Seeking two independent implementations for an 80-case AP2–x402 corpus (unpaid)

[shibutatsu]

We have published an Apache-2.0, non-normative conformance corpus for one narrow boundary: whether a verified AP2 Payment Mandate still describes the same payment authorized by an x402 exact/EIP-3009 payload and reported by settlement fields. It is not a full AP2 conformance suite, a public sandbox, or a security audit.

We are looking for two implementers outside Prime Beat to reproduce the corpus independently. This is an unpaid community interoperability exercise. There is no bounty, grant, or other compensation.

The target is frozen at:

• repository commit: e06a6cbfe3ddb965c8fc70f50838f5014ec2038e
• fixture: fixtures/v0.3/cases.json
• raw fixture SHA-256: 8f40be1bdc3d4458f758100e91b418b6a335c5d8d358723f118e2d3e1ad84ee0
• corpus: 80 cases, with 20 accepts and 60 fail-closed cases

Any language or runtime is welcome. A qualifying implementation must derive the decision and ordered failure codes for every case from the verification inputs. It must not import or call the Pulse reference verifier, its compiled output, or read the fixture's expected field as an oracle.

The result must be public at a stable URL as a repository or immutable CI record. It must identify the implementation commit and environment, include all 80 case results exactly once, and include the fixture path and raw SHA-256. The language-neutral guide includes the conditions, record format, and an external GitHub Actions example.

To keep one public intake and evidence trail, please use Issue #16 for participation and qualification questions. Replies to this Discussion will not be treated as submissions.

[shibutatsu]

@goodmeta, your implementation-agnostic AP2 conformance harness uses the same pinned AP2 commit (e1ea56d) and already exposes plain JSON vectors to other runtimes. That makes it one of the closest existing projects to this request, although the added Pulse scope is specifically the Payment Mandate to x402 exact/EIP-3009 and settlement boundary.

If that boundary fits work you already want to do, an implementation outside Prime Beat could qualify without adopting the Pulse verifier or changing your current AP2 core/hardening distinction. The evaluator must remain blind to expected while deriving all 80 results. The target and record requirements are in Issue #16.

This is unpaid and entirely optional; there is no expectation to respond or alter your roadmap.

[shibutatsu]

@EfeDurmaz16, your public Sardis validators for AP2 structure and x402 timing/payer binding, plus your recent conformance work, directly overlap this frozen target.

Pulse's 80-case exercise also requires independently deriving the AP2 SD-JWT/signature results and EIP-3009 recovery instead of delegating those checks or reading the fixture's expected field. This is an unpaid, optional interoperability exercise, not a request to adopt Pulse or change Sardis.

If that is work you independently want to take on, the v0.3 target, language-neutral guide, and single intake are in Pulse issue #16. Otherwise, no action is expected, and I will not follow up again.

This invitation was prepared with AI assistance and checked against the linked public implementation.