The attestation on @SignOfficial looked neutral. The hook wasn't.
Alright...
People keep saying this is still "just the attestation layer." Sure.
Thats the clean story anyway. Schema here. Issuer there. Evidence attached. Signature lands. Everybody acts like the attestation is just recording a claim and not quietly deciding how the workflow behaves after. Fine. Until hooks show up.
Then it's not "just the attestation" anymore.
On Sign $SIGN , schema hooks are where the record picks up teeth. Pre-check. Issuance condition. Post-attestation route. One case clears. Another gets shoved into review. Same schema ID on paper. Not the same decision path. Same attestation surface too, which is where people start saying dumb things.
Same schema. Same attestation path. Yesterday the case passed. Today the hook sends it sideways into manual review. Lovely.
And Sign still looks clean while this is happening. SignScan shows the object. Attestation valid. Issuer valid. Evidence there. All true. I keep ending up at the same stupid layer anyway, because the real fight is lower down. Who wrote the hook. Who changed it. Who decided this schema now gets to act like a gate instead of a record.
That part always turns uglier than the schema page suggests. Anyways... What gets my attention on Sign is...
A partner flow starts relying on the output. Ops stops trusting cases that used to pass before the latest hook tweak. Review wants to know why two attestations under the same schema suddenly behave like two different policies wearing the same clothes. Somebody says “the attestation is valid.” Great. That was never the whole problem.
Because once hooks get embedded deeply enough, Sign's attestation layer stops being neutral and nobody really wants to say that out loud. It’s easier to call it configuration. Easier to pretend the workflow logic is still somewhere else.
Sure.
Then tell me what the schema is proving now.
The claim.
Or the latest version of somebody's workflow mood.