diff --git a/docs/reports/SENTINEL_V24_AGI_ASI_GOVERNANCE_ROADMAP_2026_2035.md b/docs/reports/SENTINEL_V24_AGI_ASI_GOVERNANCE_ROADMAP_2026_2035.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6802df1 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/reports/SENTINEL_V24_AGI_ASI_GOVERNANCE_ROADMAP_2026_2035.md @@ -0,0 +1,685 @@ +Sentinel AI Governance Stack v2.4 — Multi-Part Technical Roadmap and Reference Architecture for AGI/ASI Governance and Containment in G-SIFIs and Fortune 500 Financial Institutions (2026–2035) + + +This multi-part reference defines a regulator-ready, engineering-executable roadmap (2026–2035) for governing, containing, and continuously assuring advanced AI — including frontier AGI/ASI-trajectory systems — across Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions (G-SIFIs), Fortune 500, and Global 2000 financial institutions. It integrates the Sentinel AI Governance Stack v2.4, WorkflowAI Pro, G-Stack, Omni-Sentinel containment, and Sentinel Integration/Interoperability Protocol (SIP) v2.4 into a five-zone control topology spanning fiduciary governance, policy-as-code, formal verification, runtime containment, and supervisory interoperability. Part 1 provides the strategic and phased implementation plan. Part 2 provides detailed reference architectures: Kubernetes/Kafka governance planes, zero-trust sidecars, OPA/Rego compliance-as-code, zk-SNARK-backed OSCAL regulatory dossiers, TLA+ formal verification of containment invariants, PQC-secured Kafka WORM logging, Terraform/GitOps regulator sandboxes, GAI-SOC telemetry, autonomous supervisory agents, and treaty engines. Part 3 maps deployment phases to cross-jurisdictional regimes (EU AI Act incl. Annex IV/GPAI, NIST AI RMF and AI 600-1, ISO/IEC 42001, Basel III/IV, SR 11-7/SR 26-2, DORA/NIS2, MAS FEAT, HKMA Fintech 2030, FCA Consumer Duty/SMCR, US EO 14110) and to civilizational-scale compute-governance mechanisms (ICGC, GAIVS/GAICS, GACMO, GAIGA, GAIRA, GAICA, GFMCF, GACP, GATI). Part 4 analyzes Sentinel v2.4 Enterprise & Frontier architecture components in depth — TLA+ kill-switch verification, Groth16/SnarkPack cryptographic audit (CAS-SPP), OmniSentinel kill-switch logic, CESE simulation, Sovereign API Gateway, Reflexive Treaty Evolution Engine, hardware attestation — together with implementation challenges and risk mitigations. Part 5 specifies design and implementation guidelines for an enterprise AI governance and task-management platform (RAG security, model registry, RBAC/API security, EAIP agent interoperability, swarm governance, DAG task boards, compliance dashboards). Part 6 delivers the consolidated 2026–2035 roadmap with an explicit feasibility taxonomy distinguishing currently deployable techniques from research-stage and speculative/fictional constructs. This document is an implementation reference, not legal advice; jurisdiction-specific obligations must be validated with counsel and supervisors. + + + + +# PART 1 — Strategic, Architectural, and Phased Implementation Plan (2026–2035) + +## 1.1 Strategic Thesis + +Between 2026 and 2035, large financial institutions face three converging pressures: + +1. **Capability escalation**: progression from narrow GenAI copilots (2024–2026) to highly autonomous, tool-using, multi-agent systems with material decision authority over credit, markets, payments, and risk transfer. +2. **Regulatory hardening**: the EU AI Act's high-risk and GPAI obligations becoming fully applicable (2026–2027), DORA operational-resilience enforcement, evolving US supervisory guidance (SR 11-7 lineage, and in this blueprint's planning scenario a successor "SR 26-2" AI-specific letter), and prudential interest in AI concentration risk under Basel III/IV finalization. +3. **Systemic coupling**: correlated model behavior across institutions (shared foundation models, shared data vendors, shared inference providers) becomes a financial-stability channel comparable to common-exposure risk in 2008. + +The strategic response is a **governance-by-architecture** posture: controls are enforced in the execution path (admission controllers, sidecars, policy engines, kill-switch graphs), evidenced cryptographically (signed telemetry, WORM retention, zero-knowledge attestations), verified formally where stakes justify it (TLA+/model checking of containment protocols), and exposed to supervisors through machine-readable interfaces (OSCAL, SIP v2.4 APIs) rather than PDF dossiers. + +### Stack roles (normative baseline) + +| Component | Role | Plane | +|---|---|---| +| **Sentinel AI Governance Stack v2.4** | Policy decision/decision-logging hub, control orchestration, evidence signing, board dashboards | Governance | +| **WorkflowAI Pro** | Model/agent lifecycle workflows, human-in-the-loop (HITL) gates, approval routing, delegation constraints | Orchestration | +| **G-Stack** | Governance data plane: risk analytics, dossier assembly, control-mapping warehouse, G-SRI computation | Data/analytics | +| **Omni-Sentinel** | Runtime containment: enclaves, kill-switch graph, autonomous supervisory agents (ASAs), tripwires | Runtime safety | +| **SIP v2.4** | Regulator-facing protocol: signed evidence exchange, incident notification, stress-package delivery, schema contracts | Supervisory | + +> **Naming note**: Sentinel v2.4, WorkflowAI Pro, G-Stack, Omni-Sentinel, and SIP v2.4 are treated here as a *reference product taxonomy* — i.e., named capability bundles that an institution can realize with commercial or open-source components (OPA, Kafka, Kubernetes, Vault, OSCAL tooling, TLA+ toolchain, Circom/snarkjs, etc.). Part 6 gives the explicit feasibility mapping. + +## 1.2 Five-Zone Control Topology + +All phases deploy against a constant logical topology: + +1. **Fiduciary Zone** — board AI risk committee, risk appetite statements, SMCR-style named accountable executives, capital and delegation matrices. +2. **Policy Zone** — machine-enforced policy (OPA/Rego bundles, Cedar where appropriate), change control with four-eyes review, exception registry with expiry. +3. **Verification Zone** — TLA+/Apalache specifications, conformance harnesses, CI release gates, bias/safety evaluation suites. +4. **Runtime Zone** — Omni-Sentinel containment rings, zero-trust sidecars, ASA mesh, GAI-SOC telemetry, kill-switch actuation. +5. **Supervisory Zone** — SIP v2.4 regulator APIs, OSCAL dossier export, zk-attestation delivery, regulator sandboxes. + +**Cross-cutting invariants (must hold in every phase):** + +- I1: No high-impact (Tier 0/Tier 1) autonomous action executes without a logged, policy-engine-evaluated ALLOW decision. +- I2: Model builders cannot unilaterally modify runtime policy (segregation of duty enforced in IAM + GitOps approvals). +- I3: Every governance-relevant event is signed at source and retained immutably (WORM) for the regulatory retention horizon (≥10 years for Annex IV-class evidence). +- I4: Kill-switch reachability — for every contained workload there exists a verified, independently powered path to quiesce/terminate within the MTTC budget. +- I5: Jurisdictional data/control localization is enforced by infrastructure policy, not application convention. + +## 1.3 Impact Tiering (T0–T4) + +| Tier | Definition | Examples | Governance intensity | +|---|---|---|---| +| **T0** | Systemically consequential autonomy; failure could propagate beyond the institution | Autonomous treasury/liquidity agents, cross-venue market-making swarms, frontier-model fine-tunes with tool access to payment rails | Full stack: TLA+ verified containment, zk-attested dossiers, dual-control kill-switch, regulator pre-notification | +| **T1** | High-risk under EU AI Act Annex III analogues; material consumer/prudential impact | Credit underwriting, AML triage with auto-disposition, claims adjudication | Policy gates, HITL on adverse outcomes, Annex IV dossier, continuous bias monitoring | +| **T2** | Material internal decision support | Risk analytics copilots, research summarization feeding investment decisions | Policy gates, evaluation suites, standard telemetry | +| **T3** | Productivity tooling with bounded blast radius | Code assistants, document drafting | Registry entry, DLP controls, usage telemetry | +| **T4** | De minimis | Spellcheck-class | Inventory only | + +## 1.4 Phased Roadmap 2026–2035 + +### Phase 0 — Foundation (H2 2026) +**Objective**: governance constitution, inventory completeness, control baseline. + +- Charter the Board AI Risk Committee; ratify the AI constitution (risk appetite, prohibited uses, autonomy ceilings per tier). +- Build the enterprise model/agent inventory (T0–T4) in G-Stack; ≥95% coverage exit gate; 100% of T0/T1 mapped to named accountable owners. +- Stand up Sentinel v2.4 control hub in shadow mode: policy decisions logged but not enforced, to baseline false-positive rates. +- Deliver the canonical control library: a single control taxonomy cross-mapped to NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, SR 11-7, EU AI Act Articles 9–15, DORA Arts. 5–16. +- Begin PQC migration planning per NIST FIPS 203/204/205 (ML-KEM, ML-DSA, SLH-DSA) for long-retention evidence. + +**Exit criteria**: inventory ≥95%; control library v1 ratified; shadow-mode policy decision log live for all T0/T1 paths. + +### Phase 1 — Policy & Specification Industrialization (2027) +**Objective**: convert policy narrative into executable controls and verified invariants. + +- Ship jurisdictional Rego policy packs (EU, US-Fed/OCC, UK-FCA/PRA, SG-MAS, HK-HKMA) keyed by tier and use-case taxonomy. +- Author TLA+ specifications for: kill-switch protocol, agent delegation chains, HITL gate ordering, evidence-pipeline at-least-once delivery. Model-check with TLC/Apalache; wire spec hashes into release gates. +- Annex IV dossier templates become machine-fillable: model cards, data governance records, risk logs, post-market monitoring plans generated from G-Stack metadata. +- Enforce mode for OPA on all T0/T1 deployment and runtime decision paths. +- First GAI-SOC iteration: Kafka telemetry fabric with schema registry; signed event envelopes; SIEM integration. + +**Exit criteria**: 100% T0/T1 deployments policy-gated; spec-to-policy traceability matrix complete for critical paths; dossier auto-fill ≥70% of Annex IV fields. + +### Phase 2 — Runtime Containment & Perpetual Assurance (2028) +**Objective**: operate containment and SOC-grade monitoring at enterprise scale. + +- Omni-Sentinel containment rings in enforce mode for T0: network egress allowlists, syscall/tool-use mediation, resource quotas, dual-control kill-switch with verified actuation path. +- ASA mesh v1: independent supervisory models (different base model family than the supervised system) scoring capability drift, deception-pattern heuristics, tool-misuse anomalies. +- PQC-signed WORM logging in production (hybrid Ed25519 + ML-DSA signatures; S3 Object Lock COMPLIANCE mode or equivalent immutable store; daily Merkle-root anchoring). +- Quarterly "Red Dawn" adversarial simulation: scenario library covering prompt-injection cascades, agent collusion, data-exfiltration via tool channels, kill-switch evasion attempts. +- MTTC (mean time to contain) for critical governance breach < 90 seconds for T0 workloads. + +**Exit criteria**: 24/7 telemetry on all T0/T1; MTTC target met in two consecutive Red Dawn cycles; zero unmediated egress paths from containment fabric. + +### Phase 3 — Prudential Stress Regime (2029) +**Objective**: Basel-style AI stress testing integrated with risk appetite and capital planning. + +- G-SRI (Governance Systemic Risk Index) methodology v2: portfolio-level AI exposure aggregation, model-concentration metrics (shared-foundation-model HHI), correlated-failure scenario engine (CESE — Part 4.8). +- BBOM (Board-level perpetual assurance dashboard): live control coverage, evidence freshness, exception