Introduction
This documentation explains how Daejang turns EVM execution data into reviewable evidence and how that foundation is intended to support an Event → Report accounting flow. It separates working infrastructure from planned runtime so each claim can be evaluated at the right level.
Documentation
- Technical Overview — the submission overview and shortest path through the system.
- Implemented Infrastructure — how the JIT, schema, and persistence layers fit together.
- Product Roadmap — the planned Event → Posting → Valuation → Lot → Report flow.
- Trust and Limitations — failure semantics, privacy boundaries, evaluation plans, and claims this documentation does not make.
How to read the status labels
The four labels below are the complete vocabulary. Every capability claim on this site uses exactly one of them.
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Implemented | Code exists on the repository's base branch and a verification command runs against it. |
| Prototype | The component exists but is a static shell — it does not yet perform the function end to end. |
| Planned | A data contract, schema, or design exists. The execution runtime does not. |
| Not verified | Not found during the 2026-07-25 survey of the four repositories below. |
Not verified means, preciselyNot verified means we did not find a working implementation path and verification evidence in the base branches of the four surveyed repositories. It does not mean the capability does not exist anywhere, and it is not a statement about the status of any internal issue tracker.
Where work exists outside the surveyed repositories, it is outside this document's evidence chain, and this site does not cite it as proof. Connecting that work to a reviewable evidence chain is listed under Current Limitations.
The distinction the labels are built to preserve is this one: the existence of a schema, a migration, or a client library is not the existence of a runtime that computes anything. A storage layer that can persist a valuation is Implemented; the valuation engine that produces one is not.
Repositories behind these claims
| Repository | Base branch commit | Role |
|---|---|---|
BackwardLabs/daejang | 21d063f | React product and onboarding UI shell, plus design documents |
BackwardLabs/daejang-jit-engine | 8cb725d | EVM JIT evidence reconstruction, Observation generation, gRPC daemon |
BackwardLabs/schema | 95ed7eb | CUE evidence, ledger, and manifest contracts with validation fixtures |
BackwardLabs/daejang-db | 26904fb | PostgreSQL migrations and artifact/evidence/JIT/ledger/lot storage API |
The four repositories are currently private. A GitHub link to them is therefore not usable as public evidence for a reviewer. Verifying the claims on this site requires either reviewer access or a public source snapshot, neither of which is in place yet.
This is a genuine gap in the submission, not a formality. It is tracked in Current Limitations.
A repository named daejang-engine appears in some earlier internal material. It does not exist in the Backward Labs organization; the product repository is daejang. This site uses the four names above.