Frequently asked questions

Short answers about AAP, the invited pilot and the boundaries between an agreement, permission, evidence and an action.

What is AAP, and how does it relate to Covenant?

Agentic Agreements Protocol (AAP) is the current name of Covenant. It supplies shared formats and mechanisms for exact terms, explicit acceptance, bounded authority, evidence and agreed remedies. The aim is to keep a deal understandable and checkable when it moves between people, agents and applications.

Does it replace an AI model or let an agent act on its own?

No. AAP can work alongside an existing model and agent framework. An agent can help prepare or compare proposals, but a suggestion does not grant permission to sign, spend or install a connection. Consequential actions require the selected owner permissions and execution checks.

What can I try today?

The invited developer pilot offers a path to a reviewed build. A first local experience can create an unsigned draft, propose a changed price and show why the earlier signatures do not approve the revision. It requires no token purchase or hosted account. Public package-registry installation is not yet available.

Is the whole system ready for production?

It remains a development preview. Working reference mechanisms and extensive recorded tests establish useful behaviour in the cases exercised. Independent security review, complete independent checking of the native ledger, real operator and custody arrangements, release checks and measured external pilots remain outstanding. Demonstrations do not establish a public mainnet or customer deployment.

Do I need a blockchain or a project token?

Portable signed agreements do not require a blockchain. An optional shared ledger is useful when participants need one accepted account of scarce resources, reservations or spending. A selected custodian or service can charge an agreed fee, but the first draft requires no token purchase.

What does a verified signature actually prove?

It shows that a particular key signed particular data under the chosen verification rules. It does not by itself establish the signer's real-world identity, current authority, delivery quality, payment or legal enforceability. Those questions need their own adopted evidence and procedures. Changing signed terms requires fresh approval.

Can an agent act for a person or company?

Permissions can identify the owner, allowed actions, resources, limits and expiry. Shared budgets need a mechanism that tracks actual use. Some agreement paths still require the named parties' own keys rather than accepting every kind of representative permission. The unified workflow connecting all delegation and multiparty mechanisms is unfinished.

Does AAP hold or move my money?

Local demonstrations can use synthetic balances, while actual payment needs an adopted custodian, ledger or payment provider and an authorised connection. Preparing a payment instruction does not by itself move money. A valid receipt must be read according to what the issuing system actually observed.

Can it work with tools and services I already use?

Yes, through compatible libraries and owner-selected connections, including selected MCP and A2A paths. A service can require exact accepted terms and current permission before acting. Compatibility has to be checked for the particular operation; naming a payment provider or device in an agreement does not install its connection.

Are agreements and evidence private?

The selected mechanism determines what is encrypted, selectively disclosed or visible. An encrypted message can still reveal timing or relationships, and an owner-controlled host may see plaintext while preparing a record. Sharing fewer fields can reduce disclosure. Revoking future access cannot erase a copy that another party already received.

What happens if a call fails or the reply is lost?

Configured workflows retain the original request before a possible external action. Recovery investigates that request instead of automatically creating another payment or delivery. When the outside service cannot provide a reliable answer, the outcome remains uncertain. Local recovery guarantees should not be assumed to apply across unrelated systems.

Can parties use it without reliable Internet access?

They can sign and carry supported records through files and selected local or intermittent channels. A receipt can confirm claimed custody without proving performance. Disconnected devices may lack later revocations or spending history. Final shared spending decisions still require the adopted authority or sufficient communicating validators; offline signatures do not remove that requirement.

Who decides a dispute?

The parties choose the procedure, decision-makers, evidence rules and possible remedies. Different mechanisms can support review, partial performance, appeals or outside awards. A decision and its execution are separate steps. AAP does not appoint a universally trusted judge or guarantee recognition by a court.

Can it safely control a real robot?

There are reference mechanisms for approved missions, original-request recovery and controller observations. Physical safety still depends on the device, operator and installed controls. Recorded software trials do not establish hardware safety certification, successful physical delivery or an emergency-stop guarantee.

What would make a useful pilot?

Choose one real task and a small group of participants. Agree what success means, who may act and how payment, evidence and recovery will work. Include an interruption or disagreement. The useful result is evidence about that workflow, including its friction and limits, rather than a claim that every feature is ready.

How could the project earn revenue?

The selected strategy retains the MIT core and explores paid infrastructure, enterprise services, support and official compatibility assessment or branding. These are proposed commercial routes; availability and charges require separate agreement.

What should an investor or strategic partner evaluate?

Useful questions include whether external participants complete valuable work, return to the workflow, recover reliably and identify support worth paying for. Security, deployment costs, custody and operational responsibilities also need examination. The opportunity is a thesis to test; no market-size estimate, investment return or traction claim is offered here.

How do I discuss access, collaboration or funding?

Email jupitersstring@gmail.com with a non-sensitive description of your goal and the workflow that interests you. Access, pilot scope, services, funding and contribution compensation require separate agreement. An enquiry or contribution does not itself create employment, ownership, payment or investment rights.

Working reference implementation · Invited developer pilot · Implementation access is reviewed individually. Any trial, services or commercial terms require separate agreement.