- The exact source and version being examined
- The few steps the headline claim depends on
- Replayable evidence tied to its actual scope
- Open questions, corrections, and dated history
How a docket is built
Every docket follows the same four-step spine, while the evidence routes vary by claim. State of Proof does not certify papers or replace peer review; it records what has been examined, what held within a stated scope, and what remains open.
01
Lock the exact source.
Every docket pins one artifact: a version and a hash. All evidence refers to that artifact and nothing else. When the source changes, the lock moves visibly and affected checks re-queue.
yields: Source Lock — version · hash · date
02
Map the claim and its dependencies.
The central statement, its lemmas, and everything they lean on become an explicit graph. Mapping names the load-bearing steps — the ones whose failure would re-scope the whole claim.
yields: claim map · load-bearing steps
03
Test the load-bearing steps.
Five examination routes, each scoped and replayable where the source permits: computational reproduction, symbolic or model checks, formal correspondence, literature pinning, and expert review. A route records its state, date, method, inputs, and any public artifact; it produces evidence only about the step it actually touched.
computational
symbolic
formal
literature
expert
04
Publish the evidence and the remaining uncertainty.
A record is separately marked queued or active. Statuses stay per route and per scope; Open Steps are named precisely enough for an expert to pick one up; every material update is recorded as a State Change. History stays visible.
yields: statuses · Open Steps · State Changes
The technology behind the record
The value is not another verdict. It is an examination path made visible.
State of Proof uses experimental research software to keep a claim’s source, structure, checks, scope, and history connected in one record. The technology does not automate a conclusion. It makes the work of reaching a well-grounded conclusion more visible, replayable, and useful.
What is different is the continuity of the record: a new source version, failed check, formal replay, correction, or expert response can improve the same evidence history without erasing what came before.
- Repeatable work does not have to start over
- Experts can enter at a precise unresolved step
- Different kinds of evidence stay meaningfully distinct
- Review can continue as the mathematics changes
The goal is not to automate a conclusion.It is to make the work of reaching one more visible, reproducible, and useful.
Research & technology inquiries
Discuss research infrastructure
Research questions about the infrastructure?
We welcome conversations with research labs, formal-methods teams, scholarly publishers, and others working with consequential mathematical claims—including teams interested in applying this approach to their own work. An inquiry is not a promise of intake, a favorable result, or a final conclusion.
State of Proof is a standalone public research program. Its records and research conversations are handled independently.
Status glossary
Eleven public states, five families
Statuses are coded by chip geometry, not by traffic-light color. Color blocks help separate explanation, detail, and boundaries. Only the labeled status chips describe evidence states.
There is no overall score.
Different parts of the same argument may hold different evidence states — a reproduced computation next to an open expert question. A docket therefore carries several statuses at once, each naming its own scope.
Processwhere a record stands before evidence lands
intake lockedSource received and hashed; scope defined.
claim mappedStatements and dependencies identified.
examination underwayAn examination route is running.
Evidence reproduced in scopechecks that ran and held — for the named scope only
reproduced in scopeA bounded computation was rerun against declared inputs. Independence is disclosed separately.
supported in scopeMultiple routes agree within the defined scope.
Open — needs eyesthese labeled chips identify unresolved steps
open dependencyA load-bearing step awaits resolution.
human review requiredA step only expert judgment can settle.
Recorded findingsdocumented outcomes — records, not verdicts
defect documentedA defect or counterexample is on the record.
inconclusiveEvidence gathered does not settle the scope.
Archivalpreserved history — nothing is quietly rewritten
supersededA newer source version replaces this record.
withdrawnAuthors withdrew the source; the record is preserved.
Statuses describe evidence collected for a defined scope. They are not peer-review decisions, publication recommendations, or certificates of mathematical truth.