authoritative store enforces equivalent edge constraints. Implementations MUST fail closed on incomplete, cyclic, substituted, or non-narrowing lineage. Verifiers apply the complete traversal and refusal rules in Section 12 to imported chains and chains reconstructed from storage.¶

Comparison-proof substitution and exhaustion. A signed conformance record from an untrusted runner does not establish a relation property. Profiles that permit mechanical establishment MUST bound domain cardinality and procedure work, define one canonical domain encoding, and reject values outside the established domain for chain-composition purposes. Implementations MUST apply bounded parsing before processing a presented record and MUST NOT perform attacker-sized enumeration on the admission path.¶

Semantic limits. A valid capability does not prove that an action is safe, lawful, beneficial, or correctly executed. Local policy and domain controls remain necessary.¶

Evidence limits. Absence of a receipt proves only that no matching receipt was found in the examined evidence domain. It does not prove that no authorization existed. A committed operational event is not independently verifiable cryptographic evidence unless a separately specified signed artifact covers that event and the relying party verifies it under pinned trust policy.¶

Cryptographic scope. This version uses SHA-256 and Ed25519. It does not provide a post-quantum signature profile or a zero-knowledge receipt. Algorithm agility and long-term preservation are separate concerns.¶

18. Privacy Considerations

Capability receipts and operation records can reveal spending limits, organizational roles, intended action classes, counterparties, and timing. Profiles SHOULD minimize identifiers, separate portable evidence from operational secrets, and define retention and access controls. Hashing a low-entropy scope or identifier does not make it confidential.¶

19. Implementation Status

The Apache-2.0 TypeScript reference implementation includes a signed pre-standard capability envelope, holder-secret commitment, optional threshold secret reconstruction, and a durable PostgreSQL reservation and commitment store. Its issuer-controlled delegation API, when used with one shared capability store, reserves and commits a child amount from the immediate parent before registering the child. Both the in-memory and PostgreSQL stores record a provider-entry deadline bounded by capability expiry, refuse late provider entry, retain an explicit provider-entry marker, and recover a timed-out pre-entry reservation as not_entered without deleting its operation record. The store has adversarial tests for overspend, replay, ownership fencing, expiry, terminal commitment, concurrent N-sibling aggregate over-allocation, one operation identifier paired with different child digests, orphaned registration after parent commitment, and an explicit two-store state-fork counterexample. These are same-team implementation and regression results, not independent implementation or production deployment evidence.¶

The reference stores move an operation amount from reserved_amount to consumed_amount in the same transaction that records provider entry, and later outcome commit does not debit the budget again. The in-memory and PostgreSQL reference stores implement the -05 admission-control domain status and monotonic epoch on explicitly covered operations. Reservation captures the current epoch; provider entry locks and rechecks the same domain before changing held budget to consumed budget; freeze and restore each advance the epoch; and a pre-freeze reservation that has not entered is released as not_entered only under its reservation-owner check. Same-team hostile tests exercise both serializations of freeze versus provider entry against an ephemeral live PostgreSQL 17 instance, wrong-holder release refusal, restore non-revival, idempotent authenticated freeze retry, and the no-second-debit rule. This is local implementation experience, not independent interoperability or production evidence. There is no disconnected-edge lease implementation and no signed freeze-event artifact. Control transitions use a trusted verifier callback; the reference store does not yet atomically consume a portable detector capability in the same transaction.¶

The prototype wire format predates this document and does not yet implement all mandatory fields in this version, including full issuance authorization digest binding, an explicit action-scope profile, and explicit budget unit scale, digest-linked parent lineage, authenticated parent-delegation binding, not_before, and complete ingest-time cycle validation. It is therefore implementation experience, not a claim of conformance. There is no independent implementation, interoperability event, production transaction history, post-quantum profile, or zero-knowledge implementation. The executor-domain participant binding and per-action human-authorization composition added in -02 are protocol requirements and composition rules. The reference execution path now implements those two integrations: an aggregate budget claim requires an exact match to a relying-party-pinned atomic state-domain digest; a mismatch may fall back only to an explicitly pinned single executor; and a required per-action human authorization must pass a native verifier under relying-party pins and bind the exact exercise-action digest. Calls without an executor-domain binding are labeled local_store_only and do not claim aggregate enforcement. A configured state-domain digest is a deployment trust binding; the code cannot by itself prove that two processes connect to the same physical database.¶

The reference implementation now signs and requires revocation_mode, records each capability's immediate parent, and implements direct and cascade revocation in both the in-memory test store and PostgreSQL store. A descendant reservation resolves the complete registered ancestor lineage. The PostgreSQL path locks those state rows in the reservation transaction, so an ancestor revocation that commits first refuses the reservation, while a reservation that commits first remains owned and reconcilable. Missing, malformed, or migration-incomplete ancestor state refuses at reservation. The tracked migration quarantines legacy rows without an explicit mode rather than inferring direct or cascade. Regression cases cover the signed closed field, direct descendant survival, cascade refusal, unavailable ancestor state, child allocation after revocation, and both orderings of the revocation race. This is same-team implementation evidence inside one authoritative atomic state domain; it is not independent interoperability, revocation distribution, or cross-domain cascade enforcement.¶

