workproof 0.1.3 → 0.2.0

package/README.md

@@ -8,16 +8,15 @@
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/npm/v/workproof?style=flat-square&color=111111&label=npm" alt="npm">
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/npm/dm/workproof?style=flat-square&color=111111" alt="npm downloads">
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/github/actions/workflow/status/Bubblegunn/workproof/ci.yml?style=flat-square&color=111111&label=ci" alt="ci">
-  <img src="https://img.shields.io/bundlephobia/minzip/workproof?style=flat-square&color=111111" alt="minzipped size">
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/github/stars/Bubblegunn/workproof?style=flat-square&color=111111" alt="stars">
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/license-MIT-111111?style=flat-square" alt="MIT">
 </p>
 
 workproof turns a git repository into a verifiable engineering report for one author,
-without showing any code. You run it in the repository you cannot share. The reader
-gets six figures, the exact command behind each one, what each one cannot show, and a
-hash. Anyone with the same repository can rerun `verify` and see whether the numbers
-reproduce.
+without showing any code. You run it in the repository you cannot share. The reader gets
+thirteen figures, the exact command behind each one, what each one cannot show, and a
+hash that anyone can recompute offline. It is not a productivity metric: it measures what
+survived and what was touched, and it prints its own limits under every number.
 
 ## 30 seconds
 
@@ -26,119 +25,279 @@ cd your-private-repo
 npx workproof
 ```
 
-That writes `workproof-report.md` (paste it into a résumé, a portfolio, a visa application)
-and `workproof-report.json` (for tools, and for verification). To check someone's report:
+That writes `workproof-report.md` (paste it into a résumé, a portfolio, a visa
+application) and `workproof-report.json` (for tools, and for verification). This is the
+real transcript of the run behind the example below, on a clone of
+[langchain-ai/openwiki](https://github.com/langchain-ai/openwiki) at `1e6d54c`:
 
 ```
-npx workproof verify workproof-report.json
+$ npx workproof --author "Colin Francis" --sample 5
+fingerprint key 9dc900a6227a1faaaa17d774565afbf3 (keep it to compare reports or to verify the fingerprint; it is not stored)
+openwiki: reading history...
+openwiki: 369 commits read
+openwiki: blaming files (1 in 5 sample)...
+openwiki: blamed 123 of 547 files
+wrote workproof-report.md and workproof-report.json in 2.7s
+
+$ npx workproof check workproof-report.json
+schema ok
+hash ok 63d4fd1373b06b090086a653d52dfed234edcf35645bce3a34137a0447049355
+
+$ npx workproof verify workproof-report.json --fingerprint-key 9dc900a6227a1faaaa17d774565afbf3
+schema ok
+hash ok 63d4fd1373b06b090086a653d52dfed234edcf35645bce3a34137a0447049355
+openwiki: fingerprint ok
+all figures reproduce
 ```
 
+`check` needs the JSON and nothing else. `verify` needs the repository.
+
 ## What a report looks like
 
-This is real output for one maintainer of [langchain-ai/openwiki](https://github.com/langchain-ai/openwiki)
-at `1e6d54c`, run on 5 September 2026 with `--author "Colin Francis" --sample 5`, paths and
-emails hidden (the defaults):
+Real output for one maintainer of openwiki at `1e6d54c`, run on 5 September 2026 with
+`--author "Colin Francis" --sample 5`, paths and emails hidden (the defaults). Under every
+figure the full report also prints `How:` with the git command and `What this cannot show:`;
+they are cut here for length.
 
 ```
 ## openwiki
 
-HEAD 1e6d54cdfeec · fingerprint 82aa401bbba056f1 · identities: Colin Francis
+HEAD 1e6d54cdfeec · fingerprint a1b19a27aab4a577 · identities: Colin Francis
+
+excluded 64 bot commits and 1 generated, vendored or lock file (2.2% of lines added)
 
