A finished project is the beginning of the evidence—not the end.
The production model pairs AI-assisted work with separately controlled evidence. The available Demo illustrates the sequence using predefined choices and makes no candidate claim.
Six moments.
One evidence chain.
Open each phase to see what is observed and what noCV can credibly claim.
01 Build
Use Codex, Claude, Cursor, Copilot, documentation, search, or other approved tools. The working outcome matters, but it is not yet proof of independent understanding.
Build02 Freeze
noCV captures the commit, lockfile, environment, mission version, artifacts, tests, and declared tools. The original evidence cannot silently change.
Freeze03 Verify
A qualifying deployment must technically enforce the declared tool policy while recording system-specific predictions and responses. The Demo does not enforce this restriction.
Verify04 Adapt
A qualifying deployment may release an important changed assumption under audited conditions. The predefined Demo mutation does not establish adaptation capability.
Adapt05 Defend
Explain invariants, trade-offs, failure paths, and what tests still do not prove. Every question cites the actual submission.
Defend06 Review
Outcome and ownership remain separate. A signed receipt may carry only claims supported by its controls and exact evidence; the Demo receipt is Level 0 and ownership INCONCLUSIVE.
ReviewWhat noCV claims—and what it refuses to claim.
Credibility comes from bounded language. Engineering ownership is observable; impossible authorship attribution is not.
A qualifying production record may support
- A bounded prediction matched the recorded outcome.
- A released constraint was addressed under stated controls.
- A specific injected failure was diagnosed under stated controls.
- A frozen submission passed named outcome checks.
Never inferred
- The engineer independently invented the architecture.
- Every line was written by the candidate.
- noCV proved that no AI was used.
- A single score proves hiring suitability.