Classify the digital asset type and validate PvP settlement compliance for Canton deposit tokens. MiCA/MiFID II regulatory classification → multi-currency PvP finality check.
This page is the chain definition (plan). To run the chain step by step in your browser, with each step's kernel executing in-page and a composite hash over the outputs, open the live runner:
▶ Run this chain in your browserclassify_digital_asset_regulatory{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "classify_digital_asset_regulatory",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
validate_pvp_settlement{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "validate_pvp_settlement",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
Copy this paragraph into Claude, OpenClaw, or any MCP-aware agent to run this whole workflow on the server and check one field that answers a real question.
Question: Does this PvP settlement satisfy CPMI-IOSCO Principle 12 as configured, and what happens to the verdict if finality is only provisional?
Run the AINumbers MCP tool `run_chain` with {"chain":"canton-deposit-compliance"} and read `511-multi-currency-pvp-validator.verdict`.
Re-run with `inputs` for `511-multi-currency-pvp-validator`, reusing the values that result echoed, with `finality_type` set to "provisional". Compare the same field.
Verify: call `verify_execution_hash` (https://mcp.ainumbers.co/mcp) with `claimed_hash` set to `composite_execution_hash` and the full `composite_artifact`.
Ledger, for a human re-check: https://ledger.ainumbers.co/
PII rule: send synthetic or anonymised inputs only. The MCP server runs these kernels and logs no payloads.
Chain page: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/chains/canton-deposit-compliance.html