W-A. MLETR functional-equivalence + cross-corridor enforceability (ART-53) -> instrument/jurisdiction classification (510) -> Merkle integrity over the authoritative copy (cry-04). The flagship Wave-12 decision chain: will this electronic bill of lading hold up at both ends?
validate_mletr_record{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "validate_mletr_record",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
classify_digital_asset_regulatory{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "classify_digital_asset_regulatory",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
verify_merkle_batch{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "verify_merkle_batch",
"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: We tokenise the bill of lading so title moves on a DLT rail. Which regulatory regimes pick up that asset, and where does the corridor grade stand?
Run the AINumbers MCP tool `run_chain` with {"chain":"digital-trade-ebl-enforceability"} and read `510-digital-asset-regulatory-classifier.classification_results`.
Re-run with `inputs` for `510-digital-asset-regulatory-classifier`, reusing the values that result echoed, with `asset_type` set to "cbdc". 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/digital-trade-ebl-enforceability.html