The report
A blockchain call returning an error does not prove that no transaction was broadcast. Likewise, the presence of a Transfer event does not prove that the intended asset moved between the intended accounts. Two Priors agent-finance advisories expose these separate assumptions at the boundary between off-chain policies and on-chain evidence.
The transaction that might already have happened
The cap-bypass report examines sendBorrow and bridge funding paths where a broadcast can be followed by a missing receipt or retry error. The application can classify that ambiguity as a pre-send refusal and release spending capacity, even though the original transaction might still settle. The controlled example permitted actions beyond the intended per-session cap; it did not establish real customer loss.
The corresponding Case identifies the missing state: the operation should remain pending until a chain receipt or reconciled failure resolves the uncertainty. A new intent and an uncertain prior intent cannot safely be treated as if only the new one consumes budget.
The event that came from the wrong token
The credit-proof advisory addresses a different evidence mistake. A compromised writer could submit a receipt containing borrower-controlled Transfer logs and manipulate token-decimal interpretation. The verifier accepted the constructed evidence although the log was not sufficient proof of a trusted asset transfer or balance delta. That creates a credit-score integrity risk, not newly minted dollars.
These problems require independent regression tests: transaction-status reconciliation for the cap Case, and contract-address plus balance-change validation for the credit Case. A proof's shape and a function's return value are not financial settlement receipts.