Hey @tomoglava — your framing here pushed my thinking further, so I wrote up a pre-draft expanding on the gap you’re pointing at:
This line in particular stuck with me:
“No amount of additional state exposure closes that gap.”
That clarified something important: the issue isn’t just what data is available, but that verification of outcomes still requires reconstructing them within the same system (or an equivalent one).
I tried to generalize that into a broader question:
even with correct data and proofs, do we actually have a portable, system-independent way to verify a specific execution outcome as a standalone claim?
My read is that today we don’t—verification still reduces to:
-
re-executing logic, or
-
relying on a system that already did
So I framed it as a potential missing layer: a verification boundary between execution/data and independently verifiable outcomes.
Would really appreciate your take on whether that framing resonates, or if I’m stretching the implication too far.