Evidence-layer confidence for the proposed Aave risk framework: what is observed, explained, historically traced, authorization-proven, partial, or Unknown?

Continuing the discussion from [ARFC] Aave Risk Framework : This framework raises an important evidence-layer question. Risk categories such as asset risk, bridging risk, monitoring / automated risk oracle systems, and chain risk are necessary. But they still depend on a lower representational layer: what is observed, what is explained, what is historically traced, what is authorization-proven, and what remains Unknown? In my recent public FET research note, I argue that DeFi transparency is not explanation. Current configuration, historical configuration action, oracle/source provenance, and governance authorization should not be collapsed into one evidence layer. For risk frameworks, this matters because a recommendation can be correct while the evidence beneath its state inputs remains uneven. The question I would ask here is: Will the framework explicitly label evidence confidence for each recommendation, parameter path, oracle path, or deprecation decision? Public note: Zenodo DeFi Transparency Is Not Explanation: State, Provenance, and Evidence-Classed... This public research note presents selected findings from Flow Extraction Theory (FET), an independent research program studying evidence-classed representation of economic state in DeFi lending markets. The note argues that DeFi transparency is not... 1 post - 1 participant Read full topic