 ### Tenure window
 2026-07-06 to 2026-09-03 (60 days)
 
 ### Share of commits in tenure
-71 of 295 non-merge commits, 24.1%
+71 of 233 non-merge commits, 30.5%
 
 ### Cadence
 9 active weeks of 9, 7.9 commits per active week, longest streak 9 weeks
 1 of 21 release tags in tenure
 
 ### Footprint
-694 files touched
+693 files touched
 16 directories with a commit share at or above the threshold (paths hidden; run with --paths)
-languages by lines added: TypeScript 80.4%, JSON 9.6%, Markdown 7.0%, JavaScript 1.6%, YAML 1.4%
+languages by lines added: TypeScript 81.4%, JSON 9.7%, Markdown 7.1%, JavaScript 1.6%, YAML 0.2%
+
+### Test-file changes and documents created
+393 of 656 test-file changes, 59.9%
+101 documents created
+
+### Files authored
+455 of 555 files alive at HEAD, 82.0% (degree of authorship)
+
+### Major-contributor components
+major contributor in 59 of 65 directories (at least 5% of commits)
+
+### Commit size
+median 166 lines, 90th percentile 9,234, 6 commits over 10,000 lines
+
+### Co-authored commits
+119 commits by others naming the author in a Co-authored-by trailer
+
+### Absence factor
+4 authors cover half the commits; the author ranks 1 of 71 by commit count
 
-### Tests and documentation
-393 of 657 test-file changes, 59.8%
-116 documents authored
+### AI-assisted commits
+1 commit declares an AI tool in a trailer, 1.4% of the author's commits
 
