diff --git a/working-specifications/decision-evidence-portability-v0.1.md b/working-specifications/decision-evidence-portability-v0.1.md
index 156f8e9..44f5896 100644
--- a/working-specifications/decision-evidence-portability-v0.1.md
+++ b/working-specifications/decision-evidence-portability-v0.1.md
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 # Decision Evidence Portability Specification
 
+**Subtitle:** A cross-regime assurance specification for evidence generated by AI-assisted decisions and agentic workflows  
 **Status:** Working specification  
-**Version:** 0.1.0  
+**Version:** 0.1.1  
 **Date:** 2026-07-15  
 **Author:** Mark Julius Banasihan  
 **ORCID:** 0009-0001-8121-2878
@@ -10,7 +11,7 @@
 
 A recurring set of decision-evidence objects can support AI assurance across multiple regulatory and standards regimes. Each regime assigns its own legal meaning, thresholds, obligations, and consequences to those objects.
 
-This specification does not claim that governance regimes are equivalent. It tests which decision evidence can travel across regimes, which evidence requires a jurisdiction-specific overlay, and where apparent equivalence fails.
+This specification tests which decision evidence can travel across regimes, which evidence requires a jurisdiction-specific overlay, and where apparent equivalence fails. It does not treat governance regimes as interchangeable.
 
 ## Problem
 
@@ -18,6 +19,16 @@ AI governance crosswalks usually compare terms, controls, or framework categorie
 
 The missing layer is a machine-readable account of the decision evidence itself: who held authority, what evidence was available, how AI influenced the decision, where intervention remained possible, what reasons were recorded, and who owned appeal, repair, and system change.
 
+## Scope boundary
+
+This specification does not define an agent runtime governor, compile policy into harness configuration, or prescribe a universal set of agent controls.
+
+It specifies the evidence that configured controls, enforcement events, and human interventions must generate for cross-regime assurance and decision reconstruction. Runtime controls are treated as evidence-producing mechanisms.
+
+The central traceability path is:
+
+**external obligation → configured control → enforcement event → decision evidence → assurance claim**
+
 ## Relationship to existing work
 
 This working specification extends Governed Decision Intelligence.
@@ -26,6 +37,14 @@ This working specification extends Governed Decision Intelligence.
 - Human Influence Telemetry tests whether formal human authority retained causal force.
 - Decision Evidence Portability maps reusable decision evidence to external governance obligations while preserving jurisdiction-specific differences.
 
+## Adjacent work
+
+Credo AI's Agent Governor and Agent Governance Configuration work address harness-level agent governance. That work translates policy and risk posture into runtime configurations, applies controls before agent actions execute, and produces enforcement telemetry.
+
+Decision Evidence Portability begins at the resulting control event and decision record. Its question is whether the institution can prove authorization, intervention, reasoning, monitoring, appeal, repair, and system-change authority across multiple governance regimes.
+
+The two approaches can interoperate. A runtime governor may produce control and enforcement events that become inputs to a Decision Evidence Portability record.
+
 ## Initial ontology
 
 The v0.1 ontology contains ten top-level objects:
@@ -78,14 +97,14 @@ The working specification will advance beyond v0.1 only when:
 3. one core decision record validates under at least two jurisdictional overlays without changing historical facts;
 4. each overlay can require additional local evidence;
 5. missing authority, intervention, or logging evidence produces a defined failure;
-6. policy obligations map to identifiable enforcement points in the agent workflow;
+6. external obligations map to identifiable controls, enforcement events, and resulting evidence artifacts in the agent workflow;
 7. outputs state evidence sufficiency and never declare legal compliance;
 8. the draft receives legal or standards review and technical assurance review.
 
 ## Current status
 
-This document establishes authorship, scope, terminology, and the initial research claim. The ontology, schema extension, mappings, test workflow, and case studies remain in development.
+This document establishes authorship, scope, terminology, the initial research claim, and the boundary between runtime agent governance and cross-regime decision assurance. The ontology, schema extension, mappings, test workflow, and case studies remain in development.
 
 ## Citation
 
-Banasihan, Mark Julius. “Decision Evidence Portability Specification.” Working specification, version 0.1.0, July 15, 2026.
+Banasihan, Mark Julius. “Decision Evidence Portability Specification.” Working specification, version 0.1.1, July 15, 2026.