Atinamos Public Evidence Index
This page is the public entry point for evidence produced by Atinamos direct verification work.
You can pay to be tested. You cannot pay to be trusted.
The records below are timestamped observations of specific machine-service invocations. They are not permanent provider ratings, certification badges or claims that a provider will always behave the same way.
Published direct verification evidence
| Date | Service | Payment / settlement | Fulfilment | Output validation | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 Aug 2026 | x402Node — JSON Repair | 0.006 USDC settlement observed | Observed | 4/4 published assertions passed | settled_fulfilment_valid |
| 22 Aug 2026 | x402.direct — Service Directory Search | No 0.001 USDC settlement observed after authorised paid-path failure | Not observed; HTTP 500 | Not reached | pre_settlement_paid_path_failure |
| 22 Aug 2026 | x402engine — Web Screenshot | 0.01 USDC settlement observed | Observed; HTTP 200 | Metadata checks passed; screenshot artefact failed strict base64/PNG validation | settled_fulfilment_contract_invalid |
Evidence record 1 — x402Node JSON Repair
Observed: Atinamos received a live x402 payment requirement, paid 0.006 USDC on Base, received the JSON Repair result and applied four objective assertions. All four passed.
Classification: settled_fulfilment_valid
- Human-readable verification study
- Public technical experiment record
- Sanitised machine-readable receipt
What it supports: this specific paid invocation settled, returned fulfilment and passed the four published checks.
What it does not support: permanent reliability, universal trustworthiness, or a claim about every future invocation.
Evidence record 2 — x402.direct Service Directory Search
Observed: Atinamos received a live x402 v1 payment requirement containing surrounding whitespace in payTo, preserved the anomaly, created and sent the required authorised request, and received HTTP 500. No fulfilment result was returned. Subsequent retained evidence records no observed 0.001 USDC settlement for the tested path.
Classification: pre_settlement_paid_path_failure
- Human-readable verification study
- Public technical experiment record
- Sanitised machine-readable receipt
What it supports: this observed authorised paid path failed before successful fulfilment and without observed settlement.
What it does not support: that x402.direct always fails, that payment was taken without delivery, or that the whitespace anomaly caused the HTTP 500.
Evidence record 3 — x402engine Web Screenshot
Observed: Atinamos paid 0.01 USDC on Base and retained independent settlement confirmation. The service returned HTTP 200 and metadata matching the controlled example.com target. The primary screenshot value did not pass the strict base64/PNG artefact assertion.
Classification: settled_fulfilment_contract_invalid
- Human-readable verification study
- Public technical experiment record
- Sanitised machine-readable receipt
What it supports: this invocation settled and returned a response, but the primary purchased artefact failed the published output check.
What it does not support: that x402engine always returns invalid screenshots or that the provider as a whole is unsafe or untrustworthy.
How to interpret these records
Atinamos separates the evidence chain into distinct stages:
payment contract observed
→ authorization created
→ authorised request sent
→ settlement observed
→ fulfilment observed
→ output contract validated
A later stage is never inferred simply because an earlier stage succeeded.
- Atinamos Verification Methodology — v1.0
- Public Verification Receipts — v1.0
- Public technical Evidence & Classification Methodology
- Public Verification Receipt Specification v1.0
- Verification Receipt v1 JSON Schema
Evidence provenance rule
The three records above are Atinamos direct verification observations backed by retained internal evidence and deliberately sanitised public receipts.
Other Atinamos research may cite marketplaces, registries, payment systems or third-party evidence sources. Those sources are useful context, but they must be labelled as externally sourced and must not be presented as if Atinamos directly observed the underlying event.
If Atinamos holds no evidence for a service, the correct statement is only: Atinamos holds no evidence.