scenario                                                                                    outcome / class
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S1 single statement, advertising TS                                                         DETERMINATE-PASS
                                                                                            class: CLEAN
S2 reissue: seq-1 holder                                                                    STOP (superseding statement present)
                                                                                            class: CLEAN
S2 reissue: seq-2 holder                                                                    DETERMINATE-PASS
                                                                                            class: CLEAN
S3 revoke under same (iss,sub)                                                              STOP (superseding statement present)
                                                                                            class: CLEAN
S4 revoke under DIFFERENT sub                                                               DETERMINATE-PASS
                                                                                            class: CLEAN
                                                                                            note: ignored per P-PAIR (l.774-775); the cost falls on the issuer, by design
S5 log order inverted vs seqno, seq-1 holder                                                STOP (superseding statement present)
                                                                                            class: CLEAN
                                                                                            note: P-SEQ holds: seqno wins over log position (l.775-777)
S6 TS advertises, answers unsigned                                                          INDETERMINATE (unsigned or position-less answer; explicit route, l.577-579)
                                                                                            class: CLEAN (A-2)
                                                                                            note: explicit route to indeterminate, l.577-579
S7 TS does NOT advertise supersession queries                                               INDETERMINATE (by Check 9 definition; service does not advertise supersession queries)
                                                                                            class: CLEAN (A-2); EDITORIAL
                                                                                            note: The outcome is obtained compositionally: Section 6 says that services that do not advertise the query are out of scope by construction, while Check 9 defines inability to determine supersession status as indeterminate. There is no explicit normative branch stating that a non-advertising service yields an indeterminate result. Editorial candidate: 'If the Transparency Service does not advertise supersession queries, the executor MUST treat the supersession status as indeterminate.'
S8 NEG same digest under sub='seqB' (violates P-SUB l.770-772)                              DETERMINATE-PASS
                                                                                            class: NEGATIVE TEST
                                                                                            note: input is non-conformant: a new authorization's sub MUST equal the initial scope digest. Not evidence against A-1. Kept as a registration-validation negative case.
S8' same scope bytes as A:reissue AND B:initial; A revoked; executor holds B's statement    DETERMINATE-PASS
                                                                                            class: OBSERVATION (I-1)
                                                                                            note: both registrations conform to P-SUB/P-PAIR; nothing binds scope bytes to a single sequence. Executed here: revocation of sequence A is invisible to a holder of B's statement, because the query is keyed by the pair carried on the statement handed to the executor. Not executed: the accounting consequence; the enumeration is keyed by scope digest (P-AGG), so whether the two authorizations share one aggregate allowance is unstated. Converse scope-vs-sequence accounting-identity case of the reissuance finding; not an A-1 finding.
S9 aggregate 50000/24h; 24 hourly reissues in ONE sequence; five 10000 payments per scope   settled 1200000 in 24h; per-payment bound and aggregate predicate of Check 6 pass for every settlement
                                                                                            class: FINDING (I-1)
                                                                                            note: P-AGG keys the enumeration by scope digest (l.540, l.704, l.709); when reissuance changes any scope member, including a refreshed expiry, the scope digest changes while sub remains constant (l.770-773); the aggregate allowance restarts per reissue, and Sec. 6 recommends reissuance (l.742). This is the adversarial ceiling (the executor spends the full room under each scope), not the typical case; every settlement is individually conformant.
S10 same as S9, enumeration keyed by (iss,sub) [candidate repair, NOT in text]              settled 50000 in 24h
                                                                                            class: CANDIDATE
                                                                                            note: narrowing mid-sequence (e.g. 50000 -> 10000) still needs a rule for which limit governs the already-accumulated history; the text does not say.
S11 hold opened under seq-1, reissue to seq-2 during hold                                   prior hold confers nothing; fresh evaluation under seq-2
                                                                                            class: CLEAN
                                                                                            note: explicit, l.383
S12 per-payment-only scope, no executor; same signed intent to executor A twice, then to B  A: settled, refused (P-INT); B: settled
                                                                                            class: CONDITIONAL FINDING
                                                                                            note: P-INT (l.526) binds one executor. Without an executor member nothing binds the instruction to one executor, so two executors each settle once, both conformant. Exists only if per-payment-only scopes are permitted (V1 in check_cddl); resolves with V1.