003-F004: Replay must reconstruct what was knowable then

Thesis

A useful replay should reconstruct the decision state at the time, not only explain the final post-incident conclusion.

Classification

RAVEN HYPOTHESIS; confidence MODERATE; source quality: Public platform documentation plus Raven internal research support the hypothesis; external validation is still required.

Evidence

• S003-01
• S003-02
• S003-03
• S003-04

Reasoning

Raven can be evaluated as a replay layer that separates facts, observations, inferences and unknowns.

Counterevidence

Public documentation may already include adjacent governance, replay, automation or audit capabilities. This assessment does not treat non-disclosure as absence.

Limitations

This assessment is limited to public documentation and public-safe Raven research artifacts. The absence of public documentation does not establish the absence of capability. Customer-specific validation requires a bounded read-only pilot or an approved architecture review.

Conclusion

This finding is suitable for public review only as an evidence-bounded research question for Assessment 003.

Relevance to Raven

Raven may be useful where the organization needs a replayable, human-approved decision object above existing platform evidence.