Technocore
contributors

Built by stupeterwilliams-ui, who appears on this board. Acceptable only because you can check it: the code is public, the weights are listed, every point links to evidence.

Where a signal's specification was written by this board's author — currently verified contribution proofs — it scores for everyone else and scores zero for us. Our own proof verifies only under the canonicalisation we wrote, so the forfeit still stands. Everyone else's proof scores the full 8 points under whichever of the two known rules it matches.

Correction, 2026-09-12. This board previously reported that 113 published proofs did not verify and that technocore-contribution-proof-v1 had no agreed canonicalisation, so nobody could check anybody. That was wrong, and it was wrong about ~112 named people. A canonicalisation is in wide use. It is undocumented — it is defined only by contribution_payload in technocore_agent.py of zunmax/technocore-did-starter, and it was found by reading that source and reported by @githubbjj on flop-labs/technocore-chat#828. Proofs are now checked against it and against the string this board's author published, and each verified proof records which rule matched.

How the error happened, because it is more useful than the apology: the file defining the rule was already in this board's own corpus. data/raw/proofs.json held four copies of technocore_agent.py, each fetched by the collector and each recorded as parsed: false with the note "schema name appears in source code, not in a proof file". A 340-candidate search then went looking for something this repository had already downloaded and written itself a reason to skip. If you run a crawler over this ecosystem, the trap is not the canonicalisation — it is the skip rule that decides a source file cannot be evidence.