May this money cross this border?

One proposition · six axes · all showingv0.11.0

Every axis also states what it does not establish.

Every record in the register has this shape. No hidden confidence score, no summary whose provenance cannot be named — six fields, each of which can be pointed at and questioned, and each of which states what it does not establish.

dependency order · four layers

Each layer is empty if the one below it is not true.

The usual way a project like this dies is starting at the third layer: sell first, source the evidence afterwards, discover the evidence will not come. So the order is written down, and so is the state of each one.

layer one · the base

The test is not that it is right. It is that a wrong entry can be pointed at.

Fluent, against checkable

Both panels are written illustrations, not transcripts. The second answer is not more confident. It is less confident, in writing, in a form software can act on.

The engine that reads it never returns permission to execute

The register answers what the law says. The engine answers a narrower and more dangerous question: given this specific proposed action, what do the axes actually support. The failure mode is returning something actionable when the evidence does not reach, so evaluate_action() is built so that it structurally cannot.

// illustrative shape. MCP_SERVER.md carries the
// authoritative signature and return contract.
evaluate_action({
  "action":       "offer_emt_inbound",
  "origin":       "EU",
  "destination":  "US",
  "as_of":        "2026-08-20"
})

// the first field is a constant, in every version
{
  "execution_authorized": false,
  "decision":             "review_required",
  "because":             "evidence_chain_open",
  "binding_axis":        "review",
  "corridor_class":      "T",
  "resolves_on":         "2027-01-18",
  "register":            "v0.11.0",
  "receipt":             "sha256:…"
}

The verdict it produces is directional, and it is dated

The binding rule sits at the destination's inbound gate, with a drag from the origin. Today US → EU clears and EU → US does not, though nothing bars it: the US regime is written and not yet in force. Move the date past 18 January 2027 and that edge resolves to Category II along with seven others into the US. In this register 56 of the 66 jurisdiction pairs read differently depending on which way the money moves. A flat compliance table has one cell per pair. That is the whole problem.

layer two · the constraint

One axis is stuck at zero, and code will not move it.

Of 152 sourced records, 103 have an official source, 41 have one reviewer, and 0 have a reconciled independent second review. Every layer above rests on the third number, and only a person moves it.

layer three · revenue

What will be sold, and what never will.

This layer does not exist today. It is written down because it eventually will, and how it gets built decides how much credibility the two layers under it keep. The free register promises no uptime and tells you to verify against primary law; the commercial thing would sell precisely the inverse. They cannot hang on the same object.

layer four · position

Cited, not bought.

A governance-grade position cannot be bought and cannot be asserted. There is one route: make the thing citable enough that people cite it in formal settings, then wait to be cited. Two seeds are in the ground — one piece filed in the US SEC Crypto Task Force docket, one published on Duke Law's FinReg Blog. Next is continuing to answer regulatory consultations, and taking the KYA framework — Know Your Agent — into an appropriate standards forum.

who reads it

One infrastructure layer. Different duties.

The same record has to survive legal, technical, policy, research and capital review without changing what it claims.

scope · the name is wider than the register, and that has to be said

Settlement is the frame. Stablecoins are the first instrument class.

six surfaces · one record

The register changes shape, not truth.