Covered and excluded income
Status: Pending counselStatus: Built, runs on simulator
Covered income is the income included by the agreement; the protocol receives a figure and cannot decide whether a particular receipt belongs in it.
The final agreement is pending counsel. This page explains that boundary and does not supply binding categories of included or excluded receipts.
Status: Pending counselThe figure and its meaning
The circuit checks a relationship between committed terms, cumulative income, and the payment presented to it. It verifies the arithmetic and the commitments. Its inputs do not include the employment contract, invoice, tax treatment, or reason for a transfer.
The threshold therefore acts on the figure that was reported. It does not classify a receipt. If an agreement excludes a receipt, that classification must be handled when preparing and reviewing the income figure.
An issuer and an attestor need the same definition before the attestor can assess completeness. Calling a receipt a gift, salary, sale, or reimbursement in a user interface would not itself establish its treatment under the agreement.
What is available today
Stage 2 contains placeholder contract templates so the signing flow can be exercised. Their existence does not mean counsel has supplied final terms. D-008 in the source review records this gap explicitly.
The useful question is not only whether the calculation works. It is whether the agreed definition, evidence requested, reported figure, and attestation all refer to the same scope. The current circuit cannot settle a disagreement about that scope.
No final list of exclusions is published here. In particular, the documentation should not invent a rule for exceptional receipts merely because the software can accept an amount.
Who sees the supporting material
The privacy design separates commitments and payment amounts from evidence. A backer does not get raw income documents through holding a position. In the accountant-reviewed path, documents are encrypted for the chosen reviewer.
The information map describes that path and its limits. A recipient of evidence still needs to understand what the agreement asks them to verify; a proof of correct arithmetic does not replace that judgment.
What can go wrong
A mathematically correct payment can start from an incomplete or misclassified income figure. Until counsel supplies the agreement, examples cannot establish legal obligations. The development proof setup is also unsuitable for production, so these mechanics are explanations of the current implementation.