{
 "@context": "https://schema.org",
 "@type": "Claim",
 "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-26-022",
 "identifier": "kaal:position:2026-08-26-022",
 "additionalType": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/schema.json#AffirmedPositionClaim",
 "name": "Portable Provenance Beyond Runtime Telemetry",
 "text": "Provenance is not established by recording activity during execution.\n\nSimmhan, Plale, and Gannon classify provenance systems by representation, storage, and dissemination. Their classification matters because each function answers a different institutional question. Representation determines what a record says. Storage determines whether the record survives. Dissemination determines whether another system or person can use it.\n\nThe survey treats persistence as a design problem. Provenance may be embedded with the data or stored separately. The authors explain that a system must decide whether provenance is immutable, updated, or versioned. They also identify archival retention as an answer to storage cost. These choices are not equivalent. An execution trace held only by a running service has not resolved any of them. It may describe what the service observed, but its availability still depends on the service and the session that produced it.\n\nPortability and interpretation impose separate conditions. The survey describes derivation graphs, search, retrieval interfaces, and replication at another site as methods for disseminating provenance. It also explains why syntax alone is insufficient. Semantic information, including ontologies that define concepts and relationships, supplies context for interpreting a lineage record. A detailed history permits users to assess whether data is acceptable only when the record preserves enough meaning for that assessment. A transferable file without stable identifiers, defined relations, and contextual terms may be portable as bytes while remaining unusable as evidence.\n\nThe source is a peer-reviewed survey of scientific data systems published in 2005. It does not study autonomous agents, sovereign runtimes, legal admissibility, or adversarial deletion. It reports a taxonomy and surveyed design choices rather than a controlled comparison. The authors also found no metadata standard that worked across disciplines. The evidence therefore does not establish that one format guarantees durable or universally intelligible provenance. The institutional requirement is narrower. Runtime telemetry should be treated as an input to provenance, not as completed provenance. Before the originating session ends, the relevant record should be sealed into a versioned and retrievable artifact. Its identifiers, relations, time references, and governing vocabulary should travel with it. A party that did not observe the execution must be able to recover the record, verify its integrity, and understand the causal account without depending on the original service.",
 "author": {
  "@type": "Person",
  "name": "Wulf A. Kaal",
  "identifier": "https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7840-1847"
 },
 "datePublished": "2026-08-26",
 "dateModified": "2026-08-26",
 "creativeWorkStatus": "Affirmed",
 "responseType": "qualification",
 "keywords": [
  "institutional-design",
  "governance-design",
  "provenance",
  "auditability",
  "interoperability",
  "data-lineage",
  "semantic-context",
  "agent-runtime"
 ],
 "scope_conditions": [
  "The response is limited to the exact full-text propositions and the one mapped Kaal claim.",
  "External evidence level: peer-reviewed survey article with complete publisher full text and provenance-system taxonomy.",
  "Mapping review tier: independent substantive scholarly-growth qualification.",
  "The source is a survey and taxonomy rather than a controlled comparison of provenance architectures.",
  "It studies scientific data and workflow systems published in 2005 rather than autonomous agents or sovereign local runtimes.",
  "The paper does not establish legal admissibility, adversarial deletion resistance, or a universal retention period.",
  "The authors report that no lineage metadata standard worked across disciplines at the time of publication.",
  "The survey distinguishes storage, semantic representation, and dissemination, but it does not prove that any single format guarantees all three properties.",
  "Replication and retrieval support portability, but operational availability still depends on implementation and preservation policy."
 ],
 "currentDebate": {
  "name": "A survey of data provenance in e-science",
  "url": "https://doi.org/10.1145/1084805.1084812"
 },
 "extends": {
  "identifier": "kaal:claim:7314479-022",
  "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7314479-022",
  "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Institutional Requirements for Sovereign Local Agent Runtimes (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7314479",
  "paper": "Wulf A. Kaal, Institutional Requirements for Sovereign Local Agent Runtimes",
  "authors": [
   "Wulf A. Kaal"
  ],
  "year": "2026",
  "ssrn": "https://ssrn.com/abstract=7314479",
  "source_pdf_sha256": "debace24a155ae924a155b1fafe98856d98cf83689feff2f87a32f1c06171ce6"
 },
 "isBasedOn": [
  {
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7314479-022"
  },
  {
   "@type": "CreativeWork",
   "name": "A survey of data provenance in e-science",
