Activity-level Taxonomy alignment: substantial-contribution + DNSH + minimum-safeguards scoring (ART-73) -> audit receipt (cry-05). The activity-by-activity alignment decision an undertaking emits and an auditor re-verifies.
score_taxonomy_alignment{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "score_taxonomy_alignment",
"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 sustainability team calls this activity taxonomy aligned. Do its criteria evidence and safeguards hold up?
Run the AINumbers MCP tool `run_chain` with {"chain":"taxonomy-align"} and read `art-73-taxonomy-alignment-scorer.alignment_verdict`.
Re-run with `inputs` for `art-73-taxonomy-alignment-scorer`, reusing the values that result echoed, with `substantial_contribution` changed so substantial_contribution set to met, with minimum_safeguards in-place. 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/taxonomy-align.html