Maybe some clarification about the use of the CWT claim to carry the conceptual message? If the CWT is an EAT and the conceptual message is an EAT, you have an EAT in an EAT and it looks a lot like a nested token. But I don’t think that’s what is intended at all. The surrounding EAT in this case is just convenient transport. It is not binding to or attesting to the enclosed EAT.
One way to do this would for the examples to be more expansive.
Laurence email to rats@ietf.org: