Verified component qualification¶
ZapTrace qualifies component trust in bounded cohorts. Qualification is evidence-first and deliberately separates machine-verifiable readiness from human engineering review, trust-tier promotion, and release/fabrication approval.
A component can be review-ready while still remaining heuristic, release_eligible=false, and human_review_required=true.
Cohort A¶
The first qualification cohort is committed in data/qualification/verified-core-cohort-a.yaml:
esp32-c3-mini-1usb-c-16p(GCT USB4105-15-A-120)ap2112k-3.3bme280atecc608b
The cohort snapshot is evaluated as of 2026-09-05 with a 90-day freshness horizon for lifecycle and sourcing evidence.
Machine readiness¶
The gate checks every critical component field for:
- authoritative manufacturer or authorized-distributor source type;
- source locator and identity;
- exact source identity via raw
source_sha256, or a digest-bound repository capture for mutable lifecycle/sourcing web claims; - source version/capture identity;
- extraction method and date;
- lifecycle/sourcing freshness;
- exact physical package pin map;
- committed footprint proof identity and source digest;
- footprint pad/pin/courtyard consistency.
Footprint proofs are committed under data/library/evidence/footprints/ and bind the reviewed component footprint name to the exact vendored KiCad source file SHA-256.
Machine blockers are separate from human blockers. A missing or unstable source identity cannot be hidden by a reviewer approval. For mutable manufacturer/distributor pages, ZapTrace does not pretend that a CDN/anti-bot HTML response is a durable manufacturer document. Instead, lifecycle/sourcing evidence may bind to a committed JSON claim capture using source_capture_path plus source_capture_sha256. The capture must match component ID, source type, locator, identity, source version, capture date, critical field, and the committed component field value. This fallback is limited to lifecycle/sourcing; it does not replace raw document hashes for immutable manufacturer documents.
Human review boundary¶
The gate reports but never invents:
- field reviewer identity and review date;
- high-confidence reviewer judgment;
- risky-package review approval;
- release and fabrication review scopes.
Those are explicit human actions. The gate does not set trust_tier=verified, does not create reviewed_by metadata, and does not make a component release eligible.
Current Cohort A snapshot¶
docs/reports/component-qualification-cohort-a-2026-09-05.json is the committed deterministic snapshot.
Current result:
- review-ready: 5 / 5;
- machine-blocked: 0 / 5;
- human-review-required: 5 / 5;
- release-eligible: 0 / 5;
- report SHA-256:
4db763b3fd1ce9fca5db69d78f3fb7578807afa39da6ae9a5152724ee963ada2.
The former machine blockers are now bound to reproducible authoritative evidence:
usb-c-16p: a SHA-bound GCT USB4105 mutable-web capture for lifecycle and manufacturer-catalog sourcing claims;ap2112k-3.3: raw DiodesGL-106 Rev 249Master CoC PDF bytes, SHA-bound to the current manufacturer document that lists the orderable SOT25 part as active;atecc608b: a SHA-bound Microchip ATECC608B mutable-web capture for the lifecycle claim (not-recommended-for-new-designs).
These evidence bindings make the three records machine-review-ready; they do not promote trust, invent reviewer identity, approve procurement, or override the underlying manufacturer status. All five cohort records still require explicit engineering review before any verified/release/fabrication claim.
Run the gate¶
Strict mode fails when any machine blocker remains; the current Cohort A snapshot passes this machine-only gate:
To write the same evidence snapshot without making strict-mode exit status part of the caller contract:
uv run python scripts/ci_component_qualification_gate.py \
--report-only \
--output component-qualification.json
The report schema is committed at schemas/component-qualification-report-v1.schema.json.
Non-claims¶
Review readiness does not prove manufacturer approval, component authenticity, physical hardware behavior, thermal adequacy, EMC/SI/PI performance, assembly success, fabrication correctness, regulatory compliance, or production suitability. Physical and qualified engineering review remain separate gates.