 ### Surviving lines at HEAD
-23,317 of 33,038 surviving lines, 70.6% (files 123/548, sample 1 in 5)
+23,317 of 33,038 surviving lines, 70.6% (files 123/547, sample 1 in 5)
+
+### Survival by cohort
+2026: 23,317 lines
 ```
 
-Under every figure the report prints two more lines: `How:` with the git command that
-produced it, and `What this cannot show:`. The last section is `Integrity`: the report
-hash and the repository fingerprint.
+Read the first line and the two shares together. Sixty-four bot commits left the
+denominator before anything was counted, which moved this person's commit share from the
+24.1% an older version reported to 30.5%. They wrote 30.5% of the human commits in their
+window and 70.6% of the lines that are still alive. A commit count alone would have called
+them one contributor among seventy-one. That gap, in either direction, is usually the most
+honest thing a report can say about someone's work.
+
+## When someone reformatted the code
 
-Read the two shares together. This person wrote 24.1% of the commits in their window and
-70.6% of the lines that are still alive. A commit count would have called them a minor
-contributor. That gap, in either direction, is usually the most honest thing a report can
-say about someone's work.
+A repository-wide formatter run rewrites lines it did not write. Plain `git blame` then
+credits every one of them to whoever ran the formatter. workproof reads
+`.git-blame-ignore-revs` at the root by default, so those commits are skipped and the
+lines keep their real author; `-w` handles whitespace-only changes on its own, so the
+file matters when a formatter changed quotes, line breaks or trailing commas.
+
+[guidance-ai/guidance](https://github.com/guidance-ai/guidance) at `21b1d90` (21 May 2026)
+lists its black and ruff runs in that file. Two runs per author on 5 September 2026 with
+`--sample 1`; the second passes an empty `--ignore-revs-file`, which is the only way to
+turn the default off:
+
+| author | honouring `.git-blame-ignore-revs` (default) | ignoring it |
+|---|---|---|
+| Harsha Nori, who ran black over the tree in April 2024 | 2,185 of 49,267 surviving lines, 4.4% | 2,476 of 49,267, 5.0% |
+| Scott Lundberg, who wrote most of what black reformatted | 12,368 of 49,267, 25.1% | 12,152 of 49,267, 24.7% |
+
+Without the file, 291 lines of other people's code would have counted for the person who
+ran the formatter, 216 of them taken from one author. The report prints the file it used
+in every `How:` line and under `environment.ignoreRevs` in the JSON, so two reports are
+only comparable when that line matches:
+
+```
+How: `git blame --line-porcelain -w -M --ignore-revs-file .git-blame-ignore-revs HEAD -- <file> over a deterministic 1-in-1 file sample (surviving-lines 0.1.1: FNV-1a on path); generated, vendored and lock files excluded`
+```
+
+## In plain language
+
+Each repository section of the Markdown report opens with a paragraph a non-engineer can
+read, assembled from the figures by a fixed rule with no model call, so it is deterministic
+and says nothing the numbers do not:
+
+> Ada worked in app from 5 January 2026 to 19 January 2026, a span of 15 days. They made 3
+> of the 3 changes recorded in that period (100%), and 16 of the 31 lines of code still in
+> the project today are theirs (52%). The second number is the one that lasts: it counts the
+> work that survived everything written since. 5 of the 8 files in the project were started
+> by them (63%). They were active in 3 of the 3 weeks in that period. Before any of this was
+> counted, 1 automated change and 2 machine-written or copied files were removed, so none of
+> them inflate the figures.
+
+It states no opinion about quality, keeps the two shares apart, and ends with the command
+that recomputes it. `--narrate` is a different thing: that one asks a model, is labelled as
+unverified in the report, and is not part of the hash. So is this paragraph, which is
+derived from the hashed figures rather than added to them.
 
 ## What it measures
 
-All six figures come from git and nothing else.
+Every figure comes from git and nothing else. Bot commits and generated, vendored, lock and
+snapshot files are removed before any of them is computed (see Gaming and bias).
 
 | figure | what it is | what it cannot show |
 |---|---|---|
 | Tenure window | first to last commit by the author, or `--since/--until` | work before the first commit or after the last |
-| Share of commits | non-merge commits by the author over all non-merge commits in the window | what survived; a typo and a subsystem count the same |
+| Share of commits | non-merge commits by the author over all human non-merge commits in the window | what survived; a typo and a subsystem count the same |
 | Cadence | active weeks, commits per active week, longest streak, release tags in tenure and the author's | a week with one commit and a week with forty both count as active |
-| Footprint | files touched, directories at or above a commit-share threshold, languages by lines added | generated and vendored files inflate whoever committed them |
-| Tests and docs | share of test-file changes, documents authored | test cases, coverage, or the quality of a document |
-| Surviving lines | share of lines alive at HEAD, `git blame -w -M` over a deterministic file sample, via [surviving-lines](https://github.com/Bubblegunn/surviving-lines) | merit; code deleted on purpose counts for nobody |
+| Footprint | files touched, directories at or above a commit-share threshold, languages by lines added | anything the exclusion lists miss still counts |
+| Test-file changes and documents created | share of test-file changes; `.md`, `.mdx`, `.rst` files whose oldest commit is the author's | test cases, coverage, or the quality of a document |
+| Files authored | files alive at HEAD where the author's degree of authorship (Avelino et al.) is at least 3.293 and above 75% of the file's maximum | coefficients fitted on other systems; first authorship outweighs later rewrites |
+| Major-contributor components | directories where the author has at least 5% of the commits (Bird et al.) | commit exposure treats a typo and a subsystem alike |
+| Commit size | median and 90th percentile of added plus deleted lines per commit; commits over 10,000 lines | size is not value; imports and reformats dominate the 90th percentile |
+| Co-authored commits | other people's commits naming the author in a `Co-authored-by` trailer | trailers are written by the merger and can be absent or wrong |
+| Absence factor | the smallest set of authors covering half the commits (CHAOSS), and the author's rank | several unmerged emails count as several people |
