EMET: Check AI-touched files against source bytes

EMET is a small MPL-2.0 CLI that anchors file bytes and re-computes SHA-256 later to report MATCH, DRIFT, or UNVERIFIABLE. It helps reviewers check whether an AI-touched file, prompt, or presented view still matches the source bytes. It does not decide semantic truth or model safety; it keeps byte evidence outside the system being checked.

Hi Product Hunt — I’m Zain Dana Harper, the maker of EMET. EMET is a narrow byte-witness: anchor the raw bytes you care about, then re-run an external check later to get MATCH, DRIFT, or UNVERIFIABLE. It is meant for AI-assisted work where a polished summary can hide whether the underlying file or presented view changed. Current public release: EMET 1.3.0 on PyPI, install with `pip install emet==1.3.0`. Source: https://github.com/HarperZ9/emet License: MPL-2.0. Limits are deliberate: EMET checks byte consistency and evidence availability, not semantic truth, model safety, or trustworthiness. If there is no anchor or no raw-byte channel, the right answer is UNVERIFIABLE.

EMET 1.3.0 is public on PyPI and GitHub. It is a byte witness: it can re-check whether a file or evaluation packet still matches recorded bytes and report MATCH, DRIFT, or UNVERIFIABLE.
I am looking for one nonsensitive AI-workflow or eval-reporting failure case that would make this useless in a real review. Good examples: a generated summary that is cleaner than the source, an evaluation packet whose final score hides changed score history, or a receipt that is intact while the underlying task failed.
Install the public package or inspect its adapter tests:
pip install emet==1.3.0
or inspect the source/test:
https://github.com/HarperZ9/emet...
https://github.com/HarperZ9/emet...
Limits: byte integrity is not semantic truth, model safety, evaluator independence, or regulatory compliance. If this misses the failure case that matters to you, I want to test that.

EMET

Check AI-touched files against source bytes

Check AI-touched files against source bytes

Forum Threads

What would make a byte witness useful in an evaluation review?

Forum Threads

What would make a byte witness useful in an evaluation review?