Declarative Integrity Framework (DIF) — Extended Evaluation
Correction notice — 2026-07-20
This evaluation is retained as originally written. Its stated field values do not
match the manifest it names. examples/basic-agent.json declares
autonomy.level 2 · risk_profile.level medium · data_handling.stores_personal_data true · audit_surface.logging detailed · audit_surface.reconstructability full, and agent_id example.customer.support.tier1.
The evaluation text below reports a lower-autonomy, low-risk profile that the file does not carry. The record is preserved rather than rewritten; readers should take the manifest itself as authoritative. Re-running the checklist against the current file is recorded as outstanding work.
Target: Minimal Example Agent
Manifest Version: 1.0
Evaluation Type: Declaration Layer Integrity
Status: PASS
Confidence: Medium–High
1. Purpose of This Evaluation
This document provides an extended structural analysis of the Minimal Example Agent Manifest under the Declarative Integrity Framework (DIF).
DIF evaluates:
- Structural completeness
- Internal coherence
- Boundary clarity
- Autonomy–risk alignment
- Stopping authority integrity
- Audit surface adequacy
- Data handling declaration clarity
This evaluation is non-normative and does not modify the specification.
2. Structural Completeness
All required declaration surfaces are present:
- Identity
- Purpose
- Autonomy
- Risk profile
- Forbidden actions
- Stopping authority
- Audit surface
- Data handling
Result: PASS
The manifest demonstrates a complete baseline declaration structure.
3. Autonomy–Risk Alignment
Declared:
- autonomy.level = 1
- risk_profile.level = low
Level 1 autonomy indicates low independent decision capacity.
Low risk posture is consistent with advisory or bounded execution contexts.
Result: PASS
There is no structural contradiction between autonomy and risk.
4. Boundary Adequacy
The manifest includes explicit forbidden actions.
This prevents ambiguity around scope expansion.
However, for broader reuse scenarios, additional constraints could include:
- Explicit prohibition of binding commitments
- Explicit prohibition of destructive actions
Result: PASS (with optional hardening recommendations)
5. Stopping Authority Integrity
Stopping authority is declared with:
- Identified role (owner)
- Mechanism (manual override)
- Execution stages
This establishes pre-declared interruptibility.
Result: PASS
For higher-stakes domains, mechanism detail could be expanded.
6. Audit Surface Evaluation
Declared audit surface: basic / partial
This is acceptable for low-risk domains.
However, reconstruction capacity is limited.
Recommendation:
Clarify what constitutes “basic” logging in audit_surface.notes.
Result: PASS (minimal posture)
7. Data Handling Integrity
Declared:
- stores_personal_data = false
This is clear and unambiguous.
Optional strengthening:
- Explicit retention = “none”
- Explicit log redaction posture
Result: PASS
8. Overall Integrity Assessment
The Minimal Example Agent demonstrates:
- Complete declarative surface
- No internal contradictions
- Proper autonomy–risk coherence
- Declared interruptibility
- Clear non-storage claim
It qualifies as a structurally sound baseline declaration example.
This evaluation confirms declarative integrity,
not runtime safety or behavioral guarantees.
Non-Normative Notice
This document is an evaluation artifact.
It does not alter the Agent Manifest specification.
It does not imply certification.
It represents structured declaration analysis only.