+| AI-assisted commits | author commits whose trailers or name declare Claude, Cursor, Copilot, Codex, Gemini, ChatGPT, Aider, Devin or Windsurf | a missing trailer is not evidence of unassisted work |
+| Surviving lines | share of lines alive at HEAD, one `git blame -w -M` pass over a deterministic file sample, honouring `.git-blame-ignore-revs` | merit; code deleted on purpose counts for nobody |
+| Survival by cohort | the author's surviving lines by the year of the commit that last touched them | newer cohorts have had less time to die |
 
 ## How verification works
 
-- The JSON carries the repository's HEAD, a **fingerprint** (sha256 of the root commit and
-  the normalised remote URL, so the repository is identified without being named), the
-  identity names used, the `surviving-lines` version, every parameter, and a **hash** of
-  the parameters and figures.
-- `workproof verify report.json` recomputes every figure in the repository you point it at
-  and prints a match table. If HEAD moved since the report, it says so and shows which
-  figures changed.
-- A hiring manager needs two things: the report and read access to the repository (or a
-  colleague inside the company who will run one command). Nothing leaves the repository.
+Three commands, in increasing order of what the reader needs to have.
+
+- `workproof check report.json` needs only the file. It validates the document against
+  [schema/report.schema.json](schema/report.schema.json) and recomputes the hash: sha256
+  over the [RFC 8785](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8785) canonical JSON of the
+  parameters and figures. An edited figure prints `hash mismatch: report says X, content
+  hashes to Y` and exits 1. No git, no network.
+- `workproof verify report.json` needs the repository. It runs `check`, compares the
+  fingerprint (with `--fingerprint-key`; without it the comparison is skipped and says so),
+  compares HEAD, then recomputes every figure and prints what differs. A report from another
+  repository stops at the fingerprint. If HEAD moved since the report, it says so and shows
+  which figures changed.
+- `workproof attest report.json` writes `report.intoto.json`, an
+  [in-toto](https://in-toto.io) v1 Statement whose subject is the report hash and whose
+  predicate carries the tool version, parameters, HEAD, keyed fingerprint, git version and
+  exclusion counts, and nothing else: no figures, no remote, no paths, no emails.
+  `--local ~/.ssh/id_ed25519` signs it with `ssh-keygen -Y sign` in the `workproof`
+  namespace and writes the detached signature plus a DSSE envelope. Anyone with your public
+  key checks it with:
+
+  ```
+  ssh-keygen -Y verify -f allowed_signers -I you@example.com -n workproof \
+    -s workproof-report.intoto.json.sig < workproof-report.intoto.json
+  ```
+
+  where `allowed_signers` is one line, `you@example.com ssh-ed25519 AAAA...`, and the key is
+  the one GitHub serves at `https://github.com/<you>.keys`.
+
+What `verify` proves: every figure was recomputed from that repository at that moment and
+came out the same, and the document was not edited after it was written. What it does not
+prove: that the repository is honest history, that the figures measure anything worth
+measuring, or that the work was good. A repository whose history was rewritten before the
+report was made reproduces perfectly. The command prints both halves of that after its
+result, so a reader who never opens this README still sees the limit.
+
+A figure that differs is not proof of dishonesty either. Every figure except tenure is
+computed at HEAD, and HEAD moves; `verify` prints the HEAD line first for that reason.
+
+In the GitHub Action, `attest: "true"` signs the same statement keylessly with
+[Sigstore](https://www.sigstore.dev): cosign is installed from a SHA-pinned action and
+`cosign attest-blob` writes `workproof-report.sigstore.json`. A reader verifies it with:
+
+```
+cosign verify-blob-attestation workproof-report.json \
+  --bundle workproof-report.sigstore.json \
+  --type https://workproof.dev/attestation/v1 \
+  --certificate-oidc-issuer https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com \
+  --certificate-identity-regexp '^https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/'
+```
+
+What that proves: this exact JSON was produced by a workflow run in that repository, at
+that commit, and has not changed since. What it does not prove: that the figures are
+right (run `verify` for that) or that the workflow was honest about which repository it
+checked out. Two warnings before you turn it on. The Fulcio certificate names the
+repository the workflow ran in, and the Rekor transparency log is public and permanent. For
+private code the documented pattern is a small public repository that holds the report and
+runs the attest step, so the private repository's name never reaches the log.
 
 ## Privacy
 
-- No code content, ever. The tool reads `git log --numstat` and `git blame`, and emits
-  counts.
+- No code content, ever. The tool reads `git log --numstat` and `git blame` and emits counts.
 - No file paths by default. `--paths` adds directory names at the configured `--depth`
   (default 2), never files.
-- No email addresses by default. `--emails` adds them; without it, even the `--author`
-  you typed is replaced by `(email hidden)` in the stored parameters.
-- The optional narrative (`--narrate`) sends the figures, and only the figures, to a
-  model endpoint you choose (`WORKPROOF_API_URL`, `WORKPROOF_API_KEY`, `WORKPROOF_MODEL`;
-  OpenAI-compatible or Anthropic). The paragraph is appended under
-  "Generated narrative (not verified)" and is excluded from the hash.
+- No email addresses by default. `--emails` adds them; without it, even the `--author` you
+  typed is replaced by `(email hidden)` in the stored parameters. GitHub noreply addresses
+  (`<id>+<login>@users.noreply.github.com`) are never written, with or without the flag,
+  because the login is in the local part.
+- Non-subject names are never written. The absence-factor figure carries counts only.
+- The fingerprint is `HMAC-SHA256(key, root commit + remote)` under a 16-byte key generated
+  per report. The key is printed once and stored nowhere, so a public repository cannot be
+  looked up from its fingerprint. Pass `--fingerprint-key` to reuse a key across reports of
+  the same repository.
+- The optional narrative (`--narrate`) sends the figures, and only the figures, to a model
+  endpoint you choose (`WORKPROOF_API_URL`, `WORKPROOF_API_KEY`, `WORKPROOF_MODEL`;
+  OpenAI-compatible or Anthropic). The paragraph is appended under "Generated narrative
+  (not verified)" and is excluded from the hash.
 
 ## Options
 
