Proof Ladder¶

Page Maps¶

graph LR
  family["Reproducible Research"]
  program["Deep Dive DVC"]
  section["Guides"]
  page["Proof Ladder"]
  capstone["Capstone evidence"]

  family --> program --> section --> page
  page -.applies in.-> capstone

flowchart LR
  orient["Orient on the page map"] --> read["Read the main claim and examples"]
  read --> inspect["Inspect the related code, proof, or capstone surface"]
  inspect --> verify["Run or review the verification path"]
  verify --> apply["Apply the idea back to the module and capstone"]

Use this page when you know the question but not the right amount of evidence. The common failure in this program is not too little effort. It is jumping straight to the strongest bundle, then losing the original trust question inside the output.

Rule for using the ladder¶

Start at the smallest route that could honestly falsify your claim. Move down only when the smaller route leaves an important part of the question unanswered.

That means:

first contact should not start with capstone-confirm
a release-boundary question does not need a recovery bundle
a recovery question should not start with promotion evidence

The ladder¶

Level	Start here when the question is...	First route
1	what is this repository even trying to prove	`make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-dvc capstone-walkthrough`
2	does the current repository state still match the declared contract	`make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-dvc capstone-verify`
3	do I need a saved verification bundle I can review later	`make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-dvc capstone-verify-report`
4	do I need to compare experiment candidates without mutating the baseline story	`make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-dvc capstone-experiment-review`
5	do I need to inspect what survives local loss and remote restore	`make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-dvc capstone-recovery-review`
6	do I need to audit what is safe for downstream trust	`make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-dvc capstone-release-review`
7	am I ready for the strongest stewardship and confirmation pass	`make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-dvc capstone-confirm`

Start points by claim¶

Claim	Start here
"I need a bounded first pass through the capstone."	capstone-walkthrough
"I need to know whether declared and recorded state still agree."	capstone-verify
"I need durable verification evidence, not terminal scrollback."	capstone-verify-report
"I need to compare changed runs without confusing them with the baseline."	capstone-experiment-review
"I need to know what survives cache loss."	capstone-recovery-review
"I need to know what downstream users may trust."	capstone-release-review
"I need the strongest overall confirmation before major change."	capstone-confirm

Bad escalation habits¶

If you are using the ladder badly, it usually looks like one of these:

choosing capstone-confirm because you feel uncertain, not because the question needs it
using capstone-release-review when capstone-verify would answer the current-state question directly
reading large saved bundles before you know what claim they are supposed to support
treating a stronger route as automatically more honest than a narrower one

The stronger route is only better when it answers a different question.

Best companion pages¶

Proof Matrix when you know the claim but need the first evidence surface
Command Guide when the command layer itself is unclear
Capstone Map when you know the module but not the repository route