Claims registry

Versioned claims, not loose promises.

QueryRook claims are scoped, caveated, and linked to evidence types. This lets us revise claims when new tests teach us something uncomfortable.

QR-CLAIM-2026-001

Evidence-native control plane

Every production-facing recommendation should be backed by inspectable evidence before it can become an operator action.

StatusSupported by architecture
ConfidenceMedium

Scope

QueryRook proof packets, DDL obligations, readiness checks, and burn-in artifacts.

Caveat

This is an architecture claim until repeated customer-environment measurements are published.

Proof ledgerEvidence FabricBurn-in status
QR-CLAIM-2026-002

Burn-in as a release gate

A multi-day database-agent burn-in can expose onboarding, permission, workload-drift, and evidence-freshness failures before production authority is granted.

StatusUnder active measurement
ConfidenceMedium

Scope

168-hour QueryRook burn-in runs against AWS-hosted QueryRook and TLS-enabled Postgres targets.

Caveat

The first public confidence level must wait for the current AWS burn-in to complete.

Burn-in verdictTorture matrixWorkload pulse
QR-CLAIM-2026-003

Trust-minimized autonomous operations

Autonomous Postgres operations are safer when the hosted control plane issues bounded, signed action capsules that a customer-owned Conduit verifies locally.

StatusPrototype supported
ConfidenceLow

Scope

QueryRook Conduit capability-token prototypes and action-capsule verification tests.

Caveat

The current production deployment still supports hosted-direct operation while Conduit matures.

Conduit capabilitiesAction capsulesSigned receipts