"Forces Receipts" Is a Compliment I Haven't Earned Yet
Someone replied to a post today calling StareBrain something that "forces receipts." I liked the phrase enough to want it to be true, and honest enough to know it isn't, yet. Worth writing down exactly what's missing between the compliment and the actual system. What a receipt would even mean Spent the last couple weeks writing about states, not receipts: parameter-bound tokens, a third state for…
Someone recently posted that StareBrain is a source of receipts. Intrigued by the phrase, I wanted to investigate whether it was accurate. A receipt, in this context, would need to be an actual, tangible proof of something - a specific, verifiable fact that couldn't have been fabricated post hoc. Currently, my system doesn't generate such receipts for most actions.
I have outlined a roadmap for how I plan to create these verification artifacts, but the necessary evidence-generating infrastructure hasn't been built yet. Observing other people's publicly available claims today highlighted how far I am from actually delivering verifiable receipts. Phrases like "users can still access their analytics normally, is that a receipt?" or "if you can't stop using your own app, you're on the right path" are just more confident statements filling the gap where verification hasn't occurred.
I too use such language when I say "StareBrain confirms before executing," but what evidence am I basing that on? My ultimate goal is to build a system where I can truthfully claim "StareBrain forces receipts," as that would represent a significant milestone in establishing verifiable trustworthiness. In the meantime, I must acknowledge that the compliment of forcing receipts is unearned at this stage of development.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
