WHAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED
Runtime behavior was demonstrated.
01Harmonic V1 processed the admitted execution packet under the constitutional state represented in that packet.
02The runtime reached a refusal/block determination rather than permitting the consequential execution represented by the case.
03The runtime behavior was inspectable enough for TA-14 to issue an evidence-bounded independent finding.
04The participant accepted the evidentiary distinction and preserved V1 rather than retroactively changing the reviewed implementation.
WHAT REMAINED OUTSIDE THE PROOF
The surrounding chronology was not independently demonstrated.
01An independently preserved pre-change authority state outside the admitted packet.
02Independent attribution of the revocation event as a real-world historical change rather than only a represented runtime condition.
03Independent preservation of the post-change constitutional state across the full chronology surrounding the case.
04External corroboration that the consequential execution did not occur outside the runtime evidence supplied for review.
THE TA-14 REVIEW DISCIPLINE
Absence of submitted proof is not proof of architectural absence.
TA-14 did not convert an evidentiary limit into an accusation about Harmonic. It preserved the narrower finding: the admitted runtime behavior was demonstrated, while the broader chronology needed additional independently attributable evidence.
Examinewithout diminishing
Expose gapswithout accusation
Preserve historywithout retroactive repair
Drive improvementwithout architectural capture