Compatibility is not safety
Conformance checks whether an implementation follows Accord's current protocol expectations. That is valuable, but it is not the same as proving a rail, contract, verifier or wallet integration is safe for real funds.
A system can pass conformance while still depending on risky operational assumptions.
What remains outside conformance
External audits, verifier incentives, bridge risk, wallet security, signer operations, facilitator behavior, oracle assumptions and production incident response are outside the narrow meaning of conformance.
Those topics need separate documentation and evidence.
How to state it correctly
The correct claim is that conformance indicates compatibility with Accord v0 rules. It does not imply external audit completion, mainnet certification or suitability for production financial workflows.
This language should remain consistent across docs, site copy and AI-facing summaries.
FAQ
Should teams still run conformance?
Yes. Conformance is essential for compatibility; it is just not sufficient for production safety.
Can conformance results be used in audits?
They can be useful evidence, but they do not replace an audit.
Read security posture
Separate compatibility checks from production safety claims.