Onchain Execution Needs an Explicit Finality Contract

An execution record should state what observation makes an event authoritative for its intended use. We would separate venue order evidence, reconciled account state and any chain finality requirement. Hyperliquid’s information API exposes order and fill records. Those records support venue reconciliation, while an adapter’s cross-chain or settlement claim needs an additional, explicitly sourced completion rule.

The event receipt needs a completion rule

Illustrative cross-system case: an agent observes a filled order at 12:00:00, reconciles position quantity at 12:00:01 and observes a separate withdrawal credit on a destination system at 12:00:20. These are three events with different dependencies. The fill permits updating local trading inventory after reconciliation. It does not establish completion of the later withdrawal or destination credit. A single settled flag would erase the distinction and could authorize spending funds before the relevant destination event exists.

Bind dependencies to their actual receipts

Define the required evidence for each event family and consumer. Record event identity, source system, observed time, authoritative status and linked account snapshot. Use explicit unresolved states when a provider supplies no required finality signal. Test a duplicate event, delayed account reconciliation and destination credit arriving before the local monitor sees the source transfer. The monitor should resolve each dependency from evidence rather than guessing completion from elapsed seconds. Where chain-specific finality documentation is absent, limit the claim to the venue evidence actually inspected.

Publish the evidence level

The scoped result here is a proposed receipt contract, not a measured finality guarantee for Hyperliquid or a bridge. Consensus timing, API propagation and destination settlement require their own current documentation and observations. Preserve that source boundary in the adapter interface. It is more useful to report a reconciled venue fill precisely than to stretch it into an unsupported universal settlement claim.

Our execution and reconciliation framework provides the broader mandate-to-outcome trace. The state and memory contract explains how the verified result should enter the next decision. These notes narrow those published methods to one execution boundary; the worked amounts above are illustrative and the test is a proposed local fixture. The source inspected for the venue-specific statements is the official Hyperliquid fill and order information.

The finality contract should identify its consumer. A portfolio view, a withdrawal controller and a performance report can require different evidence before advancing. Explicit consumers prevent a receipt valid for one purpose from silently authorizing another.