A switch attests what it decided, not that it decided well.

Most of what a switch writes down about a delegated step, it received rather than knew. One thing it knew first-hand is its own routing decision. This paper says what attesting that decision establishes, and the two things it does not.

A series stopping at Paper 006 would have described a hole. There is an affirmative, and it is the strongest field available in this position: a switch that routes by policy can attest the decision, because it made it. Which route it chose. Under which policy, at which version. On which rule or score. At what time. And what it refused — a refusal being the one event no upstream saw at all.

An attested decision establishes what was decided. It does not establish that the decision was carried out by the party it was addressed to, and it does not establish that the answer which came back was produced by the model the route named. A reader who takes "the routing decision is attestable" to mean "the routing is verified end to end" has kept one clause and dropped the rest of the sentence.

Score-driven routing — a switch selecting a route from live measurements — is a research direction rather than a described system. The switch can attest that it routed on a named score, at a named version, at a given time, because it did. Whether the decision was sound is a different question, and no record of a decision settles it: it is answerable from a published method someone other than its author can re-run, or from outcomes measured on a named corpus — neither of which a record of the decision supplies. That holds for any scoring system whose method is unpublished, including one built by whoever writes the switch, and is why no score appears as a figure here.