DAN-855: the conformance suite's documented size was wrong in all three places it appeared

README.md

@@ -46,6 +46,48 @@ HTTP 402 ("Payment Required") has been reserved since 1999 — waiting for a pay
 
 **s402 is Sui-native by design.** These advantages come from Sui's object model, PTBs, and sub-second finality. They can't be replicated on EVM — and they don't need to be. x402 already handles EVM well. s402 handles Sui better.
 
+## Who This Is For
+
+**Use s402 if** you are charging for an HTTP endpoint that AI agents call, and either you settle
+on Sui, or you need a payment model x402 does not have — metered draw-down, streaming with rate
+enforcement, escrow with an arbiter, or pay-to-decrypt. Also use it if you are implementing the
+protocol in another language: the wire format is specified independently of this codebase and
+ships with conformance vectors to check yourself against.
+
+**Do not use s402 if** you are EVM-only and `exact` covers you — x402 is the better fit and we
+say so. Also skip it if you want a payments *product*: s402 is a wire format and a set of types
+with zero runtime dependencies. It does not move money, custody funds, or run a facilitator for
+you. Fiat and card rails are out of scope and will stay that way.
+
+## What Would Prove This Should Stop
+
+s402's bet is narrow enough to be wrong in public. Any of the following would falsify it, and we
+would rather retire the project than defend it past its evidence:
+
+1. **x402 absorbs the superset.** This README claims x402's two-scheme governance envelope
+   cannot take on prepaid, stream, escrow and unlock without re-ratification. If x402 ratifies
+   equivalents, the reason to run a second protocol is gone — the correct response is to fold
+   the schemes upstream and delete this repo, not to compete.
+
+2. **The prepaid economics do not survive contact with production.** The case for micropayments
+   rests on batching 1,000 payments into 2 on-chain transactions. If real deployments do not land
+   near the claimed ~$0.014 per 1,000 calls — because of contention on shared objects, gas-price
+   regimes, or settlement patterns we have not modelled — then the central advantage over
+   per-call settlement is arithmetic that only works on paper.
+
+3. **No independent implementation ever passes the vectors.** s402 claims to be a protocol, not a
+   library. A protocol with exactly one implementation is a library wearing a specification. If
+   the conformance vectors go unclaimed by any second-language implementation, the honest
+   description is "the wire format of the s402 npm package," and the spec should be demoted to
+   internal documentation.
+
+4. **Agent commerce settles somewhere other than HTTP 402.** If agent-to-service payment
+   converges on mandate-passing over a non-402 channel, then the status code this protocol is
+   built around is the wrong integration point, and being excellent at it does not matter.
+
+Points 1 and 3 are the ones to watch: both are observable from outside this repo, and neither
+depends on our own judgement of our own work.
+
 ## Which Scheme Should I Use?
 
 | Your situation | Scheme | Gas per 1K calls | Latency |
@@ -349,16 +391,21 @@ const requirements: s402PaymentRequirements = {
 
 ## Conformance Testing
 
-s402 ships 133 machine-readable JSON test vectors for cross-language conformance. If you're implementing s402 in Go, Python, Rust, or any other language, use these vectors to verify your implementation matches the spec.
+s402 ships machine-readable JSON test vectors for cross-language conformance — 167 vectors across 14 files. If you're implementing s402 in Go, Python, Rust, or any other language, use these vectors to verify your implementation matches the spec.
 
 ```bash
-# Vectors are in the npm package
+# From the npm package
 ls node_modules/s402/test/conformance/vectors/
 
-# Or clone the repo
-ls test/conformance/vectors/
+# Or from a clone of this repo
+ls spec/vectors/
 ```
 
+The two paths hold the same files. `spec/vectors/` is the canonical, version-controlled
+location; `scripts/prepare-publish.sh` copies it into `test/conformance/vectors/` at publish
+time so it lands inside the npm tarball. **In a fresh clone only `spec/vectors/` exists** —
+`test/conformance/vectors/` is generated and git-ignored.
+
 See [`test/conformance/README.md`](./typescript/test/conformance/README.md) for the vector format, encoding scheme, and implementation guide.
 
