<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<reference anchor="I-D.wilder-scitt-physical-site-engage-receipt" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilder-scitt-physical-site-engage-receipt-02">
   <front>
      <title>A SCITT Profile for Physical-Site Engagement Receipts</title>
      <author initials="R." surname="Wilder" fullname="Rob Wilder">
         <organization>Wilder Robotics</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="September" day="3" year="2026" />
      <abstract>
	 <t>   This document defines a SCITT profile for _Physical-Site Engagement
   Receipts_ (PSER): tamper-evident, signed, offline-verifiable records
   that describe an autonomous or human-directed physical engagement at
   a specific real-world site governed by a defined operating envelope.
   Each receipt is a SCITT Signed Statement as defined by the SCITT
   architecture, encoded as a COSE Single Signer message, carrying a
   JCS-canonicalized JSON payload with a five-artifact vocabulary
   describing (1) the _Site_, (2) the _Operator_ and _Actor_, (3) the
   _Engagement Window_ and _Envelope_, (4) the _Attestation Evidence_
   from a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), and (5) the _Adapter
   Write-In_ recording that the receipt was posted into an out-of-band
   operations layer.  A Physical-Site Engagement Receipt is registerable
   in any conforming SCITT Transparency Service, obtaining a Receipt
   that proves the Statement&#x27;s inclusion in that Service&#x27;s verifiable
   data structure.  Registration does not establish that the Issuer
   registered every receipt it issued.

   This profile deliberately makes a NARROW, checkable claim -- &quot;this is
   a tamper-evident, signature-verifiable record that a specific
   engagement occurred at a specific site under a specific envelope, and
   its evidence was sealed by a specific TEE&quot; -- and explicitly does NOT
   claim that the engagement was safe, correct, or wise, that the site
   conditions were as described, or that any downstream operational
   outcome followed.  Compliance verdicts derived from the receipt (SLA
   credit, insurance underwriting, regulatory audit) are the
   responsibility of the relying party and its policies, not of this
   profile.

   The profile is designed around a three-party trust model in which no
   single party can unilaterally forge or repudiate a receipt: the _Site
   Owner_ controls physical access to the TEE hardware and keeps it
   running (they can unplug the box, and cannot forge what it signs);
   the _TEE silicon vendor_ attests the key material inside the TEE
   through its hardware root of trust (silicon vouches for the key); and
   the _Issuer_ writes the vocabulary, registers Signed Statements with
   a Transparency Service, and posts the resulting receipt into the
   site&#x27;s operations layer via a WRITE_ONLY adapter.  This separation is
   normative in this profile: implementations MUST NOT collapse these
   three roles into a single custodian, and relying parties MUST NOT
   trust a receipt that lacks any one of them.

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-wilder-scitt-physical-site-engage-receipt-02" />
   
</reference>
