Public Access · Fictional receipt
Recipient refusal routes to equivalent human review without retaliation
A revoked association-based restriction cannot be treated as current evidence for one event-access request.
- Recipient
- Fictional Eastgate Civic Venue
- Purpose
- Resolve one event-access request without relying on a revoked restriction
- Expires
- 2026-09-01T15:00:00Z
- Human owner
- Fictional Public Access Standing Recovery Officer
- Replay limit
- 1 use
- Original stigma shown?
- No
What authorizes recovery?
Correction lineage
The portable claim is not a free-standing character certificate. It is anchored to the exact contest, remedy, and independent non-recurrence records that precede it.
R44 · ContestabilityCTR-R44-004
R45 · RemedyRMR-R45-004
R46 · Non-RecurrenceNRV-R46-004
R47 · Narrow presentationSRP-R47-004
What may the recipient rely on?
A correction, not an identity.
Bounded recovery claim
A revoked association-based restriction cannot be treated as current evidence for one event-access request.
Subject reference: pairwise:f21277bf0b34e03f056979aa
What this does not establish
- General character
- Future conduct
- Cross-context eligibility
- A permanent innocence or clearance status
Where is use allowed?
Five bindings prevent a correction from becoming a roaming credential.
RecipientFictional Eastgate Civic Venue
PurposeResolve one event-access request without relying on a revoked restriction
Validity2026-08-30T15:00:00Z
to
2026-09-01T15:00:00Z
to
2026-09-01T15:00:00Z
ReplayOne use. No cross-recipient replay.
RevocationHuman-owned and immediately checkable.
What crosses the boundary?
Selective disclosure
The recipient receives the minimum correction facts necessary for the named decision. The original stigma and unrelated evidence stay out of the presentation.
Disclosed
- The prior restriction is revoked
- The presenter may decline portable proof
- Equivalent human review must remain available
Withheld
- Association graph
- Original investigation notes
- Other venue activity
- Any portable risk or innocence score
Can a person decline?
Refusal cannot become evidence against the person.
Voluntary presentationThe person may decline this presentation and use an equivalent human review path.
Non-retaliationThe recipient may not infer guilt, risk, dishonesty, or ineligibility from non-presentation.
Accountable owner
Fictional standing-recovery ombudsperson · Purpose-bound human review request
How far did recovery travel?
Federated result: Recipient Refused
Coverage is limited to the explicitly named participants and purpose.
May retain: . Must not retain: original_stigma, cross_context_person_identifier, undisclosed_evidence.
May retain: presentation_receipt_hash, purpose_binding, expiry. Must not retain: original_stigma, cross_context_person_identifier, undisclosed_evidence.
Incomplete by design. This outcome is not described as complete federation or universal acceptance.
Can presentations be joined into a dossier?
Anti-linkability checks
Required protections
- Pairwise recipient reference
- No stable cross-context identifier
- No global cleared-person registry
- No cross-recipient replay
- No correlation by receipt hash or ID
Checked surfaces
- Visible fields and URLs
- Hashes, timestamps, and filenames
- Accessibility labels and metadata
- Print output and structured data
- CSS classes and HTML attributes
What remains unresolved?
Limits remain part of the receipt.
- Recipient refusal is recorded, not disguised as acceptance
- No adverse inference may be drawn from non-presentation
- The manual decision remains independently contestable
Can the claim be inspected?
Machine-readable record and integrity
These fictional demonstrations expose their contract, state model, presentation rules, predecessor lineage, and deterministic hashes. Technical material is available without dominating the affected person’s reading path.
Integrity hashes
- Input SHA-256
- 9a1cf0a97a0f410c6568682036068df4c04019c747cb5ba3b6b204cf120cd388
- Output SHA-256
- f86efeb590ef0a3de7ed76ac4c55523d9c5457bc9aa478086dd2db64bd5bd880
- Receipt SHA-256
- 2703eac474e53faa21833515412aa8073aedb5bd95f4781de8859ab1abb68250
Complete fictional receipt
{
"accountability": {
"audit_owner": "Fictional independent portability auditor",
"human_owner": "Fictional Public Access Standing Recovery Officer",
"issuer": "Fictional Antichrist.cx Accountability Laboratory",
"recipient_owner": "Fictional Eastgate Civic Venue human review lead"
},
"anti_linkability": {
"accessibility_labels_contain_subject_identifier": false,
"correlation_by_hash_prohibited": true,
"correlation_by_receipt_id_prohibited": true,
"correlation_by_timestamp_reduced": true,
"css_or_dom_contains_subject_identifier": false,
"global_subject_registry": false,
"pairwise_recipient_reference": true,
"print_output_contains_hidden_subject_identifier": false,
"public_url_contains_subject_identifier": false,
"stable_cross_context_identifier": false,
"structured_data_contains_subject_identifier": false
},
"domain": "public_access",
"federation": {
"coverage_statement": "Coverage is limited to the explicitly named participants and purpose.",
"participants": [
