> **Agent?** Fastest path: MCP at `https://api.mnemom.ai/mcp` — call `get_started` first (zero-auth, no args). Full agent guide: # Evidence — Cryptographic proof, not a log line | Mnemom Trust, with the receipts # When your regulator asks for proof, you hand them this. Not a log line — a cryptographic receipt. Exportable, independently verifiable, and mapped to a published grade scale. The evidence chain ## Every decision is bound to a signed, unbroken chain. From the card that defines an agent to the certificate that closes out a decision, each link is cryptographically bound to the one before it — so nothing can be inserted, reordered, or quietly deleted after the fact. How the chain is built ### Five links, one signed chain Each step below is hashed and chained to the last, then anchored so tampering after the fact is detectable. 1. 1 Card hashThe agent's Alignment Card is hashed at registration — any later edit produces a new, distinguishable hash. 2. 2 Input attestationWhat the agent was actually given is recorded before it acts, so a later claim about intent can't be rewritten. 3. 3 Decision traceThe reasoning path the agent took is captured as a structured trace, not a free-text summary. 4. 4 Tool-call ledgerEvery external call the agent makes is logged with its arguments and result, in order. 5. 5 Output certificateThe final decision is signed and issued as a certificate — the artifact you actually hand to a regulator. Ed25519 SHA-256 hash chain Merkle inclusion ZK-STARK · sampled Example Trust Rating support-agent · 1,240 verified checkpoints Example — not a live agent AAAExemplary 947/ 1000 Composite score over the trailing verification window. Integrity ratio _40%_952 Compliance _20%_980 Drift stability _20%_930 Trace completeness _10%_900 Coherence compatibility _10%_942 952 × .40 + 980 × .20 + 930 × .20 + 900 × .10 + 942 × .10 = 947 → AAA (900–1000). Published weights; synthetic inputs. Published weights; synthetic inputs[See the full methodology](/methodology) This measures integrity, not correctness: a Trust Rating certifies that an agent behaved consistently with its declared Alignment Card and left a complete, tamper-evident record — it does not certify that the agent's decisions were the right ones. [Read what we actually prove](/what-we-prove) The grade scale ## A published scale, not a black box. Every grade maps to a fixed score band and a documented signal profile — the same scale for every agent, published in advance. Grade Score band Tier Signals AAA 900–1000 Exemplary Consistent behavior across every measured checkpoint; no unresolved drift or compliance gaps. AA 800–899 Established Very high integrity with only isolated, well-explained deviations. A 700–799 Reliable Reliable overall; a small number of minor drift or trace gaps. BBB 600–699 Developing Meets the bar but with recurring minor issues worth monitoring. BB 500–599 Emerging Multiple compliance or drift flags; increased monitoring recommended. B 400–499 Concerning Frequent deviations from declared behavior; remediation advised. CCC 200–399 Critical Significant, repeated integrity failures across checkpoints. NR — Not Rated Insufficient verified history to compute a rating. Composite score = Integrity ratio (40%) + Compliance (20%) + Drift stability (20%) + Trace completeness (10%) + Coherence compatibility (10%). In production ## This isn't theoretical. It's already how the questions get answered. Three shapes the same evidence chain takes when someone outside the team actually asks for proof. - Fintech · lendingA denied applicant disputes the decisionThe decision trace shows exactly which inputs and rules produced the denial — no reconstruction from logs required. - Compliance · audit noticeA regulator asks for six months of recordsThe signed certificate chain exports directly, with its hash chain intact, instead of being assembled by hand from scattered systems. - Healthcare · fleet incidentOne agent in a fleet misbehavesDrift stability and trace completeness pinpoint the exact agent and moment, without pulling every agent's logs to compare. 88% of organizations running AI agents in production report having had a related security incident. [CIO / Gravitee, 2025](https://www.cio.com/article/3838291/enterprises-struggle-with-ai-agent-security.html) 133 / 240 of surveyed agents ship with blank or missing safety documentation fields. [MIT AI Agent Index](https://aiagentindex.mit.edu) #1 barrier to scaling agentic AI, cited by enterprises, is a lack of governance tooling. [McKinsey, 2025](https://www.mckinsey.com) Move fast. Stay standing. ## Know what your agents are actually doing. Before the board asks. Two commands to install. Free to start, no card. A signed record from the first decision onward — or talk to us about a self-hosted, dedicated-cell deployment. [Get started](/signup)[Book a demo](/contact)[See a live example](/showcase) --- _Source: /evidence/index.html · Generated by build-markdown-mirrors.mjs · For agent-readability commitment #4 see https://www.mnemom.ai/for-agents/_