The Breakthrough ingestion contract

FOUNDER != SCORE
OBSERVATION != CLAIM != FACT != BREAKTHROUGH
BREAKTHROUGH_CASE != CONFIRMED_BREAKTHROUGH

SESAC != TAJ != SIX_NEEDS
FOUNDER_STATE != FOUNDER_EVOLUTION != BREAKTHROUGH

SELF_REPORT != OBSERVED_BEHAVIOR
NOT_OBSERVED != OBSERVED_ABSENCE
DERIVED_EVIDENCE != INDEPENDENT_EVIDENCE
TEMPORAL_SEQUENCE != CAUSATION

An implementation that cannot preserve these distinctions is not compliant with the standard, regardless of how good its dashboards look.

A Breakthrough is a consequential reality-alignment shift that changes how a founder operates and survives contact with subsequent evidence.

Formally: an evidence-supported transition in which a founder's operative model of a consequential reality becomes materially better aligned with the strongest available evidence, produces meaningful operational expression, and remains observable beyond the initiating context while remaining revisable.

REAL WORLD / FOUNDER ACTIVITY
        |
        v
   OBSERVATION      immutable, provenance-bearing record
        |  N:M
        v
      CLAIM         falsifiable interpretive proposition
        |  N:M
        v
 BREAKTHROUGH CASE  governed investigation container
        |
        v
   ADJUDICATION     governed evaluation against requirements
        |
        v
   CASE STATUS

Identity, time, provenance, derivation, uncertainty, contradiction, version and limitations wrap all four. They are kernel services, not optional decoration.

CANDIDATE -> OPEN
   |-- insufficient evidence ---------> UNRESOLVED
   |-- material evidentiary conflict -> CONTESTED
   |-- evidence does not support -----> NOT_SUPPORTED
   v
PROVISIONALLY_SUPPORTED
   | reality alignment + consequentiality + operational
   | expression + subsequent evidence + persistence supported
   v
CONFIRMED -> (later material evidence) -> SUPERSEDED

Application names are never evidence types. Send source_system: RATE_MY_PITCH with evidence_type: BEHAVIOR — never RATE_MY_PITCH_EVIDENCE. Claim bearing is one of SUPPORTING, CONTRADICTING, CONTEXTUAL, AMBIGUOUS. Constructs are referenced explicitly: SESAC.SELF_EFFICACY, SESAC.SITUATIONAL_AWARENESS, SESAC.CLARITY, TAJ.TRUST, TAJ.ANTICIPATION, TAJ.JOY, NEED.*

Provenance law: three derived observations are not three independent observations. Oasis must not manufacture confidence by circulating one observation through several applications. Contradiction law: if Compass records a founder reporting they abandoned an ICP and Rate My Pitch later observes them defending it, both survive — no summarizer deletes the conflict for a cleaner story. Limitation law: every producer states what it cannot know.

Oasis agents may nominate Breakthrough cases, assemble evidence and draft requirement findings — SUPPORTED, UNRESOLVED, CONTESTED or NOT_SUPPORTED across reality alignment, consequentiality, operational expression, subsequent evidence and persistence. A draft adjudication is never a determination. Only Prepare 4 VC staff sign an adjudication that moves a case to CONFIRMED, and every signed adjudication remains preserved when a later one supersedes it.

Agents preserve UNKNOWN rather than fabricate completeness, never infer a Breakthrough from scores, emotional state, evolution phase or external success, and never produce a numerical Breakthrough probability.

The Breakthrough Program's entry and current program scores and the pressure response arc are legacy program-progress indicators. They describe cohort movement inside a program window. They carry no Breakthrough authority, cannot open or confirm a case, and are never presented as evidence of transformation.