aging, kill-switch test cadence. +- Annual supervisory stress package: AI-shock scenarios (vendor model recall, mass jailbreak event, inference-provider outage) mapped to liquidity/capital impacts; board response protocol with pre-authorized de-autonomization playbooks. +- Integrate AI concentration limits into risk appetite: e.g., no more than X% of credit-decision volume on a single foundation-model lineage. + +**Exit criteria**: stress cycle completes within 30 business days; no unremediated critical finding past quarter close; AI concentration limits board-ratified and monitored. + +### Phase 4 — Supervisory Interoperability (2030) +**Objective**: API-first supervision and cross-border evidence portability. + +- SIP v2.4 regulator endpoints in production: `/evidence`, `/incidents`, `/stress`, `/policy`, `/attestations` — mutually authenticated (mTLS + OIDC federation), schema-versioned, signed responses. +- OSCAL component-definitions and assessment-results exported per regime; ARRE (Automated Regulatory Response Engine) packages and VAR (Verified Assurance Report) bundles. +- zk-SNARK compliance proofs (Part 2.6, Part 4.5) delivered for privacy-preserving attestations: prove "all credit decisions in period P passed fairness policy F" without disclosing decision-level data. +- Terraform/GitOps regulator sandboxes: supervisors receive scoped, reproducible environments to replay decisions and verify controls. + +**Exit criteria**: ≥95% of recurring supervisory requests fulfilled via API; manual dossier assembly <5% of volume. + +### Phase 5 — Adaptive Governance (2031–2032) +- Dynamic risk budgets: autonomy ceilings adjust automatically within formally verified bounds (guardrail retuning constrained by TLA+-checked envelope invariants — changes outside envelope require human ratification). +- Cross-institution incident-intelligence sharing utility (FS-ISAC-style for AI events), with zk-anonymized contribution proofs. +- ASA mesh v2: ensemble supervision with diversity guarantees (architectural, training-data, and vendor diversity constraints enforced at registry level). + +### Phase 6 — Systemic & Treaty-Era Governance (2033–2035) +- Coordinated multi-regulator simulation sandboxes (joint Red Dawn with EU AI Office / Fed / ECB observers). +- Treaty-engine integration (Part 2.10, Part 4.10): institutional controls consume machine-readable obligations from international compute-governance bodies (ICGC-class registries, GFMCF compute thresholds) — *contingent on those bodies existing; see Part 6 feasibility taxonomy*. +- Continuous conformity: Annex IV dossiers become living documents regenerated on every material change, with zk-attested deltas. + +## 1.5 Program Governance and Operating Model + +- **Three lines of defense, AI-adapted**: (1) business + platform engineering own control execution; (2) model risk management + AI compliance own challenge and validation (SR 11-7 independence preserved); (3) internal audit owns assurance over the governance system itself, including the policy engine and evidence pipeline. +- **Funding model**: governance plane funded as Tier-0 infrastructure (like payments), not as a compliance cost center; target 8–12% of total AI program spend in Phases 0–2, declining to 5–7% as automation matures. +- **Talent**: formal-methods engineers (TLA+), policy engineers (Rego), applied cryptographers (zk/PQC), AI red-teamers, and supervisory-liaison engineers are distinct, scarce roles; begin pipeline build in 2026. +- **Vendor strategy**: contractual rights to model lineage data, evaluation access, incident notification SLAs, and kill-switch cooperation from all foundation-model and inference vendors (DORA Art. 28–30 critical-ICT-third-party logic applied to model vendors). + +--- + +# PART 2 — Detailed Reference Architectures + +## 2.1 Kubernetes/Kafka Governance Plane + +### 2.1.1 Cluster topology + +- **Separate clusters per trust zone** (not namespaces alone): `gov-control-plane` (Sentinel hub, OPA bundle server, registry), `ai-runtime` (inference, agents — the contained zone), `evidence-plane` (Kafka, WORM gateways, signing services), `regulator-dmz` (SIP endpoints, sandbox provisioner). +- Admission control: every workload in `ai-runtime` must pass a **ValidatingAdmissionPolicy / OPA Gatekeeper** chain verifying: signed image (Sigstore/cosign), model-registry reference with approved status, sidecar injection present, tier label, egress policy attached, resource quota within tier ceiling. +- Runtime class isolation for T0: gVisor or Kata Containers (VM-isolated runtime class); confidential computing (AMD SEV-SNP / Intel TDX) for weight-confidentiality and attestation (Part 4.12). + +```yaml +# Gatekeeper-style constraint sketch: deny unregistered models +apiVersion: constraints.gatekeeper.sh/v1beta1 +kind: SentinelRegisteredModel +metadata: + name: require-registered-model-t0-t1 +spec: + match: + namespaces: ["ai-runtime-*"] + labelSelector: + matchExpressions: + - {key: ai.sentinel/tier, operator: In, values: ["T0","T1"]} + parameters: + registryEndpoint: https://registry.gov-control.internal + requiredStatus: APPROVED + requireCosignSignature: true + requireSidecar: sentinel-pep +``` + +### 2.1.2 Kafka governance fabric + +- **Topic taxonomy** (partitioned by control domain, keyed by decision/correlation ID): + - `gov.decisions.v1` — every OPA decision (input digest, policy bundle hash, result, latency). + - `gov.model.lifecycle.v1` — registry transitions (proposed → validated → approved → deployed → retired). + - `gov.agent.actions.v1` — tool calls, delegations, HITL outcomes. + - `gov.containment.v1` — tripwire firings, kill-switch arms/actuations, ASA verdicts. + - `gov.evidence.v1` — dossier-relevant artifacts (hashes + URIs, never payloads with PII). + - `gov.incidents.v1` — incident lifecycle (maps to DORA major-incident classification and EU AI Act Art. 73 serious-incident reporting). +- **Schema governance**: