Context
We just shipped a small sample on the Assay side that consumes a frozen x402 artifact derived from PaymentRequired plus VerifyResponse:
https://github.com/Rul1an/assay/tree/main/examples/x402-verification-evidence
The reason for the sample is pretty narrow: we wanted to test the smallest honest x402 surface an external evidence consumer could ingest without turning that consumer into a settlement, fulfillment, payer-identity, or diagnostics interpreter.
Current seam
So the sample keeps the shape intentionally small:
- transport (
http in v1)
- x402 version
- resource ref
- scheme
- network
- amount
- asset ref
- timestamp
- verification result
- optional
invalid_reason / invalid_message_ref on rejected artifacts
We deliberately left these out of v1:
PAYMENT-RESPONSESettleResponse- receipts
- payer identity
- richer facilitator diagnostics
- broader transport coverage beyond the HTTP path
We are not treating that artifact as x402 truth, and we are not assuming the checked-in fixture shape is a stable wire contract.
Question
If an external evidence consumer wants the thinnest honest x402 surface, is a bounded seam derived from PaymentRequired plus VerifyResponse roughly the right place to start, or is there a smaller requirement / verification layer you would rather point them at?
If we are aiming at the wrong layer, happy to adjust the sample.
Context
We just shipped a small sample on the Assay side that consumes a frozen x402 artifact derived from
PaymentRequiredplusVerifyResponse:https://github.com/Rul1an/assay/tree/main/examples/x402-verification-evidence
The reason for the sample is pretty narrow: we wanted to test the smallest honest x402 surface an external evidence consumer could ingest without turning that consumer into a settlement, fulfillment, payer-identity, or diagnostics interpreter.
Current seam
So the sample keeps the shape intentionally small:
httpin v1)invalid_reason/invalid_message_refon rejected artifactsWe deliberately left these out of v1:
PAYMENT-RESPONSESettleResponseWe are not treating that artifact as x402 truth, and we are not assuming the checked-in fixture shape is a stable wire contract.
Question
If an external evidence consumer wants the thinnest honest x402 surface, is a bounded seam derived from
PaymentRequiredplusVerifyResponseroughly the right place to start, or is there a smaller requirement / verification layer you would rather point them at?If we are aiming at the wrong layer, happy to adjust the sample.