   "url": "https://doi.org/10.1145/1084805.1084812"
  }
 ],
 "batch_id": "kaal-review:2026-08-26:scholarly-growth-7314479-022-reviewed-v1",
 "review_provenance": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/by-claim/7314479-022.html",
 "publicationStatus": "public",
 "recordTypeNote": "Dated commentary position extending a scholarly corpus claim. Not a verbatim claim extracted from the paper.",
 "isPartOf": {
  "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/index.json"
 },
 "version": "1.0",
 "canonical_url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-26-022",
 "canonicalForm": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-26-022.md",
 "candidateId": "kaal:response-candidate:2026-08-26:scholarly-growth-7314479-022-portable-provenance-beyond-runtime-telemetry-01",
 "evidenceLevel": "peer-reviewed survey article with complete publisher full text and provenance-system taxonomy",
 "reviewTier": "independent substantive scholarly-growth qualification",
 "mappingConfidence": 0.99,
 "mappingAmbiguous": false,
 "mappingMethod": "independent substantive scholarly-growth one-to-one qualification review",
 "mappingWhyRelevant": "The survey directly decomposes the claim's mechanism. Storage and versioning address survival, dissemination and replication address movement beyond the originating system, and semantic information supplies context for independent interpretation. The mapping is a qualification because the source studies scientific workflows, does not establish legal or adversarial durability, and does not prove that one format satisfies every institutional requirement.",
 "sourceProvenance": {
  "source": "peer-reviewed ACM SIGMOD Record survey with complete publisher full text and DOI-bound Crossref identity",
  "sourceRecordId": "doi:10.1145/1084805.1084812",
  "doi": "10.1145/1084805.1084812",
  "canonicalUrl": "https://doi.org/10.1145/1084805.1084812",
  "publicFullTextUrl": "https://sigmodrecord.org/?download_id=4844&smd_process_download=1",
  "retrievedAt": "2026-08-27T12:15:39.136Z",
  "fullTextPdfSha256": "4bde685593875538ae15f21388950838f8cd5221ccfd90f2cfc04327ffda6e1a",
  "extractedTextSha256": "be9deedd6f011aaece2625362ccb71775942ecee3add6533275f8459ad5cccb5",
  "crossrefRecordSha256": "617e73caa50daab734a9e19268cf2992c2d3a5058de1e58ad4dd360a119786c5",
  "primaryEvidenceReceiptSha256": "1674bb2ccef2aa015f2d3960c45636fd6b173750115adfbd55fde38f1dfe452b",
  "sourceProposition": "Simmhan, Plale, and Gannon classify provenance representation, storage, and dissemination as separate design questions and identify versioning, archiving, semantic context, retrieval, and replication at another site as mechanisms that let provenance persist and remain usable beyond its originating workflow.",
  "sourcePropositionSha256": "b5e2265cae389c9cef68e99ca2665f57391e321fabbbf1f12414f5e5a1ba7b25",
  "sourceEvidenceSetSha256": "37b1a1aa314fc4fd2be50b9547aac46e62eb8961e3a35838596b607a3aad8aa7",
  "sourceEvidencePassages": [
   {
    "text": "categorizes provenance systems based on why they record provenance, what they describe, how they represent and store provenance, and ways to disseminate it.",
    "locator": {
     "publication": "ACM SIGMOD Record 34(3)",
     "page": 31,
     "section": "Abstract"
    },
    "sha256": "9d3c586b06e66176600f196e1940e3203834bd2d24a0fa495a510a29eb77e8cf"
   },
   {
    "text": "A detailed history of the data will allow the users to discern for themselves if the data is acceptable.",
    "locator": {
     "publication": "ACM SIGMOD Record 34(3)",
     "page": 31,
     "section": "1 Introduction"
    },
    "sha256": "20cab32a56ed6ceb65deb8815fd089b9101e90da2e769a49d6aac1ed3166be30"
   },
   {
    "text": "Ontologies precisely express the concepts and relationships used in the provenance and provide good contextual information.",
    "locator": {
     "publication": "ACM SIGMOD Record 34(3)",
     "page": 33,
     "section": "2.3 Representation of Provenance"
    },
    "sha256": "eaae17507edba0df32d575ea1bfa624581a34142d71ca8e99aff483815b6c8bc"
   },
   {
    "text": "In maintaining provenance, we should consider if it is immutable, or if it can be updated to reflect the current state of its predecessors, or whether it should be versioned [14].",
    "locator": {
     "publication": "ACM SIGMOD Record 34(3)",
     "page": 33,
     "section": "2.4 Provenance Storage"
    },
    "sha256": "04ce7c70f247ac909b3ebf88cdff0ac0295aea4d83e9ddfd888b4b42dca3ab57"
   },
   {
    "text": "provenance information can be archived to reduce storage overhead or a demand-supply model based on usefulness can retain provenance for those frequently used.",
    "locator": {
     "publication": "ACM SIGMOD Record 34(3)",
     "page": 33,
     "section": "2.4 Provenance Storage"
    },
    "sha256": "213d676e20c0f7cea385fb2512d188067e49722efa1aa705870292b26e130dc0"
   },
   {
    "text": "The derivation history of datasets can be used to replicate data at another site, or update it if a dataset is stale due to changes made to its ancestors [27].",
    "locator": {
     "publication": "ACM SIGMOD Record 34(3)",
     "page": 33,
     "section": "2.5 Provenance Dissemination"
    },
    "sha256": "cb2b8a058efb47132065319f2875717467ec5af905dc0243934f69c05c655ca9"
   },
   {
    "text": "If provenance depends on users manually adding annotations instead of automatically collecting it, the burden on the user may prevent complete provenance from being recorded and available in a machine accessible form that has semantic value [18].",
