Skip to content

Question: is TAP signature verification the right small external-consumer seam? #15

@Rul1an

Description

@Rul1an

Hi team,

We put together a very small sample on our side to test one narrow external-consumer seam from TAP and wanted to sanity check the boundary before taking it any further.

The sample is here:
https://github.com/Rul1an/assay/tree/main/examples/tap-intent-evidence

It stays intentionally small. We start from a frozen artifact derived from the TAP signature-verification path and keep the sample on verification outcome plus a few bounded protocol fields only: timestamp, session id, key id, algorithm, merchant-domain binding, and operation type.

On our side, that gets mapped into Assay-shaped placeholder evidence as observed verification-result data only. We are not treating payment outcome, checkout success, customer identity, merchant decision, or broader commerce semantics as Assay truth.

Question: if an external evidence consumer wants the smallest honest TAP surface to start from, is a verification-outcome artifact derived from the signature-verification path roughly the right seam, or is there a thinner verification surface you would rather point them at?

Happy to keep this tight if there is a better boundary.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions