Stage 1 Draft Readiness Pre Submission

Confirm that the proposal is suitable for entry into the formal QIP process.

• The proposal uses the official QIP template for QVM and PQR changes
• The problem statement is clearly defined and grounded in observable protocol behavior
• The proposal explicitly identifies affected components QVM, PQR, consensus, cryptography
• The scope of the change is narrowly defined and avoids unrelated modifications
• Terminology is consistent with existing Quantova specifications

If these conditions are not met, request revisions prior to submission.

Stage 2 Submission and Procedural Review

Verify that the QIP meets procedural and contribution requirements.

Quantova Improvement Proposal QIP

• The proposal has been submitted through the official Quantova QIP repository
• Author information and metadata are complete and accurate
• The contributor has acknowledged the Quantova Contributor Terms and Contribution Policy
• Formatting, section structure, and references comply with QIP guidelines
• No embedded code or external references contradict the written specification

Procedural approval does not imply technical acceptance.

Stage 3 Technical Specification Review QVM

Evaluate execution level correctness and determinism.

• Execution rules are described precisely and without ambiguity
• State transition logic is fully specified and deterministic
• Validation conditions and failure modes are explicitly defined
• No reliance on off chain or client side behavior is introduced
• Execution order, concurrency, and replay behavior are clearly addressed
• The proposal does not introduce non deterministic inputs into QVM execution

Any ambiguity in execution semantics must be resolved before advancement.

Stage 4 Cryptographic and Security Review

Assess impact on cryptographic enforcement and protocol safety.

• All cryptographic primitives referenced are protocol approved
• Key usage, signature verification, and hashing behavior are explicitly defined
• Domain separation and replay protection are preserved or strengthened
• Resource costs for cryptographic operations are accounted for in execution metering
• No new attack surface is introduced without documented mitigation

Security considerations must align with QVM’s execution layer enforcement model.

Stage 5 PQR Interface Review

Review interaction with external systems and developer tooling.

• PQR interfaces accurately reflect QVM execution behavior
• No cryptographic authority is delegated to PQR or client software
• Provisional versus finalized state exposure is clearly defined
• API changes are backward compatible or include migration guidance
• Observability and execution metadata are sufficient for audit and debugging

PQR must remain an interface layer, not a source of protocol authority.

Stage 6 Backward Compatibility and Migration Review

Confirm impact on existing network participants and applications.

• Existing contracts and transactions remain valid, or breakage is justified
• Migration requirements are clearly documented
• Versioning or activation logic is defined if needed
• The proposal does not create ambiguous execution outcomes across versions

Backward compatibility risks must be explicitly acknowledged.

Stage 7 Governance and Adoption Review

Evaluate readiness for governance consideration.

• The proposal clearly states whether a network upgrade is required
• Adoption requirements are appropriate to the proposal category
• Stakeholder impact is accurately described
• The proposal does not exceed its stated scope
• Dependencies on other QIPs are clearly identified

Only proposals with stable technical specifications should proceed to governance evaluation.

Stage 8 Implementation Readiness Review

Assess whether the proposal can be implemented as specified.

• The specification is implementable without interpretation gaps
• Reference implementations, if provided, align with the written spec
• Testing considerations are addressed
• Operational impact on validators and nodes is documented

Implementation readiness does not imply immediate deployment approval.

Stage 9 Deployment and Activation Review

Verify deployment safety and coordination requirements.

• Activation conditions and timing are explicitly defined
• Validator and operator upgrade requirements are clear
• Failure or rollback scenarios are addressed
• Monitoring expectations post deployment are specified

Deployment must follow established network upgrade procedures.

Stage 10 Post Deployment Verification

Confirm that deployed behavior matches the accepted QIP.

• Execution outcomes match the specification
• No unintended side effects are observed
• Finalized state behavior aligns with documented semantics
• Any deviations are documented and addressed through follow up actions

Accepted QIPs remain authoritative references after deployment.

Reviewer Responsibility Statement

Reviewers are responsible for evaluating proposals based on technical correctness, execution determinism, and protocol integrity. Review does not imply endorsement of outcomes beyond the scope of the proposal.

All review activity is conducted publicly and remains part of the permanent governance record.