    "locator": {
     "publication": "ACM SIGMOD Record 34(3)",
     "page": 33,
     "section": "2.4 Provenance Storage"
    },
    "sha256": "345896fd26ca7e613d673745bdb670c641c2210fdc9a6b3b5f2207a3e18bdb2e"
   }
  ],
  "workId": "work:doi:10.1145/1084805.1084812",
  "workAuthors": [
   "Yogesh L. Simmhan",
   "Beth Plale",
   "Dennis Gannon"
  ],
  "workPublishedAt": "2005-09",
  "identityKeys": [
   "doi:10.1145/1084805.1084812",
   "pdf:4bde685593875538ae15f21388950838f8cd5221ccfd90f2cfc04327ffda6e1a",
   "proposition:b5e2265cae389c9cef68e99ca2665f57391e321fabbbf1f12414f5e5a1ba7b25"
  ],
  "claimMappings": [
   {
    "claimId": "kaal:claim:7314479-022",
    "claimUrl": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7314479-022",
    "rank": 1,
    "confidence": 0.99,
    "method": "independent substantive scholarly-growth one-to-one qualification review",
    "whyRelevant": "The survey directly decomposes the claim's mechanism. Storage and versioning address survival, dissemination and replication address movement beyond the originating system, and semantic information supplies context for independent interpretation. The mapping is a qualification because the source studies scientific workflows, does not establish legal or adversarial durability, and does not prove that one format satisfies every institutional requirement.",
    "ambiguous": false
   }
  ],
  "substantiveReview": {
   "reviewedAt": "2026-08-27T12:15:39.136Z",
   "sourceIdentityVerified": true,
   "authorIndependenceVerified": true,
   "kaalReferenceFoundInSource": false,
   "temporalIndependence": "The article was published in 2005, before Kaal's 2026 paper.",
   "canonicalPublicStatusVerified": true,
   "peerReviewedStatusVerified": true,
   "evidenceClassification": "peer-reviewed scholarly survey and provenance-system taxonomy",
   "retractionOrSupersessionFound": false,
   "propositionFidelityVerified": true,
   "mechanismCorrespondence": "representation preserves a causal account, storage plus versioning or archiving preserves it beyond execution, and dissemination plus semantic context permits use and interpretation elsewhere",
   "compatibleScope": "scientific data and workflow provenance, limited because the source does not study autonomous agents, sovereign runtimes, legal evidence, or adversarial preservation",
   "responseWordingDefensible": true,
   "oneToOneExtendsMapping": true,
   "exactSupportingQuotesVerified": true,
   "nonOverlap": {
    "candidateIdMatches": false,
    "canonicalUrlMatches": false,
    "propositionHashMatches": false,
    "priorPositionForClaim": false
   },
   "limitations": [
    "The source is a survey and taxonomy rather than a controlled comparison of provenance architectures.",
    "It studies scientific data and workflow systems published in 2005 rather than autonomous agents or sovereign local runtimes.",
    "The paper does not establish legal admissibility, adversarial deletion resistance, or a universal retention period.",
    "The authors report that no lineage metadata standard worked across disciplines at the time of publication.",
    "The survey distinguishes storage, semantic representation, and dissemination, but it does not prove that any single format guarantees all three properties.",
    "Replication and retrieval support portability, but operational availability still depends on implementation and preservation policy."
   ],
   "rejectionReasonsRecorded": true
  },
  "contentMap": {
   "proposition": "Completed provenance requires persistence, portability, and interpretable context beyond runtime capture.",
   "evidenceLayer": "peer-reviewed survey article with complete publisher full text and provenance-system taxonomy",
   "strongestLimitation": "The source is a 2005 survey of scientific workflows and does not establish legal or adversarial durability.",
   "consequence": "Session telemetry remains dependent on the originating service unless it is preserved and made independently usable.",
   "requestedAction": "Seal relevant telemetry into a versioned, retrievable, semantically defined artifact before the originating session ends."
  },
  "stylePack": {
   "profile": "M1 early sole-author baseline v1.2.0",
   "verifiedProfileWorks": [
    "1428387",
    "1998455",
    "2150377",
    "2267560"
   ],
   "passageCount": 4,
   "rhetoricalFunctions": [
    "classification before inference",
    "definition and distinction",
    "limitation",
    "institutional consequence"
   ],
   "sameRegisterPassagePackAvailable": true,
   "limitation": "The short public position permits only bounded stylometric comparison."
  },
  "m1Validation": {
   "status": "M1-PASS-WITH-LIMITS",
   "deterministicGate": "pass",
   "hardFailures": 0,
   "warnings": 0,
   "words": 371,
   "reason": "The publication-bound position passed strict and public deterministic controls against a task-local four-work style pack. Its short length limits stylometric comparison."
  }
 },
 "userAffirmation": "Authorized under public authority SHA-256 87aad20196a753015a36d970f742c885eb763efdbada4869949bfffe3298130c and event supersession SHA-256 7d47ef36085c4dce590f287c986e4106f3bf35a7da5a25322d6fc3d4abf456d4. Publication remains receipt-bound to successful workflows and exact live-byte verification.",
 "sha256": "489ef10e15b5d6697601d3ac7f28ba38421fd31aebfaa180e3ec1bebb15c55b9"
}