{
"acknowledged_at": null,
"may_retain": [],
"must_not_retain": [
"original_stigma",
"cross_context_person_identifier",
"undisclosed_evidence"
],
"name": "Eastgate credential desk",
"participant_id": "SRP-R47-004-FED-01",
"state": "refused_presentation"
},
{
"acknowledged_at": "2026-08-30T15:00:00Z",
"may_retain": [
"presentation_receipt_hash",
"purpose_binding",
"expiry"
],
"must_not_retain": [
"original_stigma",
"cross_context_person_identifier",
"undisclosed_evidence"
],
"name": "Eastgate human review officer",
"participant_id": "SRP-R47-004-FED-02",
"state": "manual_review_available"
}
],
"status": "recipient_refused",
"unrepresented_as_complete": true
},
"fictional": true,
"fictional_notice": "Synthetic accountable-design demonstration. No real person, institution, allegation, credential, or event is represented.",
"integrity": {
"input_sha256": "9a1cf0a97a0f410c6568682036068df4c04019c747cb5ba3b6b204cf120cd388",
"output_sha256": "f86efeb590ef0a3de7ed76ac4c55523d9c5457bc9aa478086dd2db64bd5bd880",
"receipt_sha256": "2703eac474e53faa21833515412aa8073aedb5bd95f4781de8859ab1abb68250"
},
"limits": [
"Recipient refusal is recorded, not disguised as acceptance",
"No adverse inference may be drawn from non-presentation",
"The manual decision remains independently contestable"
],
"lineage": {
"contestability": {
"receipt_id": "CTR-R44-004",
"receipt_sha256": "733ff147dfc4ac1c92a33acf70cf55c641a855f39bbe4ddf4774adf1f3a712f9"
},
"lineage_complete": true,
"non_recurrence": {
"receipt_id": "NRV-R46-004",
"receipt_sha256": "618b94af2a7eaa65165431becbec554ff7b94d26f72cd98b192cd203d8af1df5"
},
"remedy": {
"receipt_id": "RMR-R45-004",
"receipt_sha256": "bcb7f377aa2d991aab7bf93a49caaf2d57272e3443f7dbda2af8b5391f05724d"
}
},
"presentation": {
"audience_binding_sha256": "a9559becbbfa03ebfe20cd5e84b5f77d1b59101301a1ee1587d3768f13d4b4de",
"cross_recipient_replay_permitted": false,
"expires_at": "2026-09-01T15:00:00Z",
"issued_at": "2026-08-30T15:00:00Z",
"one_time": true,
"presentation_id": "PRS-96F7B57CCC6F051E287F",
"presentation_status": "recipient_refused",
"purpose": "Resolve one event-access request without relying on a revoked restriction",
"recipient": "Fictional Eastgate Civic Venue",
"replay_limit": 1,
"revocable": true,
"revocation_reference": "/standing-recovery/receipt?id=SRP-R47-004"
},
"receipt_id": "SRP-R47-004",
"recovery_claim": {
"claim_type": "narrow_correction",
"disclosed_facts": [
"The prior restriction is revoked",
"The presenter may decline portable proof",
"Equivalent human review must remain available"
],
"does_not_establish": [
"General character",
"Future conduct",
"Cross-context eligibility",
"A permanent innocence or clearance status"
],
"plain_language": "A revoked association-based restriction cannot be treated as current evidence for one event-access request.",
"subject_reference": "pairwise:f21277bf0b34e03f056979aa",
"universal_person_identifier": null,
"withheld_facts": [
"Association graph",
"Original investigation notes",
"Other venue activity",
"Any portable risk or innocence score"
]
},
"refusal_and_non_retaliation": {
"adverse_inference_from_refusal_prohibited": true,
"complaint_channel": "Purpose-bound human review request",
"equivalent_human_review_available": true,
"presentation_voluntary": true,
"refusal_permitted": true,
"retaliation_owner": "Fictional standing-recovery ombudsperson"
},
"release": "R47",
"role_views": {
"affected_person": {
"priority_fields": [
"recovery_claim",
"presentation",
"refusal_and_non_retaliation",
"federation"
],
"question": "What narrow correction can I present, what stays private, and what happens if I decline?"
},
"auditor": {
"priority_fields": [
"anti_linkability",
"refusal_and_non_retaliation",
"federation",
"integrity"
],
"question": "Can recipients correlate presentations, retaliate for refusal, or overstate federation coverage?"
},
"issuer": {
"priority_fields": [
"lineage",
"selective_disclosure",
"anti_linkability",
"accountability"
],
"question": "How do I issue a useful correction without creating a portable identity score?"
},
"recipient": {
"priority_fields": [
"presentation",
"recovery_claim",
"limits",
"revocation"
],
"question": "What may I rely on, for which purpose, until when, and what must I not infer?"
}
},
"schema": "antichrist.cx.standing-recovery-portability-receipt.v1",
"selective_disclosure": {
"disclosed_fields": [
"receipt_id",
"status",
"recovery_claim.plain_language",
"presentation.recipient",
"presentation.purpose",
"presentation.expires_at",
"accountability.human_owner"
],
"minimum_necessary": true,
"original_stigma_disclosed": false,
"private_evidence_disclosed": false,
"withheld_fields": [
"recovery_claim.withheld_facts",
"lineage source payloads",
"private evidence",
"cross-context identifiers"
]
},
"status": "recipient_refused",
"title": "Recipient refusal routes to equivalent human review without retaliation"
}Public design limits
This interface demonstrates an accountable design boundary. It is not legal advice, an identity system, a production credential, proof that a real institution uses these practices, or evidence that selective disclosure alone resolves every power imbalance.