 ```
 workproof [options] [--repo <dir>]...
-workproof verify <report.json> [--repo <dir>]...
-
---author <email|name>  identity to report on (repeatable; default: git config user.email)
---repo <dir>           repository to analyse (repeatable; several produce one combined report)
---since / --until      override the tenure window
---sample <n>           blame every n-th file (default: 1; 7 for very large repositories)
---max-commits <n>      read only the newest n commits (escape hatch for enormous histories)
---depth <n>            directory depth for ownership (default: 2)
---paths                include directory paths
---emails               include author emails
---narrate              append a model-written paragraph
---badge                also write <out>.badge.json, a shields.io endpoint document
---out <basename>       output basename (default: workproof-report)
---format <mode>        write markdown, json, or both (default: both); json prints to stdout
---json                 same as --format json
+workproof check <report.json>
+workproof verify <report.json> [--repo <dir>]... [--fingerprint-key <hex>]
+workproof attest <report.json> [--local <ssh-key>]
+
+--author <email|name>   identity to report on (repeatable; default: git config user.email)
+--repo <dir>            repository to analyse (repeatable; several produce one combined report)
+--since / --until       override the tenure window
+--sample <n>            blame every n-th file (default: 1; 7 for very large repositories)
+--seed <text>           salt for the blame file sample
+--exclude <glob>        also drop files matching the glob (repeatable)
+--no-exclusions         count bot commits and generated, vendored, lock and snapshot files
+--copies                pass -C to git blame so copied lines follow their origin
+--ignore-revs-file <f>  blame ignore-revs file (default: .git-blame-ignore-revs at the root)
+--fingerprint-key <hex> reuse a fingerprint key so two reports of one repository match
+--max-commits <n>       read only the newest n commits (escape hatch for enormous histories)
+--depth <n>             directory depth for ownership (default: 2)
+--paths                 include directory paths
+--emails                include author emails
+--narrate               append a model-written paragraph
+--badge                 also write <out>.badge.json, a shields.io endpoint document
+--out <basename>        output basename (default: workproof-report)
+--format <mode>         write markdown, json, or both (default: both); json prints to stdout
+--json                  same as --format json
 ```
 
 A `.mailmap` in the repository merges an author's several addresses. Progress lines go to
-stderr while history is read and files are blamed, so a long run is visibly alive; on a
-history of hundreds of thousands of commits, `--max-commits` bounds the read and the report
-records that it did.
+stderr while history is read and files are blamed. Every git call runs with
+`diff.renames=true`, `diff.algorithm=myers`, `diff.indentHeuristic=true` and
+`core.autocrlf=false`, and the report records the git version, the blame flags, the
+ignore-revs file and the seed, so two machines with different defaults agree, and `verify`
+can tell an environment drift from an edit.
 
 ## Badge
 
@@ -146,7 +305,7 @@ records that it did.
 [shields.io endpoint format](https://shields.io/badges/endpoint-badge):
 
 ```json
-{ "schemaVersion": 1, "label": "workproof", "message": "70.6% surviving lines · 24.1% commits", "color": "1f3fbf" }
+{ "schemaVersion": 1, "label": "workproof", "message": "70.6% surviving lines · 60 days", "color": "1f3fbf" }
 ```
 
 Commit it to a public repository (your portfolio, a gist) and point shields at the raw URL:
@@ -160,10 +319,12 @@ reader verifies, the badge is only how they find it.
 
 ## GitHub Action
 
-The repository ships a composite action that runs workproof on a checkout and posts one
-sticky comment on the pull request with the six figures. `fetch-depth: 0` is required, or
-the history the figures come from is missing; `author` is required because a GitHub login
-does not map reliably onto commit identities.
+The repository ships a composite action that runs workproof on a checkout, runs `check`,
+writes the in-toto statement, puts the Markdown report in the job summary, uploads the
+report files as one artifact, and posts one sticky comment on the pull request with the
+headline figures. `fetch-depth: 0` is required, or the history the figures come from is
+missing; `author` is required because a GitHub login does not map reliably onto commit
+identities.
 
 ```yaml
 name: workproof
@@ -172,6 +333,7 @@ on:
 permissions:
   contents: read
   pull-requests: write
+  id-token: write # only for attest: "true"
 jobs:
   report:
     runs-on: ubuntu-latest
@@ -182,51 +344,108 @@ jobs:
       - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
         with:
           node-version: 22
-      - uses: Bubblegunn/workproof@main
+      - uses: Bubblegunn/workproof@v0
         with:
           author: ada@example.com
           sample: "1"
+          attest: "false"
 ```
 
-The comment is updated in place on later pushes (it carries a marker), and the JSON report
-stays in the workspace as `workproof-report.json` for an `upload-artifact` step if you want
-the evidence kept with the run. Set `comment: "false"` to only produce the files.
-
-## Can it be gamed?
-
-Partly, and the report is built so the gaming shows.
-
-- Commit spam moves commit share and cadence, and nothing else. Surviving lines come from
-  `git blame` at HEAD, so a thousand empty commits add zero surviving lines, and the gap
-  between the two shares is printed side by side.
-- Vendoring a library inflates lines added. The languages figure and the owned-directory
-  list (with `--paths`) show where those lines landed, and a reviewer sees a directory
-  named `vendor` or `node_modules` owning most of them.
-- Rewriting history to change authorship changes the root commit or HEAD, so the
-  fingerprint and HEAD in an older report stop matching.
-- The verifier runs against the same repository. A report that does not reproduce is worse
-  than no report, which is the incentive the tool relies on.
-
-What it cannot catch: a genuinely large, low-value contribution. That is what references
-are for.
+`@v0` is a moving tag the maintainer points at the newest 0.x release; pin a commit SHA if
+you want the action to never change under you. Inputs reach the shell through environment
+variables, never by interpolation into the script. The comment is updated in place on later
+pushes (it carries a marker). The full Markdown report appears on the run's summary page,
+and `workproof-report.md`, `.json`, `.intoto.json` and `.predicate.json` are uploaded as the
+`workproof-report` artifact, so a report survives the workspace and can be downloaded from
+the run. Set `comment: "false"` to skip the comment and keep the summary and the artifact.
+
+## Gaming and bias
+
+Partly gameable, and built so the gaming shows. `npm run bench:adversarial` applies four
+strategies to copies of the same fixture repository, dates every gaming commit inside the
+subject's existing tenure so the window itself does not move, and recomputes every figure
+with identical parameters:
+
+| figure | baseline | commit padding | whitespace churn | generated file | generated, marked | Bob alone | Bob credits Ada |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| commits per week | 1.0 | **21.0** | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
+| median commit | 4 lines | **2 lines** | 4 lines | 4 lines | 2 lines | 4 lines | 4 lines |
+| surviving lines | 51.6% | 53.1% | 51.6% | **99.3%** | 53.1% | 6.9% | 6.9% |
+| surviving count | 16 | 17 | 16 | **2,016** | 17 | 16 | 16 |
+| co-authored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **8** |
+| excluded files | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | **3** | 2 | 2 |
+
+Sixty padding commits take the cadence from 1.0 to 21.0 a week and buy one surviving line,
+16 to 17, while the median commit falls from 4 lines to 2: loud in the rows that count
+commits, silent in the row that counts code, and the median is the tell in the same report.
+Re-indenting every source line moves nothing, because blame runs with `-w`.
+
+The generated file is the real hole, and the table says so: 2,000 machine-written lines
+under a name the built-in lists do not match take surviving lines from 51.6% to 99.3%. The
+same file marked `linguist-generated` in `.gitattributes` leaves every count and shows up
+in the excluded column instead. The defence is a repository convention, not a detector.
