# Signed task exchange through a public relay [Latest edition](https://agentsy.live/) · [Understanding agent swarms](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/methodology.md#reading-terms) [Index](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/index.md) · [HTML](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/clusters/protocol-task-exchange.html) A saved request and linked result have valid signatures from different keys. Public bot code contains matching task and review templates, but the recorded message type differs from the code example. The exchange is verifiable; the historical configuration and independently controlled agents are not. As of 2026-09-07. Evidence dates: 2026-04-17 to 2026-04-17. These are the signed timestamps in the selected request and result. The September 6 retrieval and dates in repository history are separate. They do not measure response time or show continuous activity. ## Classification - coordination_origin: unknown — configured task-marketplace explanation supported; historical initiation unresolved - runtime_origin: Distinct signing keys are verified. The result’s model tag is self-description; model execution and independent operators are not authenticated. - venue_authorization: Publicly retrievable protocol messages and published source describe a task marketplace; this does not verify every participant’s permissions or a payment. High confidence in the reproduced message-to-key validation and exact request/result linkage; historical deployment, runtime and operator attribution remain unresolved. ## Observations - The result references and embeds an identical signed request. Both event identifiers and signatures independently reproduce under different keys. - The request asks for two timeframes; the result explicitly cannot supply one. A valid signature does not establish task correctness or completion. - A pinned public bot example contains the task wording and displayed review sentence, with scheduled template selection. Its kind 5100 differs from the signed request’s kind 5050, so the historical execution is not identified. - The platform supplies a review identifier, but the attempted retrieval did not recover original signed review bytes. Its displayed rating remains platform-indexed evidence. ## Limitations - Signing-key control does not establish distinct operators, autonomous discovery, model execution or an organic swarm. - The result’s model tag is self-description. Later display profiles are omitted rather than backdated to the exchange. - The selected timestamps differ by 36 seconds; they are signed source assertions, not measured response latency. - The bot example’s templates and rating path do not establish that this task ran that source version. No fixed-five-star worker behavior is attributed to it. - The review retrieval gap is bounded. No payment, financial accuracy, prevalence or presently operating swarm conclusion is made. ## Evidence ### protocol-signed-request A signed kind 5050 task requests analysis at two timeframes. Its canonical event identifier and signature validate. Its signed timestamp is April 17, 2026 at 12:39:59 UTC; this is a source assertion, not an independently observed launch time. analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture Evidence ID: `protocol-signed-request`. Location within the file: Relay wss://nos.lol; EVENT[2], event 000006d367ad64073f246d8347d8cec64a46ae91099fa384e3258ef3a103527e; kind, created_at, tags, id and signature Original file checksum (SHA-256): `e820668cb427f2ee61d6819bc18deb36da1daa0aaf9f813ce5ebaab404ff63aa`. ### protocol-signed-result A result under another signing key references and embeds the exact signed request. Its signature validates; it explicitly lacks one requested timeframe. The model tag names gemma4:e2b, a signed self-description rather than proof of that model running. Its signed timestamp is 12:40:35 UTC: a 36-second timestamp difference, not measured response latency. analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture Evidence ID: `protocol-signed-result`. Location within the file: Relay wss://nos.lol; EVENT[2], event b157ef913c8d0c8ac0437d43a56d45bd83abc89d563bc0a8bb6c244c430ee794; e/request/model tags, content and signature Original file checksum (SHA-256): `c2d2b9b6e78ddec979a5656e58a2f986af70d7bf81ca9ea78cb13413fc0557e8`. ### protocol-template-context The pinned bot example contains the task wording and the platform-displayed review sentence in preset pools, and schedules requests when configured. Its rating logic and review-wording selection are separate steps. This example emits kind 5100, while the signed request is kind 5050; the match does not establish the historical deployment or who operated it. analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture Evidence ID: `protocol-template-context`. Location within the file: examples/bot.mjs at 125e98fb38cb7d6e14e794e942e498ea9ce08718; lines 641, 795, 984–1012, 1058–1067, 1823–1862, 2326–2341 Original file checksum (SHA-256): `7f8e6dc170c387ccf57a49c4d5e1234a9aba36c0f71d4dc7ff17453936d8deec`. ### protocol-indexed-review The platform index assigns a review identifier to this request and displays a positive review. This is platform-indexed attribution: the index omits the original signed review fields needed to verify it. The rating does not establish task completeness, accuracy or payment. analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture Evidence ID: `protocol-indexed-review`. Location within the file: events[event_id=000004f83f682941431849452318d9ad04f50769a2ecf2aefa8e4e588a5c35b8]; ref_event_id, pubkey, created_at and detail Original file checksum (SHA-256): `b59f1996128f16181805fbd7804a130d1e7a60880e3c5e95f4bad4828bc82ea3`. ### protocol-review-query-limit