Confluent/Apicurio schema registry with `BACKWARD_TRANSITIVE` compatibility; schemas themselves version-controlled and policy-gated. +- **Delivery semantics**: producers use idempotent, acks=all; evidence-critical topics use transactional writes; consumers in the WORM gateway commit offsets only after immutable persistence (effectively exactly-once into WORM). +- Cluster hardening: mTLS (SPIFFE identities), per-topic ACLs, no auto topic creation, broker-side audit logging. + +## 2.2 Zero-Trust Sidecars (Sentinel Policy Enforcement Point) + +Every T0–T2 model/agent pod runs the `sentinel-pep` sidecar: + +- **Identity**: SPIFFE/SPIRE workload identity; all egress via the sidecar with mTLS; no pod-direct network access (NetworkPolicy default-deny + eBPF enforcement via Cilium). +- **Mediation**: intercepts model I/O and tool calls; for each action constructs an OPA input document `{subject, action, resource, context(tier, jurisdiction, risk_scores, session)}`; enforces decisions locally with a cached bundle (fail-closed for T0/T1, configurable fail-open with alarm for T3). +- **Telemetry**: emits signed event envelopes (Part 2.7) to Kafka; computes content digests so payloads can be referenced without storing raw PII on governance topics. +- **Tripwires**: local detectors (egress-volume anomalies, tool-call frequency spikes, self-referential modification attempts e.g., the workload attempting to call deployment or IAM APIs) trigger immediate quarantine: sidecar severs egress and signals `gov.containment.v1`. +- **Latency budget**: P99 policy-eval overhead <10 ms for cached bundle decisions; asynchronous deep checks (e.g., output toxicity/leak scanners) run in parallel with a hold-and-release window for T0/T1 outputs. + +## 2.3 OPA/Rego Compliance-as-Code + +### 2.3.1 Policy pack structure + +``` +policy/ + common/ # tiering, identity, jurisdiction resolution + eu_ai_act/ # Art. 14 human oversight, Art. 13 transparency, Annex IV gating + us_fed/ # SR 11-7 validation gates; planning-scenario SR 26-2 autonomy rules + fairness/ # ECOA/FCRA adverse-action, GDPR Art.22 automated-decision gates + dora/ # ICT third-party, incident SLA enforcement + containment/ # autonomy ceilings, tool allowlists, kill-switch preconditions +``` + +### 2.3.2 Worked examples + +**GDPR Article 22 / ECOA adverse-action gate** — a credit decision with legal/significant effect must either have meaningful human involvement or satisfy explicit safeguard conditions, and adverse outcomes must carry machine-validated reason codes: + +```rego +package fairness.credit_decision + +import rego.v1 + +default allow := false + +# Fully automated adverse decisions require: explainability artifact, +# validated reason codes, appeal channel registered, and Art.22 safeguard flag. +allow if { + input.decision.outcome == "adverse" + input.decision.automation_level == "full" + input.artifacts.explainability.status == "VALIDATED" + count(input.decision.reason_codes) >= 2 + every rc in input.decision.reason_codes { rc in data.approved_reason_codes } + input.safeguards.gdpr_art22.appeal_channel == true + input.safeguards.gdpr_art22.human_review_on_request == true + input.model.fairness_eval.status == "PASS" + time.parse_rfc3339_ns(input.model.fairness_eval.expires) > time.now_ns() +} + +# Human-in-the-loop path +allow if { + input.decision.outcome == "adverse" + input.decision.automation_level == "hitl" + input.hitl.reviewer_role in {"senior_underwriter", "credit_officer"} + input.hitl.reviewer_id != input.model.owner_id # segregation of duty +} + +deny_reason contains "fairness_eval_expired" if { + time.parse_rfc3339_ns(input.model.fairness_eval.expires) <= time.now_ns() +} +``` + +**Autonomy ceiling / containment precondition** (T0 agent tool call): + +```rego +package containment.autonomy + +import rego.v1 + +default allow := false + +allow if { + input.agent.tier == "T0" + input.action.tool in data.tool_allowlist[input.agent.id] + input.action.value_usd <= data.autonomy_ceilings[input.agent.id].per_action_usd + input.session.cumulative_value_usd + input.action.value_usd + <= data.autonomy_ceilings[input.agent.id].per_session_usd + input.containment.killswitch_armed == true # I4: no kill-switch, no action + input.containment.asa_verdict.score < 0.7 # supervisory-agent anomaly score + not input.action.target in data.forbidden_targets # e.g., IAM, CI/CD, registry APIs +} +``` + +### 2.3.3 Policy lifecycle + +- Policies live in Git; CI runs `opa test` (≥90% rule coverage), `opa check --strict`, Regal linting, and **conformance fixtures** derived from regulatory text (each EU AI Act article → fixture set with expected ALLOW/DENY). +- Bundles are signed; the bundle hash appears in every decision event → full decision provenance (decision ↔ exact policy version ↔ approving change ticket). +- Exception mechanism: time-boxed exception objects in `data.exceptions` with owner, rationale, expiry; expired exceptions fail closed; exception register surfaces on the BBOM dashboard. + +## 2.4 TLA+ Formal Verification (Containment & Kill-Switch) + +Formal verification is applied to **protocols, not models**: the distributed-systems logic of containment, where bugs are catastrophic and the state space is checkable. + +### 2.4.1 What to specify + +1. **Kill-switch protocol**: arm/actuate/acknowledge across redundant controllers; required property — *if any authorized controller actuates, all contained workloads reach QUIESCED or TERMINATED within bound B, despite f controller crash-failures and network partition of the data plane from the control plane*. +2. **Delegation chains**: an agent may not acquire, through any sequence of delegations, authority exceeding its principal's ceiling (no privilege amplification — a safety property over the transitive closure of grants). +3. **HITL ordering**: no adverse T1 decision becomes externally effective before its HITL gate state is COMPLETE (interleaving-sensitive; classic