Skip to content

Don’t trust us. Verify.

Receipts for AI work.

Regulated buyers do not want promises — they need evaluation criteria their security, legal, or compliance team can inspect. A Controlled Evaluation can test whether useful run context records what was used, what ran, what was said, and what limits applied without sending approved source documents outside the agreed boundary.

What a review packet looks like

An evaluated run may produce a compact record of which sources were involved, what controls applied, and what the system produced. The evaluation checks whether that context is useful and whether its handling fits the agreed information boundary.

Example receipt fields include schema, focus, policy pack, input and output hashes, model, citations, timestamp, previous receipt, and signature.

{
  "schema":       "adapteros.receipt/v1",
  "focus":        "stk.contracts-review.7f2a",
  "policy_pack":  "legal-review@3",
  "input_hash":   "blake3:9f2c1e…a83b",
  "model":        "pinned:llama-3.1-8b-instruct@sha256:4c1d…e90",
  "adapter":      "sealed:contracts-lora@v7",
  "config":       { "seed": 42, "temperature": 0.0, "sampler": "greedy" },
  "output_hash":  "blake3:c3d47f…1180",
  "proof_tier":   "evidence",
  "citations":    ["doc:MSA-v4#sec-8.2", "doc:addendum#p3"],
  "timestamp":    "2026-05-03T14:30:11Z",
  "prev_receipt": "blake3:71a0…5e2",
  "signature":    "ed25519:5b8e…9c4"
}

Illustrative structure; values are examples. For run anatomy and what changes on the second pass, see adapteros.com/how-it-works. Technical briefing: execution receipts article.

How support can be labeled

Safer than a chatbot that always sounds sure. adapterOS labels answers so reviewers know whether they are looking at a direct quote, supported analysis, combined reasoning, or a limited result.

Direct from source

Pulled straight from the approved material — the safest kind of answer for compliance review.

Source-backed

Supported by cited documents your reviewer can open and check before signing off.

Cross-document

Built from more than one source, with the reasoning path recorded for later review.

Limited support

The system could not fully ground the answer and says so plainly — better than a confident guess.

Your team can check it

You should not have to take our word for it. Security and compliance teams can review the packet, confirm what ran, and confirm the work stayed inside your boundary — without sending documents back to us.

  1. Read the packet. See which sources were used, what policy applied, and what the system produced.
  2. Confirm the sources. Open the cited material and check whether the answer matches what your reviewers expect.
  3. Follow the history. See how one piece of work connects to the next instead of starting from scratch every time.
  4. Test a re-run. Compare repeated work under the agreed conditions and record where the result remains stable or changes.
  5. Watch the boundary. Confirm sensitive work stayed local and did not depend on outside AI services during the workflow.
  6. Assess retention. Decide whether the packet is suitable for the organization’s internal review and retention requirements.

Why this matters for compliance

A receipt does not make an answer true. It shows what the answer depended on.

A Controlled Evaluation can compare repeated work against the same approved sources, setup, and question, then record what stayed stable, what changed, and what remains unexplained.

That evidence helps a security, compliance, or internal reviewer decide whether the candidate workflow merits further work.

What workflow definition leaves you with

The first engagement defines one candidate workflow; it does not run customer documents. The definition packet remains yours whether or not you proceed to a separately agreed controlled evaluation.

Definition packet

The candidate workflow, proposed source boundary, reviewer route, and open questions in one readable record.

Prerequisite register

The identity, authorization, source-readiness, and environment conditions that must be resolved before evaluation.

Acceptance plan

The usefulness, source-support, operating-boundary, and repeatability questions a later evaluation would need to answer.

This page practices what it sells

We hold our own surfaces to the same discipline: this page declares the exact build it was served from, so its provenance is checkable too.

served from build 0.2.1 · commit 245fb2b2b21292ae23bc74f358dabf7ed0c74073

See it on your own documents

Start by defining one candidate workflow, its source boundary, reviewer route, prerequisites, and acceptance questions. A controlled evaluation on customer documents requires a separate agreement.

Discuss workflow definition