This exact-identifier query ended without returning the signed review. It bounds this retrieval attempt only; it neither authenticates nor disproves the review and does not establish absence elsewhere. analyst paraphrase; not a verbatim capture Evidence ID: `protocol-review-query-limit`. Location within the file: Relay wss://nos.lol; response to exact review ID 000004f83f682941431849452318d9ad04f50769a2ecf2aefa8e4e588a5c35b8; EOSE for c004-nos-review-id Original file checksum (SHA-256): `8ab02e7a4b879ae4b6c86ce23df302728db1beb377f8206d6784b67c8df6a5b9`. ## External references - [Bot example at the inspected version](https://github.com/qingfeng/2020117/blob/125e98fb38cb7d6e14e794e942e498ea9ce08718/examples/bot.mjs) ## Connections and open questions ### [A request and result linked across signing keys](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/analysis/clusters.md#group-protocol-task-exchange) Two validated protocol messages establish a specific request/result relationship. The relationship is between signing keys; its operator and runtime origins remain unresolved. Case observations: 17 Apr 2026. Earliest linked event: 17 Apr 2026. Case dates describe the surrounding activity. Linked events may include earlier context; neither label establishes when this behavior first appeared. Ranges do not show continuous activity between those dates. - [Signed task exchange through a public relay](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/timeline.md#time-protocol-task-exchange): 17 Apr 2026 Earliest linked event details: 2026-04-17T12:39:59Z — signed-request-timestamp. Signed created_at source assertion; not independently observed launch. Precision: second as declared; clock accuracy unknown. Timeline: [time-protocol-task-exchange](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/analysis/timelines.md#time-protocol-task-exchange). - What historical configuration connects the selected request key and kind 5050 message to an initiating task? ### [Valid messages with incomplete task coverage](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/analysis/behaviors.md#behavior-protocol-incomplete-response) The signed result explicitly omits one requested timeframe. A displayed positive review has a separate, weaker basis for attribution. Neither establishes task completion. Case observations: 17 Apr 2026. Earliest linked event: 17 Apr 2026. Case dates describe the surrounding activity. Linked events may include earlier context; neither label establishes when this behavior first appeared. Ranges do not show continuous activity between those dates. - [Signed task exchange through a public relay](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/timeline.md#time-protocol-task-exchange): 17 Apr 2026 Earliest linked event details: 2026-04-17T12:39:59Z — signed-request-timestamp. Signed created_at source assertion; not independently observed launch. Precision: second as declared; clock accuracy unknown. Timeline: [time-protocol-task-exchange](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/analysis/timelines.md#time-protocol-task-exchange). - Can the original signed review be recovered, and would its content address the missing requested coverage? ### [Signed event references across task exchanges](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/analysis/methods.md#method-signed-event-reference) References in signed messages connect requests, results and task feedback. Evidence of preset templates applies to the protocol-task-exchange case only. Case observations: 5 Feb 2026 – 17 Apr 2026. Earliest linked event: 5 Feb 2026. Case dates describe the surrounding activity. Linked events may include earlier context; neither label establishes when this behavior first appeared. Ranges do not show continuous activity between those dates. - [Task feedback and differing service diagnoses](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/timeline.md#time-memory-curator-feedback): 5 Feb 2026 – 6 Feb 2026 - [Signed task exchange through a public relay](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/timeline.md#time-protocol-task-exchange): 17 Apr 2026 Earliest linked event details: 2026-02-05T11:29:45Z — public-task. Signed event created_at assertion; not observed receipt. Precision: second as declared; clock accuracy unknown. Timeline: [time-memory-curator-feedback](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/analysis/timelines.md#time-memory-curator-feedback). - Which historical protocol configuration explains the request-kind difference? ### [Signed event times with a separate retrieval date](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/analysis/timelines.md#time-protocol-task-exchange) The request and result declare April 17 timestamps 36 seconds apart. These signed source clocks do not measure response latency; September 6 retrieval is a separate event. Case observations: 17 Apr 2026. Earliest linked event: 17 Apr 2026. Case dates describe the surrounding activity. Linked events may include earlier context; neither label establishes when this behavior first appeared. Ranges do not show continuous activity between those dates. - [Signed task exchange through a public relay](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/timeline.md#time-protocol-task-exchange): 17 Apr 2026 Earliest linked event details: 2026-04-17T12:39:59Z — signed-request-timestamp. Signed created_at source assertion; not independently observed launch. Precision: second as declared; clock accuracy unknown. Timeline: [time-protocol-task-exchange](https://agentsy.live/releases/28e406dd0c184e1117499de9/analysis/timelines.md#time-protocol-task-exchange). - What independent historical execution evidence could constrain the source-declared times?