Agent Mission Compliance Report Generator prototype grant

Summary

The Agent Mission Compliance Report Generator produces a structured, exportable record of a completed or attempted agent transaction. The report consolidates identity material, authorization scope, mandate, selected protocol route, merchant manifest references, applicable policies, settlement outcome, timestamps, cryptographic signatures, proof artifacts, exceptions, denials, and dispute references. The output is suitable for enterprise procurement audit, dispute response, reconciliation, internal compliance review, and developer debugging.

Why It Matters

Agentic commerce moves money and obligations on behalf of users and organizations. Buyers and merchants need a defensible, machine-readable account of what an agent did, on whose authority, against which policy, and with what outcome. Without a shared report format, every integrator builds an incomplete one, and dispute response devolves into ad hoc log scraping. A common report makes audit, dispute, and reconciliation tractable for procurement teams and developers alike.

Strategic Layer Mapping

This grant advances Layer 5: Mission Compliance in the Foundation's seven-layer agentic-commerce development program. It depends on outputs from Layer 1 (identity), Layer 2 (protocol routing), and Layer 3 (merchant readiness), and provides inputs to Layer 4 (reputation).

Strategic Gap Mapping

Closes part of Gap 4: Reputation and Mission Compliance. Reputation and accountability are only as strong as the evidentiary record behind them. A canonical report format gives every downstream reputation, dispute, and audit system the same primitive to work from.

Suggested Deliverables

• Open-source report generator library with a documented API.
• Report schema definition covering identity, authorization, mandate, route, merchant, policy, settlement, timestamps, signatures, proof artifacts, exceptions, denials, and disputes.
• Signed envelope format with a clearly documented canonicalization rule.
• Exporters for at least one human-readable format (for example PDF or HTML) and at least one structured format (for example JSON or JSON-LD).
• Reference test fixtures covering happy path, denial, exception, and dispute scenarios.
• Public documentation showing the five use cases: enterprise procurement audit, dispute response, reconciliation, internal compliance review, and developer debugging.
• A clearly placed disclaimer in generated artifacts that the report supports review but does not replace legal, regulatory, or accounting advice.

MVP Expectations

• Accepts a structured transaction record and emits a signed report.
• Round-trip serialization and verification of the signed envelope.
• Documented fields for each section of the report.
• One reference exporter for a human-readable format and one for a structured format.
• Passing test suite and a CLI invocation example.
• Published under an OSI-approved license with a permissive default.

Out of Scope for Initial Grant

• Hosted reporting services or subscription products.
• Direct integration with regulator-specific submission systems.
• Legal opinion content embedded in the report.
• Tax calculations or accounting ledger reconciliation logic.
• Custodial storage of generated reports.

Security and Privacy Expectations

• Canonicalization rule is deterministic and documented.
• Signing key handling is documented; no private key material is shipped in test fixtures.
• PII fields are documented and redactable at export time.
• Inputs are validated against the schema before signing.
• Reports include integrity-protected timestamps where possible.
• A responsible disclosure contact in the README.

Suggested Applicant Profile

This grant suits a team with experience in audit-grade reporting, structured document generation, applied cryptography, or compliance tooling. Open-source delivery experience is helpful. Procurement, fintech, supply-chain, or enterprise SaaS backgrounds are well aligned. The Foundation also welcomes academic teams partnering with a maintenance-oriented co-applicant.

Review Criteria

• Public-good output and permissive licensing.
• Schema clarity and completeness.
• Quality and determinism of the signed envelope.
• Realism of the included use case examples.
• Documentation, reproducibility, and developer ergonomics.
• Maintenance plan and team track record.

How to Apply