# What can be shown, not just said

Eight things about PaveKeep can be demonstrated on a working network rather than
described. Each one below names the artefact behind it — a screen of the running
product, or a document it produced — and you can open the artefact.

The documents are the real output, not illustrations of it: the three booklets are
the files a council would file, and the two evidence packs are the same report
generated as at two different dates. Every one is committed to the repository with
its SHA-256, so the file you download is the file that was reviewed.

## P1 · Every number can be traced back

which survey, which setting, which piece of arithmetic. The software explains itself rather than asking to be trusted.

![P1, shown on screen: method statement](/media/method-statement.webp)

## P2 · A sealed road, a sprayed-seal road and a gravel road are scored by different methods, because they fail in different ways

![P2, shown on screen: unsealed rating](/media/unsealed-rating.webp)

## P3 · A road nobody has surveyed is reported as unknown, never as zero and never quietly averaged away

This is the one councils test us on.

![P3, shown on screen: booklet page](/media/booklet-page.webp)

## P4 · Heavy vehicle traffic changes how fast a road is expected to wear out, and the change is visible rather than buried in a model

![P4, shown on screen: method esal](/media/method-esal.webp)

## P5 · The network as it stood on any past date — what an auditor or a funding body asks for when they reopen a claim

![P5, shown on screen: as at 2026 03 01](/media/evidence-as-at-2026-03-01.webp)

![P5, shown on screen: as at 2026 08 26](/media/evidence-as-at-2026-08-26.webp)

![P5, shown on screen: evidence by road 2026 08 26](/media/evidence-by-road.webp)

## P6 · A chain from the survey, to the work done, to who paid for it, to the declaration it happened under

![P6, shown on screen: instrument register](/media/instrument-register.webp)

![P6, shown on screen: surveys under instrument](/media/surveys-under-instrument.webp)

![P6, shown on screen: work funders remainder](/media/work-funders-remainder.webp)

## P7 · It sits beside the systems a council already has rather than demanding they be replaced

## P8 · From a spreadsheet of roads to a defensible works programme, measured, without a consultant in between

![P8, shown on screen: import](/media/import.webp)

![P8, shown on screen: program](/media/works-programme.webp)

## The artefacts, to open or download

These are files, not pictures of files.

- [evidence-pack-as-at-2026-03-01.pdf](/media/evidence-pack-as-at-2026-03-01.pdf) — 73 KB
- [evidence-pack-as-at-2026-08-26.pdf](/media/evidence-pack-as-at-2026-08-26.pdf) — 87 KB
- [booklet-committee.pdf](/media/booklet-committee.pdf) — 603 KB
- [booklet-executive.pdf](/media/booklet-executive.pdf) — 249 KB
- [booklet-grant.pdf](/media/booklet-grant.pdf) — 616 KB
- [exports-gis-sample.geojson](/media/exports-gis-sample.geojson) — 37 KB

Their hashes are published with the pack: see `docs/PROOF_EXECUTION_MAP.md` and the manifest beside it.

---

Source: https://pavekeep.com.au/proof · PaveKeep · derived content