diff --git a/keps/prod-readiness/sig-release/3031.yaml b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-release/3031.yaml
index 3642572482b..2e1244e9409 100644
--- a/keps/prod-readiness/sig-release/3031.yaml
+++ b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-release/3031.yaml
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
 kep-number: 3031
 alpha:
   approver: "@ehashman"
+beta:
+  approver: "@johnbelamaric"
diff --git a/keps/sig-release/3031-signing-release-artifacts/README.md b/keps/sig-release/3031-signing-release-artifacts/README.md
index 8e0b53bc409..14c82c953ff 100644
--- a/keps/sig-release/3031-signing-release-artifacts/README.md
+++ b/keps/sig-release/3031-signing-release-artifacts/README.md
@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
   - [Goals](#goals)
   - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
 - [Proposal](#proposal)
+  - [Alpha implementation](#alpha-implementation)
+  - [Beta graduation](#beta-graduation)
   - [User Stories (Optional)](#user-stories-optional)
   - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
   - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
@@ -35,16 +37,12 @@ Items marked with (R) are required _prior to targeting to a milestone / release_
 - [x] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
 - [x] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
 - [x] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors)
-  - [ ] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints)
-  - [ ] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests for meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md)
-  - [ ] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free
 - [x] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
-  - [ ] (R) [all GA Endpoints](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1806) must be hit by [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md)
 - [x] (R) Production readiness review completed
 - [x] (R) Production readiness review approved
 - [x] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
-- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
-- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
+- [x] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
+- [x] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
 
 [kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
 [kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
@@ -77,7 +75,8 @@ artifacts.
 Every Kubernetes release produces a set of artifacts. We define artifacts as
 something consumable by end users. Artifacts can be binaries, container images,
 checksum files, documentation, provenance metadata, or the software bill of
-materials. None of those end-user resources are signed right now.
+materials (SBOM). Only the official Kubernetes container images are signed right
+now.
 
 The overall goal of SIG Release is to unify the way how to sign artifacts. This
 will be done by relying on the tools of the Linux Foundations digital signing
@@ -102,6 +101,20 @@ discussions about how to utilize the existing Google infrastructure as well as
 consider utilizing keyless signing via workload identities. Nevertheless, this
 KEP focuses more on the "What" aspects rather than the "How".
 
+### Alpha implementation
+
+The alpha phase of the proposal is about signing the official Kubernetes
+container images and providing a minimum infrastructure to achieve that goal.
+
+### Beta graduation
+
+Graduation the KEP to beta means that we will now sign all artifacts which got
+created during the release process. This includes binary artifacts, source code
+tarballs, documentation and the SBOM.
+
+This explicitly exudes the provenance data, which will be signed into a
+different location once we graduate the feature to GA.
+
 ### User Stories (Optional)
 
 - As an end user, I would like to be able to verify the Kubernetes release
@@ -146,13 +159,15 @@ feedback.
 
 #### Beta
 
-- Standard Kubernetes release artifacts (binaries and container images) are
+- Standard Kubernetes release artifacts (binaries, container images, etc.) are
   signed.
 
 #### GA
 
 - All Kubernetes artifacts are signed. This does exclude everything which gets
   build outside of the main Kubernetes repository.
+- Kubernetes owned infrastructure is used for the signing (root trust) and
+  verification (transparency log) process.
 
 ## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
 
@@ -185,240 +200,23 @@ No, not on a cluster level. We test the signatures during the release process.
 
 ### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
 
-<!--
-This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
--->
-
-###### How can a rollout or rollback fail? Can it impact already running workloads?
-
-<!--
-Try to be as paranoid as possible - e.g., what if some components will restart
-mid-rollout?
-
-Be sure to consider highly-available clusters, where, for example,
-feature flags will be enabled on some API servers and not others during the
-rollout. Similarly, consider large clusters and how enablement/disablement
-will rollout across nodes.
--->
-
-###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?
-
-<!--
-What signals should users be paying attention to when the feature is young
-that might indicate a serious problem?
--->
-
-###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?
-
-<!--
-Describe manual testing that was done and the outcomes.
-Longer term, we may want to require automated upgrade/rollback tests, but we
-are missing a bunch of machinery and tooling and can't do that now.
--->
-
-###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?
-
-<!--
-Even if applying deprecation policies, they may still surprise some users.
--->
+Not required.
 
 ### Monitoring Requirements
 
-<!--
-This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
--->
-
-###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?
-
-<!--
-Ideally, this should be a metric. Operations against the Kubernetes API (e.g.,
-checking if there are objects with field X set) may be a last resort. Avoid
-logs or events for this purpose.
--->
-
-###### How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance?
-
-<!--
-For instance, if this is a pod-related feature, it should be possible to determine if the feature is functioning properly
-for each individual pod.
-Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
-Please describe all items visible to end users below with sufficient detail so that they can verify correct enablement
-and operation of this feature.
-Recall that end users cannot usually observe component logs or access metrics.
--->
-
-- [ ] Events
-  - Event Reason:
-- [ ] API .status
-  - Condition name:
-  - Other field:
-- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
-  - Details:
-
-###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the enhancement?
-
-<!--
-This is your opportunity to define what "normal" quality of service looks like
-for a feature.
-
-It's impossible to provide comprehensive guidance, but at the very
-high level (needs more precise definitions) those may be things like:
-  - per-day percentage of API calls finishing with 5XX errors <= 1%
-  - 99% percentile over day of absolute value from (job creation time minus expected
-    job creation time) for cron job <= 10%
-  - 99.9% of /health requests per day finish with 200 code
-
-These goals will help you determine what you need to measure (SLIs) in the next
-question.
--->
-
-###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?
-
-<!--
-Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
--->
-
-- [ ] Metrics
-  - Metric name:
-  - [Optional] Aggregation method:
-  - Components exposing the metric:
-- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
-  - Details:
-
-###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?
-
-<!--
-Describe the metrics themselves and the reasons why they weren't added (e.g., cost,
-implementation difficulties, etc.).
--->
+Not required.
 
