Cyan Eclipse Verbatim MCP — Cyan Eclipse Bazaar

Vendor: Cyan Eclipse Technologies · Platforms: MCP over stdio

Certification scope

CERTIFIED(local) — Eclipse Bazaar Test Bench 2026-10-26, standing card eclipse-verbatim-mcp-2026-10-26-2.json (scoped re-bench of the baseline PARTIAL; baseline card retained append-only): all 5 re-bench scopes PASS. Proven: the 10-tool local stdio surface as shipped (builder suite 64/64 + smoke PASS, re-run and confirmed by the bench); canonicalization verbatim-canon/1.1 — an independent bench implementation written from the amended spec §5/§6/§7/§8.1 alone, importing no product code, reproduces snapshot usc26-119-124-de68dcc8b3db exactly (census 8/8; statutory 2,277/2,277 hashes + byte lengths + word counts; editorial 2,277/2,277; corpus_root and editorial_root equal to served; manifest_sha256 recomputed equal; §8.1 derivation reproduces the snapshot suffix de68dcc8b3db); run against the superseded 1.0 seal it diverges at exactly one section (§7519), isolating the single published canon rule change. Cite-check: 0 false MATCH across the hostile subset on the new snapshot (digit alteration localized identically to baseline, punctuation/quote-mark/em-dash swaps DIVERGE, editorial-as-statute NOT_IN_CORPUS with EDITORIAL hint, instruction-shaped passages NOT_IN_CORPUS / DIVERGES, wrong-section claims NOT_IN_CORPUS with found-elsewhere). Tamper: every entry/bytes tamper shape is named by section and degrades the signature to SIGNATURE_UNVERIFIED; metadata-only tampers degrade loudly. Non-Title-26 citations return CORPUS_OUT_OF_SCOPE across tools (13 title/CFR forms); grammar failures stay CITATION_MALFORMED. KNOWN LIMITATIONS (standing observations on the card, in plain words): a cite-check MATCH for a repealed section carries no status field, so a repealed section's line can match without the response saying it is repealed (D-5); 115 sections that carry no identifier attribute in the source share a derived citation form and cannot be addressed by citation grammar — they are reachable only via manifest paging, search, or unclaimed cite-check (D-6); cite-check's candidate pre-filter samples 32-byte windows at a step of 8 — it can only ever produce non-MATCH outcomes, never a false MATCH (D-7). Two spec-clarification errata candidates are recorded for the next spec touch, not product fixes: a long-form prose title citation ('Title 18, United States Code, §1341') returns CITATION_MALFORMED rather than CORPUS_OUT_OF_SCOPE (D-8), and the spec does not yet state in one line that a note nested inside a note contributes all its descendant text to the parent note's editorial bytes — the reading the seal uses (D-9). SIGNING: the P0 manifest is signed through the Herald port with labelled FIXTURE keys only (signer.kind 'fixture', FIXTURE_SIGNED) — never production Herald custody. NAME CONDITIONAL (spec D1, owner-side trademark screen still open): certification covers the local product under its working name; no public surface ships under any name before D1 closes.

What it does

Cite-check (the headline mechanism): a quoted passage is checked byte-for-byte against the sealed statutory text and returns a closed verdict — MATCH, DIVERGES with the first divergence localized by byte offsets, or NOT_IN_CORPUS. Bench facts: the hostile battery produced 0 false MATCH across digit swaps, word substitutions, punctuation changes, cross-section splices, editorial-notes-passed-as-statute, other-title text, and instruction-shaped passages; whitespace-only differences MATCH by published design and nothing non-whitespace is laundered
Sealed corpus, recomputable by anyone: Title 26 (OLRC-published text, release point Public Law 119-124) is sealed at ingest under the published canonicalization verbatim-canon/1.1 into snapshot usc26-119-124-de68dcc8b3db — per-section hashes for all 2,277 sections, dual Merkle roots (statutory + editorial), and a signed manifest. An independent implementation written from the spec text alone reproduces the seal exactly: 2,277/2,277 statutory and 2,277/2,277 editorial entries, both roots, the manifest hash, and the snapshot-id derivation
Notes are not statute: OLRC editorial notes are sealed in a separate EDITORIAL layer with its own hash root, served only under an EDITORIAL label; a note passage checked as statute returns NOT_IN_CORPUS with an EDITORIAL layer hint. Public Law history is served as labelled DERIVED data, never as statutory text
Verbatim retrieval + verification surface (10 tools, all read-only): get_section, search, and notes_get (retrieval is 3 of 10 verbs); cite_check, section_verify, manifest_get, and manifest_verify (verification); corpus_status, snapshot_list, and lineage (lineage). Snapshots are append-only — a correction is a new snapshot, never an edit (canon 1.1 supersedes 1.0, whose only change is §7519 sealed once instead of twice; the 1.0 snapshot remains fetchable unchanged)
No-advice surface, by construction: no tool interprets, explains, applies, or calculates anything; no response carries a score or a characterization beyond the closed verdict vocabulary. Title 26 statute only — no CFR. Title 26 is not positive law: claims are limited to the OLRC-published text at the named release point, identified by hash; the corpus is a dated snapshot, never described as current law

Tools

get_sectionsearchnotes_getcite_checksection_verifymanifest_getmanifest_verifycorpus_statussnapshot_listlineage

Problems it addresses

My agent quoted a tax-code passage — I need a byte-for-byte verdict on whether the sealed statute actually says that, with the first divergence pointed at
I need the text of a Title 26 section with a hash I can verify, not a scrape I have to trust
I need a corpus whose publisher notes can never be passed off as statutory text — to my agent or by it

Not tested

Hosted or remote serving — v0.1 is local stdio only; no hosted serve path exists or was certified.
Production Herald custody — P0 signing uses labelled fixture keys only; no production key was exercised.
Title 26 Regulations (26 CFR) — out of P0 scope by gate decision; no CFR verb exists on the surface.
Anything past release point Public Law 119-124 — the corpus is a dated, sealed snapshot; later law is not in it and currency is never claimed.
The trademark + confusion screen for the name 'Eclipse Verbatim' (spec D1, owner-side) — still open; it gates any public surface, not this local certification.
A third-party recompute by anyone other than the bench's independent implementation — the procedure is published (spec §5–§8.1) and the Verbatim Proof companion tool ships with the product, but no outside party has yet run it.

Bench scorecard: test-bench/results/eclipse-verbatim-mcp-2026-10-26-2.json

Evaluation-intake listing

This listing records the tool's place in the Bazaar's evaluation and monitoring pipeline, with the evidence gathered so far printed above — verdict, scope, and not-tested items included. It is not sold on this site, and its presence in the catalog is not a claim beyond that evidence. The service behind every verdict is the bench: what a bench run buys →