 ## Related

docs/adr/001-protocol-boundaries.md

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 # ADR-001: Protocol Boundaries — Facilitator Trust, Receipt Cardinality, Scheme Cap, and Extension Hygiene
 
 **Status:** Accepted
+**Implementation:** shipped
 **Date:** 2026-04-11
 **Supersedes:** (none — first ADR)
 

docs/adr/002-s402-is-pure-protocol.md

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 # ADR-002: s402 is a Pure Protocol Repo — mcp-server Moves to SweeFi
 
 **Status:** Accepted
+**Implementation:** shipped
 **Date:** 2026-04-11
 **Supersedes:** (none — refines the boundary that ADR-001 § Decision 1 named but did not enforce at the repo level)
 

docs/adr/003-upto-scheme.md

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 # ADR-003: `upto` Scheme — Usage-Based Payments with Settlement Overrides
 
 **Status:** Accepted (implemented — see note)
+**Implementation:** shipped
 **Date:** 2026-04-12
 **Supersedes:** (none)
 **Linear:** DAN-284

docs/adr/004-extensions-architecture.md

@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
 # ADR-004: Extensions Architecture — Typed, Lifecycle-Aware Plugin System
 
 **Status:** Proposed
+**Implementation:** shipped — `src/extensions.ts` (10KB), exported as the `s402/extensions` subpath in `package.json`.
+⚠️ **`Status: Proposed` above is stale and is left as-is deliberately** (found 2026-08-16, DAN-855): this was built without the ADR ever being moved to Accepted. Flipping a governance field is a decision, not a cleanup, so it is surfaced here rather than changed unilaterally. It is also the exact gap the `Implementation:` field exists to expose — under `Status` alone, "proposed and never built" and "proposed and shipped" were the same page.
 **Date:** 2026-04-12
 **Supersedes:** (none — implements the framework that ADR-001 Decision 4 described as hygiene rules)
 **Linear:** DAN-285

docs/adr/005-interop-superset-principle.md

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 # ADR-005: Interop When Possible, Superset When Wise
 
 **Status:** Accepted
+**Implementation:** upheld
 **Date:** 2026-04-14
 **Supersedes:** (none — formalizes informal positioning against x402 and MPP)
 **Linear:** DAN-313

docs/adr/006-version-negotiation-and-scheme-digests.md

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 # ADR-006: Version Negotiation and Scheme Content-Hashing
 
 **Status:** Draft
+**Implementation:** not-started
 **Date:** 2026-04-19
 **Supersedes:** implicit version string in `s402Version` field
 **Related:** ADR-001 (Protocol Boundaries), ADR-002 (Protocol-Pure), ADR-004 (Extensions), ADR-005 (Interop-Superset), INVARIANTS S3
@@ -95,7 +96,18 @@ advertised   = "sha256-" || base64url_no_pad(digest)
 
 **Target is the prose spec, not derived artifacts.** The markdown spec at `docs/schemes/<scheme>.md` is normative — it is the human-readable law of the scheme. JSON Schema files and BCS type definitions are derivative; their content-hashes are advertised separately in `spec/scheme-digests.json` under a `derived` key but do not drive version negotiation.
 
-**Implementation:** `scripts/compute-scheme-digests.mjs` runs in CI and writes `spec/scheme-digests.json`. Any PR that modifies `docs/schemes/**/*.md` without updating the digests file fails CI.
+**Implementation plan — NOT BUILT (verified 2026-08-16, DAN-855).** The intent is that
+`scripts/compute-scheme-digests.mjs` runs in CI and writes `spec/scheme-digests.json`, so any PR
+modifying `docs/schemes/**/*.md` without updating the digests file fails CI.
+
+⚠️ **None of that exists.** Neither file appears in any commit on any branch (`git log --all --
+'**/compute-scheme-digests.mjs' '**/scheme-digests.json'` returns nothing), and CI's five jobs
+contain no such gate. This paragraph previously asserted the mechanism in the present tense, which
+made an unbuilt plan read as a shipped guarantee — in the one field the ADR convention reserves for
+answering exactly that question. The header now carries `Implementation: not-started`.
+
+`docs/schemes/` itself is real (`escrow.md`, `exact.md`, `prepaid.md`), so the thing this would
+guard exists; only the guard is missing.
 
 ### Amendment chain
 

docs/adr/007-settlement-response-envelope.md

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 # ADR-007: Settlement Response Envelope
 
 **Status:** Draft (v2 — post /vet wave review)
+**Implementation:** shipped
 **Date:** 2026-04-19
 **Related:** ADR-001 (Protocol Boundaries), ADR-006 (Version Negotiation), ADR-008 (Safety Invariants S9-S13), ADR-009 (Open Gaps), INVARIANTS S7, S8
 **Supersedes:** `s402SettleResponse` (legacy flat shape in `typescript/src/scheme.ts`)

docs/adr/008-safety-invariants-s9-s13.md

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 # ADR-008: Safety Invariants S9–S14
 
 **Status:** Draft (v2 — post /vet wave review; S14 added, S11 hardened)
+**Implementation:** in-progress — **S11** and **S14** are built (`src/envelope.ts:77`, `:430`, `:443`; S14's constant-time comparison has its own test at `test/envelope.test.ts:429`). **S9, S10, S12 and S13** have no enforcement site found. Determined 2026-08-16 (DAN-855) by searching for the mechanisms, not only the labels — but treat the negatives as *no witness found*, not *proven absent*.
 **Date:** 2026-04-19
 **Related:** INVARIANTS.md (S1–S8), ADR-004 (Extensions), ADR-007 (Settlement Envelope), ADR-009 (Open Gaps)
 

docs/adr/009-open-gaps-rotation-reorg.md

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 # ADR-009: Open Gaps — Facilitator Key Rotation, Chain Reorg Tolerance, Scheme Acceptance Process
 
