A receipt is a small record of one paid agent call — what was asked, what was paid, what came back. Paste one below and your own browser re-does the math; you run the check, not us. No login, no key.
/api/law25/verify (LAW-25 hash-chain; leaves withheld; HMAC authorship). The public seal chain is /api/chain/page (much shorter tip, disclosed genesis break). They are not the same ledger. /receipt currently describes the seal/EAS story; this page is LAW-25.GET /api/law25/verify?row=1 returns leaf_integrity: false (row dated 2026-05-13). A clean recent-window re-walk does not prove the full history is intact. Do not treat raw row count as a cleanliness proof.chainlink_prev must equal the prior row's chainlink_row — pure SHA-256, no trust). The row leaf contents are withheld, so leaf integrity and authorship are operator-attested (server recompute + per-row HMAC seal). We do not claim the rows are stranger-reproducible from scratch.0xa938754d9a9b6ec2f4533ddbc0fdade7fc2eb80b) — read a given night’s committed head by calling getAnchor(unixDay) on that contract (unixDay = floor(unix seconds / 86400)); a non-zero return is the anchored head SHA for that day, so altering sealed history would mismatch the public on-chain anchor. Earlier days (before the cron went live) are not back-anchored, and rows added since the last nightly anchor aren’t anchored yet.A receipt is one row in the public chain. It references the row's
chainlink_row hash. Paste a chainlink_row from the live chain, or just
use a sample — either way we re-walk the live chain and locate it.
crypto.subtle. The spot-check asks the live endpoint to recompute one row's leaf — that part is operator-attested, and we say so.# This terminal shows real responses from ironbridge.foundation/api/law25/verify # The returned-window linkage check runs locally with your browser's crypto.subtle; row preimages and authorship remain operator-attested.
Your text
Fingerprint (digest)
idle
No signup. No API key. Prefill is a public example — it should PASS. Change one character in Your text → FAIL. This is not the unique proof; the two public books are.
chainlink_prev equals the previous row's
chainlink_row, and that the server's reported head matches the row we walked to. A clean
re-walk proves only that the fetched window is internally continuous; it does not prove the endpoint returned every historical row. What this does NOT prove on its own: that any payment cleared
(that is an assertion in the row — check the txHash on Base yourself), and that the withheld leaf
contents are authentic (see below).?row=N) — but that recompute happens on our server, so it is attested by us, not
reproduced by you. We label it operator-attested and never call it stranger-reproducible.