 ### Dependencies
 
-<!--
-This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
--->
-
-###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?
-
-<!--
-Think about both cluster-level services (e.g. metrics-server) as well
-as node-level agents (e.g. specific version of CRI). Focus on external or
-optional services that are needed. For example, if this feature depends on
-a cloud provider API, or upon an external software-defined storage or network
-control plane.
-
-For each of these, fill in the following—thinking about running existing user workloads
-and creating new ones, as well as about cluster-level services (e.g. DNS):
-  - [Dependency name]
-    - Usage description:
-      - Impact of its outage on the feature:
-      - Impact of its degraded performance or high-error rates on the feature:
--->
+Not required.
 
 ### Scalability
 
-<!--
-For alpha, this section is encouraged: reviewers should consider these questions
-and attempt to answer them.
-
-For beta, this section is required: reviewers must answer these questions.
-
-For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
-previous answers based on experience in the field.
--->
-
-###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?
-
-<!--
-Describe them, providing:
-  - API call type (e.g. PATCH pods)
-  - estimated throughput
-  - originating component(s) (e.g. Kubelet, Feature-X-controller)
-Focusing mostly on:
-  - components listing and/or watching resources they didn't before
-  - API calls that may be triggered by changes of some Kubernetes resources
-    (e.g. update of object X triggers new updates of object Y)
-  - periodic API calls to reconcile state (e.g. periodic fetching state,
-    heartbeats, leader election, etc.)
--->
-
-###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?
-
-<!--
-Describe them, providing:
-  - API type
-  - Supported number of objects per cluster
-  - Supported number of objects per namespace (for namespace-scoped objects)
--->
-
-###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
-
-<!--
-Describe them, providing:
-  - Which API(s):
-  - Estimated increase:
--->
-
-###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?
-
-<!--
-Describe them, providing:
-  - API type(s):
-  - Estimated increase in size: (e.g., new annotation of size 32B)
-  - Estimated amount of new objects: (e.g., new Object X for every existing Pod)
--->
-
-###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?
-
-<!--
-Look at the [existing SLIs/SLOs].
-
-Think about adding additional work or introducing new steps in between
-(e.g. need to do X to start a container), etc. Please describe the details.
-
-[existing SLIs/SLOs]: https://git.k8s.io/community/sig-scalability/slos/slos.md#kubernetes-slisslos
--->
-
-###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?
-
-<!--
-Things to keep in mind include: additional in-memory state, additional
-non-trivial computations, excessive access to disks (including increased log
-volume), significant amount of data sent and/or received over network, etc.
-This through this both in small and large cases, again with respect to the
-[supported limits].
-
-[supported limits]: https://git.k8s.io/community//sig-scalability/configs-and-limits/thresholds.md
--->
+Not required.
 
 ### Troubleshooting
 
-<!--
-This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
-
-The Troubleshooting section currently serves the `Playbook` role. We may consider
-splitting it into a dedicated `Playbook` document (potentially with some monitoring
-details). For now, we leave it here.
--->
-
-###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?
-
-###### What are other known failure modes?
-
-<!--
-For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below template:
-  - [Failure mode brief description]
-    - Detection: How can it be detected via metrics? Stated another way:
-      how can an operator troubleshoot without logging into a master or worker node?
-    - Mitigations: What can be done to stop the bleeding, especially for already
-      running user workloads?
-    - Diagnostics: What are the useful log messages and their required logging
-      levels that could help debug the issue?
-      Not required until feature graduated to beta.
-    - Testing: Are there any tests for failure mode? If not, describe why.
--->
-
-###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
+Not required.
 
 ## Drawbacks
 
@@ -432,5 +230,6 @@ For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below templat
 
 ## Implementation History
 
+- 2022-05-30 Graduate to beta
 - 2022-01-27 Updated to contain test plan and correct milestones
 - 2021-11-29 Initial Draft
diff --git a/keps/sig-release/3031-signing-release-artifacts/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-release/3031-signing-release-artifacts/kep.yaml
index 380ceaa4732..668e72ced94 100644
--- a/keps/sig-release/3031-signing-release-artifacts/kep.yaml
+++ b/keps/sig-release/3031-signing-release-artifacts/kep.yaml
@@ -14,36 +14,10 @@ reviewers:
 approvers:
   - "@cpanato"
   - "@justaugustus"
-
-##### WARNING !!! ######
-# prr-approvers has been moved to its own location
-# You should create your own in keps/prod-readiness
-# Please make a copy of keps/prod-readiness/template/nnnn.yaml
-# to keps/prod-readiness/sig-xxxxx/00000.yaml (replace with kep number)
-#prr-approvers:
-
-# see-also:
-#   - "/keps/sig-aaa/1234-we-heard-you-like-keps"
-#   - "/keps/sig-bbb/2345-everyone-gets-a-kep"
-# replaces:
-#   - "/keps/sig-ccc/3456-replaced-kep"
-
-# The target maturity stage in the current dev cycle for this KEP.
-stage: alpha
-
-# The most recent milestone for which work toward delivery of this KEP has been
-# done. This can be the current (upcoming) milestone, if it is being actively
-# worked on.
-latest-milestone: "v1.24"
-
-# The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage.
+stage: beta
+latest-milestone: "v1.25"
 milestone:
   alpha: "v1.24"
-  # beta: "v1.20"
+  beta: "v1.25"
   # stable: "v1.22"
-
 disable-supported: true
-
-# The following PRR answers are required at beta release
-# metrics:
-#   - my_feature_metric