Proof and review outputs

Proof should show how a review finding is supported, not just where a number spikes.

This page brings the public proof material into one place. It is designed to show that FrameAudit rests on wider source-review behaviour, corroborated support channels, provenance records, and delivery-ready bundle outputs rather than a single isolated clip excerpt.

What is shown here

Three layers of proof, presented centrally and readably.

Each block below serves a different evidential purpose: a review window, proof that the wider source review was preserved and tracked, and the bundle materials generated for handoff. The aim is to make the reasoning visible rather than leave visitors with one opaque score or one screenshot.

Review window

00:16:58.5 to 00:17:02.5

Continuity, timing, and compression support align inside the same interval. The point of this display is not to claim a verdict on its own, but to show why that window is elevated for closer human review.

Window: 00:16:58.5 - 00:17:02.5

Status: high-priority review window

Support channels: continuity, timing, compression

Generated materials: clip extract, summary entry, window report

Source basis

Built from the wider source review, not one moment alone.

The workflow is intended to preserve where a finding sits inside the broader review context. That means timestamps, source identity, and supporting intervals can be checked against the original review path instead of being detached from it.

Source fingerprint retained for the reviewed material.
Tool record preserved alongside the output bundle.
Adjacent context windows can be compared against the flagged interval.
Support rests on multiple signals, not a single unexplained score.

Bundle output

Delivery is structured for handoff, archiving, and challenge.

The proof is not only the flagged interval. It also includes the materials that let counsel, investigators, or oversight readers inspect what was generated and how the review package was assembled.

summary.md

summary.docx

findings.json

source_fingerprint.json

checksums.txt

artifacts/

Why this matters

Public proof should show reasoning, provenance, and output structure together.

A review window by itself is too easy to dismiss as a single suspicious moment.
Provenance matters because a flagged interval must remain tied to the original review context.
Bundle structure matters because the recipient needs more than an assertion or screenshot.
Corroborated signals matter because the workflow is strongest when multiple channels support the same concern.

Public note

This page is a proof summary, not the complete exhibit release.

The fuller dated record, additional windows, and supporting material are intended to be expanded in stages. The purpose of this page is to give a central public proof view that explains what the workflow produces and why the reasoning is reviewable.

Open Confidential Review Read the Timeline