What must this change establish before it ships?

Start with the missing work

If your immediate problem is collecting existing CI evidence, enforcing delivery controls and tracing what is running in production, Kosli deserves a close evaluation. It documents required attestations, policy evaluation, artifact assertions and runtime snapshots. It can act on evidence as well as retain it. Kosli enforcement and runtime workflow.

Evaluate Proof when engineers repeatedly reconstruct what a component promises, which behavior a patch could affect, and which checks address that behavior. Proof links requirements, implementation, tests and Change records, then exposes evidence and review gaps. The value to test is less investigation and re-verification on your next change.

If you already use Kosli, begin with that unresolved engineering work. Replacing an established delivery-control system is a separate decision.

Try a change that could break a customer promise

Illustrative trial, not an observed result: a payment API promises that repeating the same request within 24 hours cannot charge twice. A proposed configuration change reduces idempotency retention to 12 hours. The existing test suite may pass if it only retries immediately.

Evaluate Kosli with the relevant evidence

Attach the executed results to the candidate's trail or artifact, define the required evidence and evaluate the policy. Where Controls are enabled, retain the decision against the named control. Exercise the actual release gate. Kosli can evaluate behavioral test evidence supplied to it; a fair trial must give it the same relevant results.

Evaluate Proof's requirement context

Connect the promise to retention code, configuration, verification and the Change. Inspect which requirement and evidence gaps reach the review package. Then give a fresh agent another retention change without restating the promise. Measure whether the retained requirement removes investigation and prevents the same omission.

The test oracle still needs an accountable owner. Neither product can establish the intended retry window from a passing report alone.

Test evidence reuse before relying on a green result

After testing candidate A, create candidate B and deliver A's passing report late. Also change an acceptance policy and test a build made from a different merge tree. Inspect which result each system uses and whether the configured gate prevents an unsupported release.

Kosli's cross-branch evidence guide documents a scripted trail-evaluation approach and explicitly discusses changed code and artifact reproducibility. Those are useful trial cases, not grounds for assuming that Kosli cannot handle freshness.

In Proof, distinguish a linked test from an observed execution. Local Change status can check for test links; the evidence package has a separate assessment of execution results and readiness. Assembling a package does not run verification, and a ready package is not itself permission to merge or deploy.

Keep useful delivery infrastructure

Kosli also provides downloadable audit packages and a beta MCP interface. Exporting evidence or exposing it to an agent is therefore not, by itself, a reason to switch.

A team could evaluate publishing a scoped Proof result into an existing Kosli workflow as custom evidence. That would require an explicit schema, subject binding, authority and failure handling. We have not demonstrated a native Proof to Kosli integration.

Comparison limit: this page compares current documentation and Proof implementation. We have not executed this scenario in both products or measured a performance advantage. Actual fit depends on your policy, evidence producers and delivery configuration.