 **Status:** Placeholder — tracked gaps, not yet resolved
+**Implementation:** not-started
 **Date:** 2026-04-19
 **Related:** ADR-006, ADR-007, ADR-008, INVARIANTS S8, S11
 

docs/adr/010-safety-invariants-s15-s16.md

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 # ADR-010: Safety Invariants S15–S16 — Session Binding and Version Binding
 
 **Status:** Draft
+**Implementation:** in-progress — **S16 is half-built**: the protocol version *is* bound into the signed envelope rather than only into transport headers (`src/envelope.ts:54`, `:173`, `:219`, and required at `:268`). Its *scheme-digest* half is blocked on ADR-006, which is `not-started`. **S15** (binding long-running scheme state to the mandate/capability object rather than the signer's key) has no enforcement site in this repo — consistent with ADR-002, since mandates live upstack. Determined 2026-08-16 (DAN-855) by searching for the mechanisms rather than the labels; a label-only search finds where someone wrote "S16", not where it is enforced.
 **Date:** 2026-04-21
 **Related:** INVARIANTS.md (S1–S8), ADR-006 (Version Negotiation), ADR-007 (Settlement Envelope), ADR-008 (Safety Invariants S9–S14), ADR-009 (Open Gaps)
 

docs/adr/011-transport-abstraction.md

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 # ADR-011: Transport Abstraction — Payment Rides Any Carrier
 
 **Status:** Accepted (2026-06-28; revised after blind-spot review; Chunks 1a-i, 1a-ii, 1a-iii, and 2 landed + verified — HTTP + MCP + A2A all behind one seam, 1075 tests green)
+**Implementation:** shipped
 **Date:** 2026-06-28
 **Supersedes:** (none)
 **Related:** ADR-005 (interop/superset), ADR-002 (s402 is pure protocol), S7 (chain-agnostic boundary)

docs/guide/tutorial.md

@@ -233,6 +233,16 @@ This is the complete s402 protocol flow. In production, step 3 uses the Sui SDK
 
