W1  scope digest: hash function unspecified
    implementation A (SHA-256): 2b4f1bef19556ddde460bc287eac4c64...
    implementation B (SHA-384): 791a7f16e5325d470ba64ce6415799a4...
    same prescribed bytes, both conformant, different scope identifiers;
    every digest-keyed reference (Receipt, report, hold, Check 5 selection)
    diverges. FINDING: the digest algorithm must be fixed by the profile.

W2  sub: byte-to-claim representation unspecified
    implementation A (lowercase hex): 2b4f1bef19556ddde460bc287eac4c64...
    implementation B (base64url):     K08b7xlVbd3kYLwofqxMZBSgUKzm7fVF...
    both honestly put 'the scope digest' in sub; their (iss, sub) queries
    never meet, so each sees the other's sequence as nonexistent.
    FINDING: the representation must be fixed by the profile.

W3  execution digest: underspecified, and intent identity absent
    payment 1 (intent-A): 6f3e318758a444d2daeffb84cb63c753...
    payment 2 (intent-B): 6f3e318758a444d2daeffb84cb63c753...
    identical: True
    two DISTINCT payments (different intent identifiers) have identical
    digest inputs over the fields the text names. The hash function,
    field serialization and timestamp precision are unstated, so the
    promised third-party recomputation is not defined. Whether an
    enumeration preserves repeated identical digests is not specified;
    the counting consequence is recorded as an ambiguity, not as a
    demonstrated undercount. FINDING: fix the field set (include the
    intent identifier), the hash function, and the serialization.

W4  sequence number: no wire definition
    Required to exist and be monotonic; no claim or member label, type,
    or encoding is given, nor is the result defined if two statements
    in one sequence carry the same sequence number. Nothing to execute.
    FINDING recorded from the text alone.