Transparency: what is open, what is not
Our transparency is about how NelfePlay decides, not how the listener extracts the signal. That distinction is deliberate.
The trust boundary
RetroArch
│ ▼
NelfeMemoryListener - CLOSED · HOMOLOGATED ----------------
reads memory, resolves addresses, computes score+counters,
emits raw checkpoints
│ ▼ normalized event { score, counters, frame, time, event }
Open protocol (this repo) - PUBLIC ------------------------
ticket · JCS canonicalization · passport · signature · verify · submit
Why the listener is closed
Memory-reading logic is expensive know-how (one definition per game, re-validated on every core change). Opening it would hand it to competitors and help cheaters. We keep it closed - like the firmware of a measuring instrument.
What closure is NOT
Closure is not part of the security (Kerckhoffs' principle). The system's security rests only on the secrecy of the device signing key - never on secret rules. All rules, all checks, all refusal codes are public. If the listener code leaked tomorrow, the guarantee would not change by an inch: it comes from the open.
The honest limit
The open protocol will never mathematically prove the listener actually read memory. It proves, verifiably: the homologated build (known hash) was present, bound to the right process, unmodified during the session; the events were not altered after emission (signature); and the server applied the public rules.
Trust in the measurement therefore rests on a listener that is homologated, signed, versioned and audited - see Homologation.
What stays 100% public
Passport format · tickets · manifest · profile rules · allowed fingerprints · signature verification · submission states · ranking rules · OpenTimestamps-on-Bitcoin anchoring · refusal codes · the public verifier · the listener's homologation-suite results.
A promise we can keep
"NelfePlay's rules and verification are public and replayable. The memory measurement is done by a proprietary listener that is homologated, signed, versioned and audited."
Not "cheating is mathematically impossible" - that would be false for software running on the player's PC. But a precise, accountable guarantee beats an unverifiable promise.