Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Official NTI-1 Contributor Issues Opened

Hi Steven,

Perfect. I saw you claimed #19. Your conditions are fully accepted:

1. Full attribution to your W3C archived message.
2. Pointers to the dated source.
3. The code is a harness, not the spec itself.

Please open the PR whenever you are ready. The CI is waiting.

One quick question: Kaliya just asked me if you or Larry are attending AIW
in person on Nov 6th. She has offered me a remote "Owl" dial-in slot at 10
AM, and would love for the session to be co-hosted if either of you are in
the room. Let me know so I can confirm with her.

Best,
Abisheak

On Sat, 31 Oct, 2026, 6:14 am Steven Zhao, <zhaoxinghua07@126.com> wrote:

> Hi Abisheak, Larry, Lee, Lars, all,
>
> Abisheak: my GitHub handle is zhaoxinghua09-cell, and I am claiming issue
> #19 (https://github.com/abisheakp197/nti-spec/issues/19). Thank you for
> opening it for the LGD transition contract and resume_basis.
>
> On what I will put into that issue: the two finish-or-stop contracts, the
> tier-1 receipt field list, and resume_basis (evidence | exemption), exactly
> as stated in my message of 30 October (
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-agentprotocol/2026Oct/0108.html),
> including the specification attached to that message. The contract wording
> is the contribution I stand behind; the accompanying code is only a
> runnable harness for exercising and breaking those contracts, and is not
> offered as part of the specification. I will submit as pull requests
> against the spec text, with one request: where a merged version derives
> from that message, keep the attribution and a pointer to the archived
> original, so a reader can always check the wording against the dated
> source. I aim to open the pull requests before the AIW Book of Proceedings
> cutoff.
>
> Larry (
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-agentprotocol/2026Oct/0090.html):
> your two refinements are right, and they fit the incomplete_check block
> without touching it. A tryLater response is an answer that arrived and
> belongs in the record as received; a timeout or a missing response is a
> different outcome and must be recorded separately, never inferred. And
> requiring at T-30 that no subsequent call is admitted, while scoring the
> already-admitted call against its declared contract, is the cleaner split.
> It measures the two guarantees independently, as you said.
>
> Lee (
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-agentprotocol/2026Oct/0109.html):
> I accept the constraint: the mapping stays unidirectional, check outcome to
> boundary value. incomplete_check is a record of the runtime's check
> attempt; the wire value set is untouched, so a PAUSE with no receipt
> attached is still a well-formed record, and a receipt that says
> PAUSE(authority_not_determined) always carries its incomplete_check reason.
>
> I will also file the registry outcome rows (reachable, unreachable,
> stale_root) against #19, so all three modes stay distinct from
> authority_revoked.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Xinghua Zhao
> Independent researcher
> ORCID 0009-0001-0512-1237
>
> [Disclosure: drafting of this message was assisted by AI; all positions
> reviewed and approved by me. Same disclosure as my earlier messages on this
> list.]
>
>
>