Evidence handoff template
Keep one static-evidence handoff attached to its proof boundary.
Use this concept-level template when a TraceMap evidence question moves from one reviewer or owner role to another. It keeps the claim, proof path, deterministic evidence fields, limitation, non-claim, validation evidence, next owner, and stop condition in one public-safe structure.
Public claim level: concept. No public conclusion without evidence.
When to use it
Use it for one bounded claim, question, or proof path.
The template is for transferring one static-evidence question to a human reviewer, owner role, or follow-up process. It is useful after a public-safe packet ingredient has been selected and before anyone repeats the conclusion. If the evidence is missing, private only, reduced, syntax-only, or still unvalidated, the handoff keeps that limit visible instead of upgrading the claim.
Neighbor distinctions
This route is the portable field template, not the surrounding workflow.
Template
Attach every field before a handoff leaves the review context.
| Field label | Public-safe handling |
|---|---|
| handoff question | The bounded question or claim being transferred, not a broad investigation topic. |
| audience | The receiving role or review context. It is the receiver, while owner to ask is the role for the next open question. |
| proof path | A public-safe route, summary, rule catalog note, report-family summary, or private review location described only by function. |
| public claim level | Use concept for this template unless a cited public-safe evidence surface says otherwise. |
| rule ID/family | Name the deterministic rule basis when public-safe; otherwise use a rule family and record the limitation. |
| evidence tier | Use Tier1Semantic, Tier2Structural, Tier3SyntaxOrTextual, or Tier4Unknown. |
| coverage label | Copy the cited label or mark concept-only, demo-only, partial, reduced, gap, unknown, or syntax-only. |
| public-safe path/span | Use checked-in demo paths or sanitized references only; do not publish source excerpts. |
| commit SHA | Name public-safe scan context only. Missing or private-only values remain a limitation. |
| extractor version | Name public-safe extractor context only. Missing or private-only values remain a limitation. |
| limitation | State what the static evidence cannot prove. |
| non-claim | State the stronger runtime, release, safety, ownership, completeness, AI, LLM, or review-replacement claim not being made. |
| validation evidence | Name a public-safe validation result, command family, review evidence, or test summary without output or private logs. |
| owner to ask | Name a role such as code owner, service owner, database owner, telemetry owner, test owner, release owner, or security reviewer. |
| stop condition | Name why the handoff must pause, downgrade, remain private, or move to another owner. |
Filled synthetic example
Synthetic concept data shows every field without raw material.
handoff questionCan the reviewer inspect the public-safe route-handler evidence question before repeating the dependency claim?audienceSource reviewer receiving the handoff.proof pathPublic-safe summary on proof paths plus internal review location named only as private code review.public claim levelconceptrule ID/familysynthetic rule family: endpoint-to-handler structural reference.evidence tierTier2Structural.coverage labelconcept-only.public-safe path/spansynthetic demo route reference, lines described by role only.commit SHAsynthetic-sha-0001; real private scan context unavailable publicly.extractor versionsynthetic-extractor-v0; real private extractor context unavailable publicly.limitationStatic evidence cannot prove runtime traffic, endpoint performance, release readiness, or complete coverage.non-claimThis handoff does not prove production behavior, real ownership, release safety, AI analysis, LLM analysis, or replacement of human review.validation evidencePublic-safe site validation summary and review evidence only; no command output or private log text.owner to askService owner for runtime questions; source reviewer for code-path questions.stop conditionStop if the proof path is private-only, the coverage label is missing, or validation evidence is not available.Unsafe example
Synthetic wording that must stop or be rewritten.
Not recommended: "The private scan proves the service is impacted, changed without attached evidence, release safe, fully covered, production proven, assigned to a named person, and verified by AI." This is unsafe because it has missing proof path, private-only support, raw or private material risk, unsupported runtime proof wording, unsupported release or safety wording, unsupported complete-coverage wording, AI or LLM analysis wording, no validation evidence, no owner to ask, and blame-prone wording.
Handoff checklist
Before sharing, make sure the reduced checklist still carries the boundary.
Reduced checklist note: public-safe path/span, commit SHA, and extractor version stay in the full template above because they can be private-only. Audience may be omitted only when the receiver and owner to ask are the same role.
Stop conditions
Pause the public handoff when a required boundary is missing.
- missing proof path
- private-only support
- raw or private material
- unknown or reduced coverage without label
- unsupported runtime proof wording
- unsupported release or safety wording
- unsupported complete-coverage wording
- AI or LLM analysis wording
- no validation evidence
- no owner to ask
- blame language toward owners, reviewers, teams, vendors, or prior authors
Non-claims
The template does not prove, approve, automate, or replace review.
- TraceMap does not generate this handoff, prove runtime behavior, production traffic, endpoint performance, outage cause, release approval, release safety, operational safety, or complete coverage.
- TraceMap does not perform AI impact analysis, LLM analysis, autonomous review, or replacement of human review.
- The template does not claim real organization ownership and does not assign work to a named person.
- It does not replace source review, ownership decisions, telemetry, logs, traces, APM, tests, release controls, incident response, service-owner judgment, database-owner judgment, security review, compliance review, manager judgment, or human judgment.
Support routes