 ## Making It Real
 
+> 🛑 **The snippet below will not connect today.** Sui has deprecated JSON-RPC on public
+> fullnodes — `https://fullnode.{testnet,mainnet}.sui.io` returns `-32601` for every core method
+> (verified 2026-08-16). A `SuiClient` pointed at a public fullnode is dead on arrival, so treat
+> this section as illustrating the *shape* of the integration, not as runnable today. Reaching a
+> live network requires the gRPC or GraphQL transport; migration is tracked separately.
+>
+> Everything **above** this section is unaffected: the s402 protocol layer has no Sui dependency
+> (ADR-002, invariant S7), so the encoding, validation and error handling you just worked through
+> all still run offline.
+
 To connect this to Sui, replace the mock payment in `client.ts` with real Sui SDK code:
 
 ```typescript

docs/specification.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ description: s402 Wire Format Specification v1 — the formal, field-by-field de
 
 This document defines the s402 wire format — the exact encoding, field definitions, validation rules, and error semantics for the s402 HTTP 402 payment protocol. It is the authoritative reference for any implementation in any language.
 
-The TypeScript reference implementation lives at [github.com/s402-protocol/core](https://github.com/s402-protocol/core). Machine-readable conformance test vectors ship in the npm package (161 vectors across 13 files).
+The TypeScript reference implementation lives at [github.com/s402-protocol/core](https://github.com/s402-protocol/core). Machine-readable conformance test vectors ship in the npm package (167 vectors across 14 files).
 
 ## 1. Terminology
 
@@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ An implementation is **s402-conformant** if it:
 2. Validates all required fields per §4.1, §5.1, and §6
 3. Rejects malformed input with the appropriate error code from §8
 4. Strips unknown keys on decode per §10
-5. Passes the 161 machine-readable conformance test vectors shipped in the `s402` npm package
+5. Passes **every** machine-readable conformance test vector shipped in the `s402` npm package (167 vectors across 14 files as of v0.9.0)
 
 The conformance vectors cover: encode, decode, body transport, x402 compat normalization, receipt format/parse, settlement verification, validation rejection, key stripping, and roundtrip identity. See the [Conformance Vectors guide](/guide/conformance) for the vector format and implementation instructions.
 

mcp-demo/README.md

@@ -2,6 +2,30 @@
 
 A minimal Sui-native MCP server that advertises **three coexisting payment protocols** (x402, s402, stripe-mpp) inside a single `payment[]` envelope. Built as a reference implementation for [MCP SEP-2007](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/2007).
 
+> ## 🛑 This demo cannot currently reach the network
+>
+> **Sui has deprecated JSON-RPC on public fullnodes.** Every core method now returns `-32601`
+> on **both testnet and mainnet** (verified 2026-08-16):
+>
+> ```
+> curl -s -X POST https://fullnode.testnet.sui.io:443 -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
+>   -d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"sui_getChainIdentifier","params":[]}'
+> # {"error":{"code":-32601,"message":"Method not found. JSON-RPC on public fullnodes has been
+> #  deprecated. Please migrate to gRPC or GraphQL endpoints."}}
+> ```
+>
+> `src/server.ts` and `src/agent.ts` both construct a `SuiClient` over that transport, so the
+> end-to-end run does not work today. The **protocol layer is unaffected** — `s402` itself has
+> no Sui dependency and never had one (ADR-002, invariant S7), so the envelope shapes, encoding
+> and conformance vectors this demo illustrates are all still correct and all still tested.
+>
+> **What still works offline:** reading the `tools/list` envelope below, and the `s402` package's
+> own suite (`cd ../typescript && pnpm vitest run`).
+>
+> Migration to gRPC/GraphQL is tracked separately — it is a migration, not a doc fix, and it is
+> not being attempted inside a documentation pass. **This warning is removed when that lands**;
+> a stale blocker notice is its own defect.
+
 ## The headline artifact
 
 The `tools/list` response advertises three payment options per tool:

typescript/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -7,6 +7,51 @@ and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0
 
 ## [Unreleased]
 
+### Fixed
+
+- **The documented size of the conformance suite was wrong everywhere it appeared.** The repo
+  stated it three different ways — `README.md` said 133 vectors, `docs/specification.md` said
+  161 in two places — while `spec/vectors/` holds **167 vectors across 14 files**. All three now
+  report the real number. The consequential one was §13 *Conformance*, criterion 5: that clause
+  defines what makes an implementation s402-conformant, so an implementer in Go, Python or Rust
+  reading the spec was told they conformed at 161 vectors, leaving six shipped vectors outside
+  the definition of conformance.
+- **The README told you to look for the conformance vectors in a directory that does not exist
+  in a clone.** It pointed at `test/conformance/vectors/`, which is generated by
+  `scripts/prepare-publish.sh` at publish time and is git-ignored. Cloning the repo and following
+  the instructions produced *No such file or directory*. The README now points clones at
+  `spec/vectors/` — the canonical, version-controlled location — and explains how the two paths
+  relate, so the npm path stays correct for package consumers.
+
+- **An architecture decision record claimed a CI check that has never existed.** ADR-006 stated,
+  in the present tense, that `scripts/compute-scheme-digests.mjs` "runs in CI and writes
+  `spec/scheme-digests.json`", failing any PR that changed a scheme doc without updating digests.
+  Neither file appears in any commit on any branch, and CI has no such job. It was the only ADR
+  carrying an `Implementation:` field, so the project's single answer to "was this built?" was
+  false. The paragraph is now marked as an unbuilt plan and the record reads
+  `Implementation: not-started`.
+
+### Added
+
+- **Every ADR now records whether it was actually built.** All twelve carry an `Implementation:`
+  field (`shipped` · `in-progress` · `not-started` · `upheld`), each determined against the code
+  rather than the prose. `Status: Accepted` only ever meant *decided* — so a decision that shipped
+  and one that was ratified and quietly never built were indistinguishable on the page. The
+  conceived-to-shipped ratio is now countable: **7 of 12 shipped.** Two findings fell straight out
+  of the exercise: ADR-004's extensions framework ships as the `s402/extensions` subpath while its
+  `Status` still reads *Proposed*, and ADR-010's S16 turns out to be half-built — version binding
+  is enforced in the envelope, its scheme-digest half blocked on ADR-006.
+- **A regression test that fails when a documented vector count drifts from reality**
+  (`test/spec-doc-counts.test.ts`). It counts `spec/vectors/` and compares against every
+  `"<N> vectors across <M> files"` claim in `README.md` and `docs/specification.md`, and it
+  refuses to pass vacuously: if the wording changes so no claim is found, the test fails rather
+  than silently verifying nothing. Counts written into prose are derived values maintained by
+  hand, and three independent wrong numbers in one repo is what that looks like after a while.
+- **The README now says who s402 is for, who it is not for, and what would prove it should
+  stop.** The last of those is a falsification section naming four observable conditions that
+  would retire the project — chiefly x402 absorbing the superset schemes, and no independent
+  implementation ever passing the conformance vectors.
+
 ## [0.8.0] - 2026-06-28
 
 The transport-abstraction release (ADR-011): **one seam, three carriers — HTTP, MCP, and A2A.**