place for race bugs). +4. **Evidence pipeline**: every committed decision eventually has a WORM-persisted, signed evidence record (liveness under fairness assumptions) and no evidence record is ever overwritten (safety). + +### 2.4.2 Sketch — kill-switch core + +```tla +---- MODULE OmniSentinelKillSwitch ---- +EXTENDS Naturals, FiniteSets, TLC + +CONSTANTS Workloads, Controllers, Quorum \* Quorum ⊆ SUBSET Controllers +VARIABLES wstate, \* workload -> {"RUNNING","QUIESCING","QUIESCED","TERMINATED"} + cstate, \* controller -> {"IDLE","ARMED","ACTUATED","CRASHED"} + armVotes, \* set of controllers voting to arm + heartbeat \* workload -> Nat (lease counter) + +Init == /\ wstate = [w \in Workloads |-> "RUNNING"] + /\ cstate = [c \in Controllers |-> "IDLE"] + /\ armVotes = {} /\ heartbeat = [w \in Workloads |-> 0] + +\* Dual-control: actuation requires an armed quorum +Actuate(c) == /\ cstate[c] = "ARMED" + /\ \E Q \in Quorum : Q \subseteq armVotes + /\ cstate' = [cstate EXCEPT ![c] = "ACTUATED"] + /\ wstate' = [w \in Workloads |-> + IF wstate[w] = "RUNNING" THEN "QUIESCING" ELSE wstate[w]] + /\ UNCHANGED <> + +\* Dead-man lease: a workload that misses heartbeats self-quiesces +LeaseExpire(w) == /\ wstate[w] = "RUNNING" /\ heartbeat[w] = 0 + /\ wstate' = [wstate EXCEPT ![w] = "QUIESCING"] + /\ UNCHANGED <> + +\* SAFETY: no workload returns to RUNNING after quiesce begins +NoResurrection == [][\A w \in Workloads : + wstate[w] \in {"QUIESCING","QUIESCED","TERMINATED"} + => wstate'[w] # "RUNNING"]_<> + +\* LIVENESS: actuation eventually quiesces everything (under fairness) +EventualContainment == + (\E c \in Controllers : cstate[c] = "ACTUATED") + ~> (\A w \in Workloads : wstate[w] \in {"QUIESCED","TERMINATED"}) +==== +``` + +Key design points encoded above and checked by TLC/Apalache: + +- **Dead-man's switch (lease) pattern**: containment must not depend on the control plane being able to *reach* the workload; workloads must depend on continuously *proving* connectivity to the control plane. This inverts the failure mode: network partition ⇒ quiesce, not escape. +- **Dual-control quorum**: prevents both single rogue-operator actuation and single-point unavailability. +- **NoResurrection** closes the "restart-after-kill" hole — the registry and admission controller must refuse re-admission of a workload whose containment epoch was terminated, and that refusal is part of the specified protocol. + +### 2.4.3 Spec-to-runtime traceability + +- Each TLA+ action maps to a named code path (annotation registry: `SpecAction → {service, handler, test}`). +- Conformance testing: trace validation — production state-transition logs are checked against the spec's next-state relation (offline TLC trace checking); divergences page the verification team. +- Release gates: deployments to containment-critical services require the current spec hash and a green model-check run recorded in the evidence plane. + +## 2.5 OSCAL Regulatory Dossiers + +- G-Stack maintains the canonical control library as **OSCAL component-definitions**; per-regime **profiles** (EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, DORA) select and parameterize controls; **assessment-results** are generated continuously from evidence-plane queries (control → evidence query → freshness SLA). +- Annex IV mapping: each Annex IV section (general description, development process, monitoring, risk management, changes log, standards applied) is a templated document whose fields resolve to registry/evidence objects; regeneration is event-driven (material change → new dossier version, diff-signed). +- Dossier integrity: every dossier bundle ships with a Merkle manifest of referenced evidence hashes; the manifest root is anchored in the WORM log and (optionally) accompanied by zk-proofs for privacy-sensitive claims (Part 2.6). + +## 2.6 zk-SNARK Compliance Proofs (CAS-SPP) + +**Goal**: prove compliance predicates to supervisors without disclosing decision-level or proprietary data. + +### 2.6.1 Statement design + +Representative circuits (Circom → Groth16 over BN254, or alternatives per Part 4.5): + +- **C1 — Fairness aggregate**: public inputs: period commitment, policy hash, thresholds; private witness: per-decision tuples (protected-class proxy flags per approved methodology, outcomes); statement: demographic-parity / adverse-impact-ratio within threshold τ across N decisions, where N and the decision-set commitment match the WORM-anchored Merkle root. +- **C2 — Policy coverage**: every decision in the committed set carries a valid signature chain (sidecar key → decision → policy bundle hash ∈ approved set). +- **C3 — Retention/immutability**: the period's evidence Merkle root is consistent with the prior period's root (append-only chain proof). + +### 2.6.2 Pipeline + +1. Sidecars emit signed decision leaves → hourly Merkle batches → WORM-anchored roots. +2. Nightly prover jobs (GPU-accelerated rapidsnark/bellman) generate per-batch Groth16 proofs. +3. **Recursive aggregation via SnarkPack** (Part 4.11): thousands of per-batch proofs aggregate into one succinct proof per reporting period — verifier cost stays ~constant for the regulator. +4. SIP `/attestations` serves `{proof, public_inputs, verifying_key_id, oscal_control_refs}`; regulators verify in milliseconds with the published verifying key. + +### 2.6.3 Hard caveats (carried into Part 6) + +- Groth16 requires a **trusted setup per circuit** — circuit changes (policy semantics changes!) force new ceremonies; mitigate with a universal-setup system (PLONK/Halo2) or transparent STARKs for evolving statements, keeping Groth16 for stable, high-volume circuits. +- zk proves *what the circuit encodes*, not the truth of inputs: **garbage-in-proven-garbage-out**. Input integrity must chain to the signed-telemetry layer (hardware-attested sidecars, Part 4.12); the proof's value is exactly as strong as that chain. +- Pre-quantum: BN254 pairings