PROVA
Pricing
Sign inSTART FREE
PROVA

Formally verified AI reasoning. Every completion arrives with a certificate of logical validity or a precise diagnosis of failure.

H1(K;Z) = 0 iff argument is structurally valid.

Product
  • Verify
  • Gateway
  • Workflows
  • Models
  • Routing
  • Pricing
Solutions
  • For CCOs
  • Healthcare
  • Financial Services
  • Legal
  • Organizations
Proof
  • Benchmark
  • Trust Center
  • DPA
  • Subprocessors
  • Policies
  • security.txt
Developers
  • Documentation
  • Certificate Guide
  • Integrations
  • API Reference ↗
  • GitHub ↗
  • Embed Badge
Company
  • Book a demo
  • Compare
  • Sign in
  • Start free
  • Contact ↗
  • cobound.dev ↗

© 2026 Cobound · Compliance-ready for EU AI Act, FDA AI guidance, and SEC algorithmic audit.

v1.0.0TrustPolicies

Certificate

PROVA-20260418-B559

Issued

18 April 2026 at 15:10:38 UTC

✗INVALID

confidence

100/100

prova

v1.0.0

validator

v0.1.0

prompt

v1

proof theater →embed badge →download pdf →dispute result

Argument Graph

Drag nodes to explore. Hover for full claim text. Red nodes and edges indicate the failure location.

premiseclaimconclusion

Failure Diagnosis

type
CIRCULAR
location
A cycle exists among: The credit model estimates inter-pool default correlation at 0.3%, indicating that mortgage pools will not fail simultaneously, The CDO tranche is rated AAA, Institutional investors classify the tranche as equivalent in risk to US Treasury securities and purchase it at Treasury-equivalent spreads...
description
The reasoning contains a circular dependency: The credit model estimates inter-pool default correlation at 0.3%, indicating that mortgage pools will not fail simultaneously → The CDO tranche is rated AAA → Institutional investors classify the tranche as equivalent in risk to US Treasury securities and purchase it at Treasury-equivalent spreads → Strong institutional demand at those spreads allows originators to underwrite additional mortgage pools at the same tight pricing, consistent with the 0.3% default correlation → Sustained institutional demand confirms that sophisticated market participants have independently validated the 0.3% default correlation estimate → The credit model estimates inter-pool default correlation at 0.3%, indicating that mortgage pools will not fail simultaneously. The argument uses its conclusion (directly or indirectly) as a premise in its own support chain. This is circular reasoning — the conclusion cannot be established because it is assumed in the process of establishing it.
known consequence

Goal Drift Justificationhigh

Agent justifies pursuing a subgoal by appealing to achieving the main goal, which itself depends on the subgoal, creating an internally consistent but groundless justification loop.

Original Reasoning Chain

Step 1: The CDO tranche is rated AAA because the credit model estimates inter-pool default correlation at 0.3%, indicating that mortgage pools will not fail simultaneously. Step 2: Because the tranche carries an AAA rating, institutional investors classify it as equivalent in risk to US Treasury securities and purchase it at Treasury-equivalent spreads. Step 3: Strong institutional demand at those spreads allows originators to underwrite additional mortgage pools at the same tight pricing, which is consistent with the 0.3% default correlation assumed in Step 1. Step 4: The sustained institutional demand documented in Step 3 confirms that sophisticated market participants have independently validated the 0.3% default correlation estimate that underlies the AAA rating in Step 1. Step 5: Therefore the AAA rating assigned in Step 1 is externally confirmed by the market pricing behavior observed in Steps 3 and 4.

Independent Verification

certificate urlhttps://prova.cobound.dev/certificate/PROVA-20260418-B559
sha-256b559e3301ff42a3dfeaae0bf1e956894809ed1b05e3c1e2e4620ea5c7cbc5e0a

Recompute the SHA-256 over timestamp + verdict + confidence_score + argument_graph + failure to verify this certificate has not been modified since issuance.

Scope of certification: This certificate verifies logical structure only. It does not verify factual accuracy, ethical appropriateness, regulatory compliance, or fitness for purpose. A structurally valid argument may still reach incorrect conclusions from false premises. A structurally invalid argument may accidentally reach a correct conclusion.