Assumption register
Every hypothesis the thesis rests on, carded in the same shape so none of them hides behind prose.
10 assumption cardsFalsifier on every card
Assumption A-01Open
Why believed
Downstream institutions create evidence requirements; the technology company needs to cross those boundaries.
Current evidence
Market research and pricing work.
Missing
Paid production conversion.
Falsifier
Developers adopt but budget owners repeatedly reject paid evidence operation.
Assumption A-02Supported
Open-source distribution increases adoption more than it erodes price.
Why believed
Integration effort, not licence cost, is the adoption barrier.
Current evidence
Precedent in adjacent infrastructure categories.
Missing
A self-hosting adopter that still pays for managed operation.
Falsifier
Adopters self-operate the open core and never convert.
Assumption A-03Demonstrated
Verification stays portable as the corpus grows.
Why believed
The verifier depends only on the bundle, not on hosted state.
Current evidence
Deterministic offline runs against fixtures.
Missing
External reconstruction at production bundle sizes.
Falsifier
Any resolution step requires a call to AgEvidence infrastructure.
Assumption A-04Open
Reuse lowers marginal integration cost.
Why believed
Each integration contributes fixtures, adapters and profiles.
Current evidence
Design intent and internal reuse.
Missing
Two comparable external deployments with recorded hours.
Falsifier
Deployment hours stay flat or rise across customers one to three.
Assumption A-05Open
Downstream buyers create genuine pull.
Why believed
Disclosure, lending and supply-chain commitments convert soft claims into audited ones.
Current evidence
Buyer interviews and regulatory analysis.
Missing
An unsolicited request for the portable artifact.
Falsifier
The company must manufacture all demand itself.
Assumption A-06Open
Programme profiles are scalable software, not consulting output.
Why believed
Profiles are declarative and versioned.
Current evidence
Profile model and first declarative profiles.
Missing
A profile authored without specialist legal input.
Falsifier
Every new jurisdiction requires bespoke regulatory interpretation.
Assumption A-07Open
Independent verification is valued by relying parties.
Why believed
Relying parties currently redo work they cannot check.
Current evidence
Interview evidence.
Missing
An external party running the verifier of their own accord.
Falsifier
Relying parties prefer a trusted brand attestation to an inspectable artifact.
Assumption A-08Proposed
Portfolio leverage shortens time to proof.
Why believed
Aligned context and warm access to heterogeneous systems.
Current evidence
Portfolio mapping.
Missing
A measured comparison with an external integration.
Falsifier
Portfolio integrations take as long as cold ones.
Assumption A-09Proposed
The model ports across jurisdictions.
Why believed
Jurisdiction lives in profiles, not in the core.
Current evidence
Paper 7 architecture.
Missing
A second jurisdiction implemented without core change.
Falsifier
Each country requires new core semantics.
Assumption A-10Open
The eventual market structure rewards a neutral boundary.
Why believed
Multiple destinations, no single dominant application yet.
Current evidence
Market structure analysis.
Missing
Observed preference for neutrality over integration convenience.
Falsifier
Customers prefer the vertically integrated provider because it owns the whole workflow.
An assumption without a falsifier is a preference. There are none of those on this page.
Independent review
Everything in this room
Related views
Independent is the verification index over the other three
What the thesis assumes
The review begins with the smallest version of the company and asks what has to be true for the larger version to follow: that the core can stop changing, that materially different sources reuse it, that one evidence history serves two destinations, that an external party can inspect it without trusting hosted state, that someone pays, and that the next deployment costs less.
Each assumption is treated as open until an observation closes it.
Reading through Overall
The native reading. Claim status, evidence burden, proof gates, falsifiers, contradictions, capital-to-proof, governance, downside, and explicit reasons to stop or narrow the thesis.