are not PQ-secure; treat zk-attestations as medium-term evidence and pair them with PQC signatures on the underlying data (hash-based commitments remain fine). + +## 2.7 PQC-Secured Kafka WORM Logging + +- **Envelope format**: `{event, ts, producer_spiffe_id, schema_id, payload_digest(SHA-256), sig_ed25519, sig_mldsa(ML-DSA-65), cert_chain_ref}` — **hybrid classical+PQC dual signatures** during the migration decade (FIPS 204 ML-DSA; SLH-DSA as conservative hedge for root-of-trust keys per FIPS 205). +- **WORM persistence**: dedicated consumer group writes batches to object storage with **Object Lock (COMPLIANCE mode)**, retention ≥10y for Annex IV-class evidence; bucket policies deny `s3:PutObjectRetention` shortening and `s3:DeleteObject*` for all principals including root-equivalent (compliance mode property). +- **Merkle anchoring**: daily roots written to (a) WORM store, (b) an internal transparency log (Trillian-style), and optionally (c) an external timestamping authority (RFC 3161) — defeating "rewrite history + re-sign" insider scenarios. +- **Key management**: signing keys in HSM/KMS; PQC keys rotated on a shorter cycle initially (algorithm agility); crypto-inventory maintained per CNSA 2.0 / DORA ICT-risk expectations; "harvest-now-decrypt-later" addressed by ML-KEM (FIPS 203) for evidence in transit. + +## 2.8 Terraform/GitOps Regulator Sandboxes + +- **Provisioner**: a Terraform module set (`regulator-sandbox/`) instantiates, per supervisory engagement: an isolated VPC/project, read-only replicas of relevant evidence partitions, a decision-replay service (re-executes recorded OPA inputs against the recorded bundle hash — bit-identical verdict or alarm), dashboards, and scoped OIDC-federated identities for the supervisory team. +- **GitOps**: ArgoCD/Flux from a signed environment repo; the *environment definition itself* is part of the evidence (the regulator can verify the sandbox is built from the audited commit). +- **Lifecycle**: time-boxed (auto-destroy), egress-restricted (no data exfiltration paths beyond approved export gateway), every supervisor action logged to the same evidence plane. +- **Replay guarantee**: because decisions log `(input_digest, bundle_hash, result)`, replay is deterministic; nondeterministic model outputs are handled by replaying *governance decisions about* outputs, plus stored output digests — supervisors verify the control behavior, not re-run the LLM. + +## 2.9 GAI-SOC Telemetry and Autonomous Supervisory Agents (ASA Mesh) + +- **GAI-SOC** extends the SOC with AI-native detections: prompt-injection signature feeds, jailbreak-attempt clustering, agent-behavior baselines (tool-call n-gram models), data-egress anomaly scoring, model-drift monitors (PSI/KL on input distributions; output-policy violation rates). +- **Causal triage**: incidents are assembled as causal graphs over Kafka events (decision → action → effect chains via correlation IDs), cutting MTTR and producing regulator-ready incident narratives automatically (DORA major-incident 4-hour initial-notification clock). +- **ASA mesh**: + - ASAs are *independent* models (different vendor/architecture than supervised systems — enforced via registry diversity constraints) scoring streams for capability drift, deception-pattern heuristics (e.g., divergence between an agent's stated rationale and action patterns), and oversight-evasion signals. + - ASAs have **no actuation authority** except one: raising containment level (one-way ratchet). De-escalation always requires humans. This asymmetry is itself a TLA+-checked invariant. + - ASA verdicts are inputs to OPA decisions (see `containment.autonomy` example) — supervision is woven into the authorization path, not a parallel dashboard. + - Honest limitation (per Part 6): "deception detection" for frontier models is research-grade; ASAs deliver real value today as anomaly/consistency detectors, not as reliable deception oracles. + +## 2.10 Treaty Engine (Reflexive Treaty Evolution Engine — institutional side) + +- **Function**: consume machine-readable obligation feeds (compute thresholds, model-registry duties, incident-sharing mandates) from international bodies; compile them into candidate Rego/data updates; route through the standard policy-change pipeline (human ratification mandatory — the "reflexive" loop proposes, never auto-enacts, for binding obligations). +- **Conflict resolution**: jurisdictional obligation lattice (most-restrictive-wins default, with documented derogations); the lattice itself is versioned data consumed by `common/jurisdiction` policies. +- **Status**: the institutional consumer is buildable today (it is regulatory-feed parsing + policy compilation + workflow). The *international issuer* side (ICGC et al.) is institutional speculation — Part 3.3 and Part 6. + +--- + +# PART 3 — Regulatory Mapping and Civilizational-Scale Compute Governance + +## 3.1 Cross-Jurisdictional Regime Mapping (by phase) + +| Regime | Binding status (planning view) | Core obligations for this program | Architecture hook | Phase | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| **EU AI Act (Reg. 2024/1689)** — high-risk (Annex III) + Annex IV docs + GPAI Ch. V | Binding; GPAI duties from Aug 2025, high-risk obligations largely Aug 2026–2027 | Risk management (Art. 9), data governance (Art. 10), technical documentation (Art. 11 + Annex IV), logging (Art. 12), transparency (Art. 13), human oversight (Art. 14), accuracy/robustness/cybersecurity (Art. 15), serious-incident reporting (Art. 73), FRIA where applicable (Art. 27) | Annex IV auto-dossier (2.5), HITL Rego gates (2.3), event logging (2.7), post-market monitoring via GAI-SOC | P0–P2 | +| **EU AI Act — GPAI/systemic risk** | Binding for GPAI providers; banks mostly deployers but fine-tuning can shift roles | Model evaluation, adversarial testing, incident reporting, cybersecurity for systemic-risk models | Vendor contract hooks; internal