Unsafe candidate
The proposed change satisfies a positive-login case but also permits access that should remain unauthorized.
ACC result: rejected against the approved preservation obligation.ACC GOVERNANCE
Protect the next decision.
Not just the next test.
A candidate repair can satisfy its headline requirement while damaging a protected obligation. ACC treats approval, evidence and preservation as different responsibilities.
AUTHORITY & CAUSAL CONTROL
A successful patch is not
necessarily a safe one.
If a proposed fix silently removes an access restriction, breaks a dependency or discards recovery state, technical progress can become an operational liability. ACC treats the authority to change something as a separate question from whether the code can be changed.
Discuss an ACC integration01
Know what must remain true
Specify protected conditions and authorized outcomes before applying a proposed repair.
02
Verify with separate evidence
Check protected behaviors independently of the candidate's own claims and ordinary training success.
03
Retain provenance and recovery
Link decisions to evidence and source identity; preserve recoverable originals and signed receipts where supported.
BOUNDED DEMONSTRATION
When a passing test
is not enough.
A controlled authentication example shows why an independent Causal Preservation Obligation is commercially useful.
Alternative candidate
An authorized competing change preserves the specified security behavior under independently checked conditions.
ACC result: eligible for review in the bounded test.Demonstrates the particular approved obligation and tested environment; it does not certify that every security consequence is covered, or that all Windows deployments are production-ready.
GOVERNED AUTOMATION
Authority should be explicit
before software changes.
Explore whether a scoped ACC verification pilot suits your existing systems.