FIDO2/WebAuthn/COSE ML-DSA conformance vs IANA identifiers + CTAP2.3 (ART-88) -> audit receipt (cry-05). Credential crypto-suite migration; credential FORMAT/protocol conformance belongs to any future EUDI wave.
check_fido_pqc_conformance{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "check_fido_pqc_conformance",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
aggregate_execution_receipts{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "aggregate_execution_receipts",
"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: The vendor calls this authenticator quantum-ready. Does it meet the ML-DSA-65 conformance target as shipped?
Run the AINumbers MCP tool `run_chain` with {"chain":"pqc-fido-webauthn"} and read `art-88-fido-pqc-conformance-checker.conformant`.
Re-run with `inputs` for `art-88-fido-pqc-conformance-checker`, reusing the values that result echoed, with `authenticator` changed so cose_algorithms is [-49] and ctap_version is 2.3. 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/pqc-fido-webauthn.html