Skip to content
Rulebook 0.4.0 · effective Standards CD-0 · OS-1 · OS-2 · OS-3
An example statement

The document the buyer's finance team pays from.

One month, one commitment, every unit the vendor submitted — which ones counted, which ones did not, and why. The numbers below are computed by the same code that would produce a real statement.

Example
These units are invented. No commitment has settled. This is what the document looks like, computed from example units so that the arithmetic, the deduplication and the hash are real even though the tickets are not.
The basis

This statement counts. It does not verify.

Every unit below was submitted by the vendor, deduplicated against the dedupe key in the terms, and filtered to the period. Recourse has not checked whether any of them happened — the verification engine is not built, and a statement that implied otherwise would be the one lie this document cannot survive telling.

It is still worth something. A neutral count against a definition both sides signed is more than either side has today.

The same conversation cannot be billed twice: a unit carries a dedupe key from the terms, and a second submission of the same key is refused when it is submitted — hours before an invoice, not after one. That is why the duplicate count here is zero rather than a number we are proud of. The double-bill a vendor and a buyer would have argued about never entered the count.

The count
Submitted1242
Counted1240
Duplicate0 — refused at submission, not here
Outside period2
Payable$2170.00 — 1240 × $1.75
Recourse fee$1000.00 — the monthly minimum
What it is counted against
Period2026-08 (end exclusive)
StandardOS-1 0.4.0
Rulebook0.4.0
Unit price$1.75
Terms hasheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee…
Every unit, with its reason

Nothing is dropped silently.

A unit that did not count says which rule excluded it, by code, and the rulebook page for that code says what it means. The first 12 of 1242 are shown.

Units submitted in 2026-08, deduplicated and filtered to the period.
UnitOutcomeWhy
ticket-0Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-01.
ticket-1Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-02.
ticket-10Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-11.
ticket-100Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-17.
ticket-1000Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-21.
ticket-1001Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-22.
ticket-1002Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-23.
ticket-1003Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-24.
ticket-1004Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-25.
ticket-1005Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-26.
ticket-1006Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-27.
ticket-1007Counted · $1.75Claimed 2026-08-28.
Check, do not trust

Both parties hold the same bytes, and can prove it.

The statement is JSON, canonicalized per RFC 8785 and hashed with SHA-256. Recompute the hash from the document you were sent and compare it to the one in the commitment’s event stream. If they match, this is the statement that was issued — and you did not have to ask us.

sha256(JCS(statement))
7b9fc2c642bdb67fbb79224c79c39524bca1674f9792f1b650d4960e848e3f5d

The metering fee is charged on units metered, whether they counted or not, and never as a share of what was released. A fee that only arrived when an outcome was upheld would give the party deciding disputes an interest in upholding them.

At this volume the monthly minimum is what is charged, and it is a large share of the total — a month this size is below the size at which metering pays for itself. Said here rather than hidden behind a friendlier example: a relationship has to be a certain size before this is worth either party’s time, and pretending otherwise would waste it.

Reason codes are defined in the rulebook: R-311 duplicate outcome, R-103 outcome outside period.