+
+The co-author trailer buys nothing. Bob's eight commits move the subject's shares down
+either way because Bob wrote that code; naming the subject as co-author changes the
+co-authored count and no other row. `test/adversarial.test.ts` pins the last two of those
+so they cannot regress quietly.
+
+These are the thirteen things a reader should know before trusting a number.
+
+1. Commit spam moves commit share and cadence, and nothing else. Surviving lines come from
+   `git blame` at HEAD, so a thousand empty commits add zero surviving lines, and the two
+   shares are printed side by side.
+2. Vendoring a library inflates lines added. Vendored directories, lock files, snapshots,
+   minified assets and generated outputs are excluded by built-in lists and by
+   `linguist-generated` or `linguist-vendored` in `.gitattributes`, and the report prints how
+   much was excluded. Anything the lists miss still counts; `--exclude` covers it, and the
+   glob is recorded in the parameters.
+3. Bot commits (`dependabot[bot]`, `renovate[bot]`, GitHub app identities) leave every
+   denominator. A bot with a human-looking name is not detected; there is no heuristic.
+4. A reformat commit takes every line it touched unless it is listed in
+   `.git-blame-ignore-revs`. The report says which file was used, or that none was.
+5. `--since`, `--until`, `--sample`, `--seed` and `--exclude` are all ways to choose a
+   flattering window or sample. Every one of them is stored in the parameters and hashed.
+6. Rewriting history to change authorship changes the root commit or HEAD, so the fingerprint
+   and HEAD in an older report stop matching.
+7. Degree of authorship uses coefficients fitted on other systems. First authorship weighs
+   more than later rewrites, so a file rewritten from scratch by someone else can stay with
+   its creator.
+8. `Co-authored-by` trailers are written by whoever merges. They can be missing, wrong, or
+   added by a squash-merge UI, and pairing without a trailer is invisible.
+9. AI-assisted means a trailer or author name said so. The absence of a trailer is not
+   evidence of unassisted work; blame credits the human for every line, so authorship no
+   longer implies comprehension. These commits are never excluded from any other figure.
+10. The absence factor counts email addresses. An author with several unmerged addresses
+    counts as several people; add a `.mailmap`.
+11. Documents created counts files whose oldest commit is the author's. A one-line README
+    and a design document count the same.
+12. Test-file changes are file changes matching test paths, not test cases, assertions or
+    coverage.
+13. The verifier runs against the same repository. A report that does not reproduce is worse
+    than no report, which is the incentive the tool relies on. What no figure catches is a
+    genuinely large, low-value contribution. That is what references are for.
 
 ## For candidates
 
 Run it in each repository you are proud of and cannot show. Put the Markdown in your
-portfolio next to the sentence you would have written anyway ("I built the frontend"),
-and let the numbers carry the sentence. Keep the JSON; it is what a reviewer verifies.
+portfolio next to the sentence you would have written anyway ("I built the frontend"), and
+let the numbers carry the sentence. Keep the JSON and the fingerprint key; the JSON is what
+a reviewer verifies.
 
 ## For hiring managers
 
-Ask for the JSON and for someone inside the candidate's former company to run
-`npx workproof verify` on it. The table either reproduces or it does not. If the
-repository has moved on, the tool says which figures changed and why that is expected.
+Ask for the JSON. `npx workproof check` tells you in a second whether it was edited. Then
+ask someone inside the candidate's former company to run `npx workproof verify` on it. The
+table either reproduces or it does not. If the repository has moved on, the tool says which
+figures changed and why that is expected.
 
 ## For visa and immigration evidence
 
 workproof was built for a UK Global Talent application, where the strongest work was in
 private repositories and "trust me" is not evidence. A report is a measurement with its
-method attached, not an endorsement; pair it with letters from people who were there.
+method attached, not an endorsement; pair it with letters from people who were there, and
+with an attestation if the reader cannot reach the repository.
 
 ## What it does not do
 
@@ -237,8 +456,10 @@ not rank people. It does not replace references. It is not a legal document.
 
 The method is written up in
 [How to show engineering ownership when the repositories are private](https://efe-genc-portfolio.vercel.app/writing/showing-ownership-private-repositories/).
-The blame sampling is [surviving-lines](https://github.com/Bubblegunn/surviving-lines),
-workproof's only dependency.
+The sampler and glob helpers are [surviving-lines](https://github.com/Bubblegunn/surviving-lines),
+workproof's only dependency. Degree of authorship follows Avelino, Hora and Valente
+(2016), major contributors follow Bird et al. (2011), and the absence factor is the CHAOSS
+Contributor Absence Factor.
 
 ## Development