Entry-time direct and inherited revocation revalidation is not yet implemented in these reference stores. They recheck the admission-control epoch, applicable allowance state, ownership, and deadline at provider entry, but currently resolve direct and ancestor revocation at reservation. Those results do not establish the entry-time revocation rule or its new ordering cases in Section 15, Paragraph 3. The implementation and bounded revocation model therefore provide partial experience, not conformance to that part of this revision. The delegated-commit revocation recheck is also a protocol requirement, not an implementation claim for the existing reservation-time revocation path.¶

The -04 scope-profile contract and comparison-reporting rules are not yet implemented. In particular, the reference implementation does not yet emit per-component decidability records, relation reflexivity, transitivity classification or basis, mechanical-establishment provenance, or the local-only versus chain-composable result. No implementation or conformance claim is made for those additions. The -04 atomic root-issuance registration rule is also not implemented as a conforming protocol operation because the prototype does not yet bind and consume the full issuance authorization described here. The capability-scoped operation key and terminal budget-restoring not_entered behavior are implemented in the reference stores, but that implementation evidence does not close the other -04 gaps. The ed25519-operation-proof holder method is not yet implemented by the reference capability API; no implementation claim is made for it.¶

The -06 comparison vocabulary, named UNDECIDED reasons, LOCAL_ONLY distinction, and associated comparison-report conformance cases remain UNIMPLEMENTED. The illustrative examples are protocol requirements and editorial examples, not executable verifier, conformance, or interoperability results.¶

The reference implementation does reject repeated delegation identifiers, repeated parent capability identifiers, a leaf named as its own parent, and increasing amounts within the delegation chain presented at mint or verification time. Those checks provide local simple-path and monotonic amount enforcement. They do not discover omitted parents or establish the digest-linked, graph-wide lineage required by Section 12, so they do not close the remaining conformance gap.¶

The public repository contains two CI-gated bounded TLA+ models relevant here. The capability-accounting model covers registration, reservation, commitment, delegation, replay refusal, parent-funded child registration, and aggregate sibling conservation. A separate -03 revocation-inheritance model covers every direct/cascade assignment over a root, child, and grandchild; complete ancestor-state availability; future child allocation; and both serialized orderings of revocation and reservation. Exact state and obligation counts are emitted by governed proof-status artifacts. These are bounded results about the models, not refinement proofs of the TypeScript, SQL, transaction adapter, cryptography, lineage verification, or complete protocol defined here. Arbitrary implementation inputs still require the runtime traversal and refusal rules in Section 12.¶

The main branch also runs a fixed-seed adversarial harness in per-push CI over the actual JavaScript in-memory capability and consumption stores. It includes a true-concurrency Promise.all race target and a deliberately non-atomic comparison store that demonstrates the race detector can expose over-commitment. Additional targets exercise accounting and ownership invariants at whole-method boundaries. This is regression evidence for those in-process stores, not complete protocol conformance: it does not fuzz the PostgreSQL capability transaction path, the atomic handshake RPC, replica or connection failures, and no deeper nightly sweep is scheduled.¶

20. Changes Since -05

• Used UNDECIDED for undecided action membership and attenuation without changing runtime execution INDETERMINATE or indeterminate-effect accounting.¶
• Named NO_COMPARISON_RELATION under the exact governing profile separately from PROFILE_NOT_HELD by the deciding verifier, without asserting global impossibility.¶
• Allowed exact-profile retrieval or trusted re-evaluation to remedy a missing definition without granting automatic trust or execution.¶
• Separated LOCAL_ONLY composition status from a decided current-hop result and retained refusal when the current comparison or required chain composition is unavailable.¶
• Preserved definition-derived and complete finite-domain mechanical-establishment requirements, prior-run trust and freshness checks, and the prohibition on unsupported cross-relation induction.¶
• Added three illustrative cases and corresponding conformance requirements while retaining the explicit unimplemented comparison-report limitation.¶

21. Changes Since -04

• Moved the reserved-to-consumed budget transition to the atomic provider-entry boundary for external effects and prohibited a second debit at outcome commit.¶
• Required current capability and applicable allowance state to be rechecked in the provider-entry transaction.¶
• Made provider entry the cutoff for direct and inherited cascade revocation, preserved direct-mode descendant independence, and added explicit ordering cases and the remaining implementation limitation.¶
• Defined an optional admission-control domain and monotonic epoch captured at reservation and rechecked at provider entry.¶
• Defined serialized freeze, restoration, wrong-holder, non-entry, and pre-freeze reconciliation behavior without claiming that computation or already-entered effects are stopped.¶
• Bound idempotent freeze retries to the exact action and authority instance and made the operation identifier non-authoritative by itself.¶
• Specified the honest disconnected-edge stale-admission window and added explicit receipt-absence and unsigned-event claim limits.¶

22. Acknowledgments

The author thanks Sumit P. Ahuja for the scope-comparison analysis that led to the transitivity-basis, mechanical-establishment provenance, and chain-composition requirements in Section 7.¶

23. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions. A future revision may request a media type and registries for receipt versions, scope profiles, holder methods, and failure codes after implementation experience stabilizes the protocol.¶

Author's Address