Dusk's finality logic is somewhat special. It is not a traditional concept of time, but a result directly tied to transaction proofs.

This chain uses the Succinct Attestation consensus mechanism. The core requirement is very clear: validators must confirm state transitions that have already been verified through proofs, rather than reaching a general consensus on a bunch of "pending transactions." In other words, only after the proof attached to a transaction is validated can that transaction enter the finality confirmation process.

The consensus nodes confirm not the fact that "someone submitted a transaction," but that "under current rules, this state transition has been proven to be legitimate." If the proof validation fails? That transaction simply cannot enter the scope of finality discussion.

Many chains follow the sequence of first reaching consensus, then discovering issues. Dusk does the opposite — proofs come first, and finality only applies to states that have been proven legitimate. The direct consequence is that illegal states cannot be repeatedly confirmed and rolled back because illegitimate states simply cannot enter the confirmation path.

This is why Dusk treats finality as a fundamental condition for compliant transactions, not just a performance metric. The object of the confirmation mechanism is very clear — it only targets state transitions that have been proven legitimate according to the rules, not endorsement of the transaction request itself. The key to assessing a chain's system integrity lies in this: whether finality only applies to states that have been proven legitimate. Once this order is maintained, the confirmation mechanism is no longer a general PoS but a tailored execution guarantee for regulated transaction volumes.