Provenance and Adjacent Work

The Public Record

The Universal Framework’s Part J commits the adjacent-work survey to this page. The framework claims several concepts as original, and this page is where anyone can check that claim and file the counterexample.

The positions, as at August 2026. No published work maps cryptographic implementation genealogy for any sector. No published concentration metric operates below the vendor layer. No published analysis argues that DORA and UK CTP substitutability tests structurally miss shared-lineage concentration. The closest adjacent works are library-support surveys, which cover algorithm support rather than provenance or concentration. Each position stands until a counterexample is filed, and we would rather correct this page than defend it.

Concepts claimed as original. The six-layer below-vendor decomposition, the index-and-reach separation with non-disclosure carried as a bound and its spread, the flagged-only index, Effective Coverage as a path-complete migration measure, counterparty classification by remediation route, and the conformance-and-maturity separation.

Survey entries

Entry	Scope	Boundary
Kemp, A. C., R. Padbury and C. Reeves (KPMG LLP), The Role of the Second Line of Defense in Post-Quantum Cryptography Migration and Cryptographic Auditing, SSRN, 2026	Second-line responsibilities for PQC migration and integration into SOX and SOC programmes	Vendor treatment is limited to SLA verification and PQC readiness assessment. No below-vendor dependency, implementation-lineage, key-generation-design or concentration concept appears

Method and update route. An entry earns its row through a primary-source read, with its scope stated and its boundary against this framework’s claims recorded. To propose an entry or file a counterexample, use the contact route at AppliedQuantum.com. Accepted corrections to the positions above are announced on the errata page.