docs(reward): state the checks that run, and that the worker is unreleased

[abrichr]

docs.openadapt.ai/commercial/seal-reward/ publishes two classes of claim that are false against the published packages.

The install path

The page opens "Run it locally with MockMed" with:

pip install 'openadapt-flow[reward]'
openadapt-flow serve-reward --seed-mockmed --port 8788

I downloaded the wheel and read it. openadapt-flow 1.34.0 declares browser, capture, console, dev, grounder, grounding, hosted, interop, linux, macos, privacy, rdp, service, service-mlx, windows and no reward; the wheel contains no path matching reward; entry_points.txt registers openadapt-flow and openadapt-flow-vlm-service and nothing else. The reward extra and the serve-reward subcommand exist only at openadapt-flow@main. A reader following the page today gets a resolution failure and then an unknown command.

The two commands stay on the page as what the release will carry, with a sentence saying it is not published and no date, and the git-head install beside them.

Enforcement that does not run

• No consumer verifies a certificate signature. openadapt_types.process_capability._validate_signature checks that the field is base64 and decodes to 64 bytes. There is no issuer key registry.
• issuer is unauthenticated. RewardCertificateV1._issue_window refuses only self_signed combined with a non-synthetic scope, so issuer="organization" with calibration_scope="production" validates.
• Revocation does not exist. grep -rni revok over the reward code in openadapt-types, openadapt-evals and openadapt-flow returns one test line assigning revoked = False and one sentence in openadapt-flow/docs/REWARD_WORKER.md.
• RewardCertificateV1.satisfies is called only from openadapt-types/tests/test_reward.py. Nothing compares a certificate against its contract's certificate_policy.

Changed accordingly: the control-service row drops "revocation" and "the revocation list"; the certificate_id row drops "Revocation key. The issuer checks the revocation list"; the issuer row says the field is declared and that the validator does not check who the issuer is; the satisfies sentence says nothing on the worker or trainer path calls it; "it is the only issuer that can state production scope" becomes what the design intends plus what the code reads.

"Today the only certificate anyone can compute is synthetic scope" also became "the only certificate our code issues", because anyone can hand-build a production-scope one.

What did not change

The review confirmed these, each with an enforcing function, and this PR leaves them alone.

Property	Enforced by
Tier floor for certified	refuse_development_certification, score, RewardEvidenceReceiptV1._scoring_contract
Unscored is dropped, never 0	RewardScoringPolicyV1.scalar_for, _scoring_contract, CertifiedRewardFunction
Receipt is not an Execute Seal	RewardEvidenceReceiptV1 field set, assert_no_forbidden_keys
One reward per episode	RewardWorker.score_episode (409 duplicate_episode)
Contract digest binding	RewardWorker._check_binding (422 contract_mismatch)
Credentials stay on the worker's machine	worker holds the oracle credential; the receipt carries digests
Expired certificate stops a certified arm	require_certified_or_unscored

Checks

uv run pytest tests/ -q 39 passed, validate_docs.py passed, check_published_version_claims.py --offline passed, mkdocs build --strict passed. No copy test pins any sentence changed here.

Two checks fail on every pull request on this repository because Advanced Security is off. That is pre-existing.

Not in this PR

The same revocation claim also appears in openadapt-types/openadapt_types/reward.py (the RewardCertificateV1 docstring, which ships in the published package) and in openadapt-flow/docs/REWARD_WORKER.md line 29. Both need a separate change in their own repository.

Opened by an agent session, not the founder.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code