Claim｜After confirming the “non-custody” condition, still ask a causal question: if you only delete the user’s recovery artifacts, would the availability conclusion change? For Trustless Bitcoin Vaults (TBV), the answer is yes—therefore these two things cannot be combined into a single acceptance test.
Evidence｜Assume two configurations are completely identical: BTC remains in Bitcoin Signet Taproot UTXO in both cases; on the Ethereum side, only the Vault state is registered; and the Providers both participate in pre-signing and availability collaboration without obtaining BTC custody rights.
The only variable is that A did not save the WOTS keypair and claimer artifacts, while B did save them. When the Provider is unavailable, B has at least the necessary artifacts to prepare for a self-claim; A does not even meet that prerequisite. This comparison does not claim that B will necessarily exit immediately—it only shows that the difference in recovery readiness comes from the user’s artifacts, not whether the BTC is being custodied by the Provider. The control-rights conclusion is the same across the two configurations, but the availability preparation differs—so the causal variable is found.
Boundary｜A public Explorer shows a 0.07199256 sBTC Vault expired because a keeper ACK did not complete within the window, indicating that the collaboration interruption is not purely hypothetical. It does not display a self-claim outcome, provides insufficient samples to calculate a failure rate, and cannot support any long-term conclusion about a specific Provider. Therefore, the acceptance criteria should be written as: the non-custody claim passes; recovery readiness fails in A and meets the necessary conditions in B; overall availability remains constrained by real collaboration and exit conditions. If the artifacts are empty, it should stop at “not passed”—you cannot reuse the same non-custody evidence to sign again. @BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby
Evidence｜Assume two configurations are completely identical: BTC remains in Bitcoin Signet Taproot UTXO in both cases; on the Ethereum side, only the Vault state is registered; and the Providers both participate in pre-signing and availability collaboration without obtaining BTC custody rights.
The only variable is that A did not save the WOTS keypair and claimer artifacts, while B did save them. When the Provider is unavailable, B has at least the necessary artifacts to prepare for a self-claim; A does not even meet that prerequisite. This comparison does not claim that B will necessarily exit immediately—it only shows that the difference in recovery readiness comes from the user’s artifacts, not whether the BTC is being custodied by the Provider. The control-rights conclusion is the same across the two configurations, but the availability preparation differs—so the causal variable is found.
Boundary｜A public Explorer shows a 0.07199256 sBTC Vault expired because a keeper ACK did not complete within the window, indicating that the collaboration interruption is not purely hypothetical. It does not display a self-claim outcome, provides insufficient samples to calculate a failure rate, and cannot support any long-term conclusion about a specific Provider. Therefore, the acceptance criteria should be written as: the non-custody claim passes; recovery readiness fails in A and meets the necessary conditions in B; overall availability remains constrained by real collaboration and exit conditions. If the artifacts are empty, it should stop at “not passed”—you cannot reuse the same non-custody evidence to sign again. @BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby