Spaces:
Sleeping
Sleeping
File size: 1,793 Bytes
befd2b8 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 | # LedgerShield v2 Demo Script
> Historical archive: this script documents the frozen Round 2 v2 demo. The
> current implementation story is LedgerShield ControlBench, which keeps this
> case-level demo and adds long-horizon loss-surface, calibration-gate, and
> sleeper-vendor sequence evaluation.
## Goal
Show, in under three minutes, that LedgerShield is a benchmark for institutional control intelligence rather than generic fraud detection.
## Demo Flow
### 1. Open the benchmark identity
Say:
> LedgerShield v2 evaluates whether an agent can operate a defensible AP control regime under partial observability, delayed artifacts, and portfolio pressure.
### 2. Run one live case
Recommended case:
- `CASE-D-001`
Show:
1. reset in `blind` mode
2. inspect email thread
3. compare bank account
4. request callback verification
5. submit decision
Point out:
- diagnostics are hidden in public mode
- delayed callback artifact changes what the agent can justify
- success depends on control behavior, not rhetoric
### 3. Show the metric split
Use the benchmark report and highlight:
- `control_satisfied_resolution`
- `institutional_utility`
- `unsafe_release_rate`
- `result_class`
Say:
> Two agents can have similar average scores, but LedgerShield separates the one that released money unsafely from the one that behaved like a control function.
### 4. Show the portfolio advantage
Open the `portfolio_track` section in the report and show:
- AP-week state delta
- callback/review capacity movement
- sequence-level utility
### 5. Close with the novelty statement
Say:
> The benchmark is hard because the agent must generalize across latent fraud mechanisms, manage enterprise controls over time, and satisfy policy gates against hidden backend state in blind mode.
|