ARCVERIN
Slide 1 of 5
The readiness question

A valid contract does not prove runtime readiness.

OpenAPI describes API operations and constraints. ARCVERIN evaluates what the supplied contract says about operation and workflow design, then identifies evidence that remains open for review.

The design question: what does the contract support about an operation’s inputs, effects, authority clues, verification, and recovery?

The runtime question: are authorization and controls enforced, and does execution achieve the intended outcome? Those require separate runtime evidence.

Two complementary checks

CONTRACT VALIDATION

Does the specification conform to its OpenAPI version?

↓

ARCVERIN QUALIFICATION

What readiness evidence and design gaps does the contract show?

Neither check alone demonstrates deployed enforcement or successful execution.

The product

Evidence for operation and workflow design.

ARCVERIN reconstructs operations, schemas, references, security declarations, errors, callbacks, links, dependencies, and workflow clues from OpenAPI, then applies deterministic qualification rules.

Reports show emitted findings, unresolved evidence, and design proposals. They do not enforce access or establish runtime readiness.

01

Describe

Review operation inputs, outputs, security declarations, and effects.

02

Connect

Inspect workflow candidates, dependencies, and unresolved input bindings.

03

Plan

Review source-supported intent and proposed steps toward a goal.

04

Verify separately

Use owner and runtime evidence to confirm authorization and outcomes.

The trust boundary

Static evidence without static overreach.

ARCVERIN uses the OpenAPI contract deeply while staying honest about what a contract cannot prove.

What the contract can establish

  • ✓ Declared operations and bounded input/output shapes
  • ✓ Authentication schemes and documented constraints
  • ✓ Error, callback, link, reference, and workflow relationships
  • ✓ Candidate verification, retry, and recovery paths

What requires more evidence

  • — Actual approval or authorization enforcement
  • — Runtime retry and idempotency behavior
  • — Audit retrieval and reconciliation effectiveness
  • — Sandbox parity and live side-effect boundaries

A proposal or inferred relationship is a design candidate. It does not demonstrate authorization, execution, or a verified outcome.

Comparable by design

Hold the evaluator constant. Lock the evidence surface.

Every comparison uses the same qualification release, rule set, and evidence boundary against specific, locked OpenAPI surfaces.

FIXED EVALUATOR

The qualification basis stays unchanged across compared surfaces.

LOCKED INPUT

Each outcome belongs to one exact OpenAPI surface and its declared evidence.

EXPLAINABLE DIFFERENCE

Rule outcomes show how contract evidence differs under the same evaluator.

Not a provider ranking. No customer history, provider reputation, hosted backend, or runtime-proof claim enters the comparison.

The customer outcome

Improve the design before testing runtime behavior.

Start with an OpenAPI specification. Review operation evidence, workflow candidates, unresolved assumptions, and proposed changes with API, platform, security, and AI teams.

✓ Findings for analyzed operations and rules

✓ Recommendations for tool and workflow design

✓ Suggested evidence and reassessment conditions

✓ Separate owner, authorization, and runtime questions

VERSION 0.7.10 · DEVELOPMENT BUILD

Privacy review in progress

The previous release has been withdrawn. Windows and Ubuntu links will return when replacement archives pass checks for private machine metadata and startup. This development build is not production-certified; workflow proposals do not demonstrate execution or goal completion.

Contact info@arcverin.com