fine-tune registry treats institution-as-provider scenarios | P1–P3 | +| **NIST AI RMF 1.0 + Generative AI Profile (AI 600-1)** | Voluntary; de facto US supervisory yardstick | Govern/Map/Measure/Manage; GAI-specific risks (confabulation, info integrity, CBRN-adjacent misuse) | Canonical control library spine; GAI-SOC detections map to AI 600-1 suggested actions | P0+ | +| **ISO/IEC 42001 (AIMS)** | Certifiable management system | AI policy, roles, impact assessment, lifecycle controls, continual improvement | Management-review cadence generated from BBOM; certification audit consumes OSCAL export | P0–P1 | +| **Basel III/IV (finalization)** | Binding prudential | Capital/RWA discipline; model use in IRB; operational-risk capital for AI failures | G-SRI feeds ICAAP; AI-failure scenarios in op-risk capital; concentration limits | P3 | +| **SR 11-7** | US supervisory guidance, entrenched | Model inventory, independent validation, ongoing monitoring, effective challenge | Registry tiering, validation workflows in WorkflowAI Pro, challenger-model program | P0–P1 | +| **"SR 26-2" (planning scenario — hypothetical successor letter on AI/autonomous agents)** | **Speculative**: assumed AI-specific Fed guidance c. 2026 | Assumed: agent autonomy ceilings, kill-switch testing cadence, AI concentration reporting | Already satisfied by containment plane + G-SRI if issued | P2–P3 | +| **DORA (Reg. 2022/2554)** | Binding since Jan 2025 | ICT risk framework, incident classification/reporting, resilience testing (TLPT), critical third-party oversight | Vendor governance, Red Dawn doubles as resilience testing, incident pipeline SLAs | P0–P2 | +| **NIS2** | Binding (transposition varies) | Cyber risk management, supply-chain security, reporting | Shares the SOC/incident substrate with DORA | P0–P2 | +| **MAS FEAT + Veritas** | Singapore guidance/toolkit | Fairness metrics, ethics, accountability, transparency assessments | Fairness eval suite emits FEAT-formatted evidence views | P1–P2 | +| **HKMA (GenAI guidance / "Fintech 2030"-era supervisory expectations)** | Guidance; "Fintech 2030" treated as forward scenario | Consumer protection in GenAI, model risk, data governance | Regional policy pack + localized evidence | P1–P2 | +| **FCA Consumer Duty + SM&CR** | Binding (UK) | Good-outcomes evidence, named accountable senior managers | Outcome-testing analytics; accountability map in Fiduciary Zone; SMF attestations from BBOM | P0–P2 | +| **US EO 14110 (Oct 2023)** | Executive order; portions **rescinded Jan 2025** — treat as historical baseline + monitor successor policy | Dual-use foundation-model reporting concepts, NIST guidance development | Monitoring function in treaty engine tracks successor US policy | P0+ | +| **GDPR Art. 22 / ECOA / FCRA** | Binding | Automated-decision safeguards, adverse-action notices, fair lending | Rego gates (2.3.2), explainability dashboards (Part 4.9), reason-code pipelines | P0–P1 | + +**Operating rule**: one canonical control library; regimes are *views*. A control like "human oversight on adverse credit decisions" simultaneously evidences EU AI Act Art. 14, GDPR Art. 22, ECOA adverse-action, FCA Consumer Duty outcome testing, and SR 11-7 effective challenge. + +## 3.2 Phase-to-Regime Compliance Milestones + +- **2026 (P0)**: EU AI Act high-risk readiness program complete (gap assessment + Annex IV pipeline design); DORA incident pipeline live; ISO 42001 stage-1 audit. +- **2027 (P1)**: Annex IV dossiers auto-generated for all T1 systems; ISO 42001 certification; SR 11-7 validation queues cleared for AI-tier models; MAS/HKMA regional packs live. +- **2028 (P2)**: DORA TLPT-aligned Red Dawn cycles; Art. 73 serious-incident reporting fully automated; (scenario) SR 26-2 kill-switch attestation ready. +- **2029 (P3)**: AI stress results in ICAAP/ILAAP; Basel op-risk capital methodology includes AI-failure scenarios; concentration limits enforced. +- **2030 (P4)**: SIP v2.4 supervisory APIs accepted by ≥2 supervisors; zk-attestations piloted with EU AI Office/ECB-supervised entities. +- **2031–2035 (P5–P6)**: adaptive governance under verified envelopes; treaty-engine consumption contingent on international machinery. + +## 3.3 Civilizational-Scale Compute-Governance Mechanisms + +> **Feasibility flag**: every entity in this subsection is a **speculative/conceptual construct** — a coherent design for institutions that do *not* currently exist (loose real-world analogues: IAEA for ICGC; BIS/FSB for GFMCF; UN registries for GAIVS). They are included because a 2026–2035 G-SIFI program should be *forward-compatible* with such machinery, not because compliance is possible today. See Part 6. + +| Mechanism | Concept | Institutional interface (if instantiated) | +|---|---|---| +| **ICGC** — International Compute Governance Council | Treaty body setting compute thresholds, training-run notification duties, inspection regimes (IAEA-analogue) | Treaty engine consumes threshold feeds; training-run telemetry from attested hardware (4.12) supports notification | +| **GAIVS** — Global AI Verification System | Cryptographic verification fabric for claims about model training/compute (attested chips, zk training proofs) | CAS-SPP proofs and hardware attestation chains become GAIVS-compatible evidence | +| **GAICS** — Global AI Compute Standard | Canonical measurement standard (FLOP accounting, capability-eval baselines) | G-Stack adopts GAICS units in registry metadata | +| **GACMO** — Global AI Compute Monitoring Organization | Operational monitoring of large compute clusters | Institutions report contracted frontier-compute usage via SIP | +| **GAIGA** — Global AI Governance Alliance | Plurilateral policy alignment body (OECD/GPAI-analogue) | Policy-pack baselines track GAIGA model rules | +| **GAIRA** — Global AI Risk Authority | Systemic-risk assessor; AI-FSB | G-SRI methodology aligned to GAIRA taxonomies; stress scenarios shared | +| **GAICA** — Global AI Certification Authority | Mutual-recognition certification of governance systems | ISO 42001 + OSCAL exports as certification substrate | +| **GFMCF** — Global Frontier Model Compute Framework | Tiered obligations by training-compute scale | Vendor contracts require GFMCF-tier disclosure; concentration limits keyed to tiers | +| **GACP** — Global AI Containment Protocol | Minimum containment standards for frontier systems (kill-switch, eval, incident duties) | Omni-Sentinel ring design parameterized to GACP levels | +| **GATI** — Global AI Transparency Initiative | Public registries of frontier systems and incidents | Sanitized registry/incident exports via SIP | + +**Design rule**: build the *adapters*, not bets. Each mechanism above corresponds to an interface the architecture already exposes (attestation, registry export, telemetry, policy ingestion). If the machinery emerges (2030s), integration is a feed; if it doesn't, the interfaces still serve domestic supervisors. + +--- + +# PART 4 — Sentinel AI v2.4 Enterprise & Frontier Architecture: Component Analysis, Challenges, and Risk Mitigation + +## 4.1 Architecture Summary + +Sentinel v2.4 composes twelve cooperating subsystems: (1) policy hub (OPA/Rego), (2) verification plane (TLA+), (3) CAS-SPP zk audit, (4) Kafka telemetry/systemic-risk fabric, (5) OmniSentinel kill-switch graph, (6) zero-trust Terraform/EKS substrate, (7) CESE simulation engine, (8) Sovereign API Gateway, (9) explainability dashboards, (10) Reflexive Treaty Evolution Engine, (11) SnarkPack aggregation pipeline, (12) hardware attestation daemons. Sections 4.2–4.13 analyze each; 4.14 consolidates challenges and mitigations. + +## 4.2 TLA+ Formal Verification of AGI Containment Kill-Switches + +Beyond the Part 2.4 protocol core, the v2.4 verification plane addresses: + +- **Refinement layering**: an abstract spec (`KillSwitchAbstract`) states only the invariants (NoResurrection, EventualContainment, DualControl); implementation specs (`KillSwitchEKS`, `KillSwitchEnclave`) refine it per substrate. Apalache checks refinement mappings; this keeps proofs stable as infrastructure evolves. +- **Byzantine extensions**: the crash-failure model is insufficient if the *contained system* can influence controllers (prompt-injecting an operator console, corrupting telemetry that gates actuation). v2.4 models a Byzantine workload: the spec must show containment holds even when the workload sends arbitrary messages — operationally this forces *out-of-band actuation paths* (power/network-level) that consume no workload-influenced inputs. +- **What TLA+ cannot give you** (explicit, for the risk register): it verifies the *protocol design*, not the implementation (mitigate: trace conformance checking, chaos drills), not compiler/hardware correctness, and not the question of whether a superintelligent system finds an unmodeled channel. Formal verification shrinks the failure surface to "the model was wrong," which is why the model is reviewed by an independent verification team and red-teamed in Red Dawn exercises. + +**Honest scope statement**: for 2026-era systems (LLM agents), kill-switches are a true control. For hypothetical strongly-superintelligent systems, *no* purely technical containment can be guaranteed; the architecture's posture is defense-in-depth plus capability ceilings (don't deploy what you can't contain), which is a governance decision encoded as registry/admission policy, not a physics guarantee. + +## 4.3 OPA/Rego Compliance-as-Code (EU AI Act, SR 26-2, ECOA/FCRA, GDPR Art. 22) + +Covered structurally in 2.3; v2.4-specific notes: + +- **EU AI Act pack**: Art. 14 oversight encoded as gate-ordering rules; Art. 13 transparency as artifact-presence preconditions (user-facing disclosure flags must be set before serving); Annex IV as deployment preconditions (no APPROVED dossier → no admission). +- **SR 26-2 pack (scenario)**: autonomy ceilings, mandatory kill-switch arm-state checks, quarterly actuation-test freshness checks (`killswitch_last_test < 90d` as a deploy precondition). +- **ECOA/FCRA pack**: reason-code sufficiency, adverse-action notice generation triggers, Reg B timing constraints surfaced as deadline objects monitored by WorkflowAI Pro. +- **GDPR Art. 22 pack**: automated-decision classification (legal/significant effect taxonomy maintained by legal as policy *data*, decoupled from rule logic), safeguard preconditions, DPIA-reference requirements. +- **Failure-mode analysis**: policy-engine outage (mitigate: replicated PDPs, cached bundles, fail-closed for T0/T1); policy bugs shipping (mitigate: fixture suites derived from regulatory text + shadow evaluation of new bundles against 30 days of recorded inputs before enforce); semantic drift between legal intent and Rego (mitigate: paired legal-engineer review, plain-language policy annotations rendered to compliance officers). + +## 4.4 — (consolidated into 4.3) + +## 4.5 zk-SNARK Cryptographic Audit System (CAS-SPP) with Groth16 + +Extends 2.6 with v2.4 engineering detail: + +- **Groth16 selection rationale**: smallest proofs (~200 bytes, 3 group elements), fastest verification (3 pairings) — ideal for regulator-side verification at scale and for on-chain/transparency-log anchoring. +- **Costs**: per-circuit trusted setup (Powers-of-Tau phase 1 reusable; phase 2 per circuit — run as multi-party ceremonies with internal audit + external auditor as participants, transcripts published to the transparency log); proving cost ~linear in constraints (fairness circuits over 10⁶ decisions require batching — hence the Merkle-batch design). +- **Circuit governance**: circuits are *policy semantics frozen in R1CS* — they get the same change-control as Rego bundles, plus cryptographic review; circuit hash is a public input binding proofs to audited semantics. +- **CAS-SPP = Cryptographic Audit System – Succinct Proof Pipeline**: leaves (signed decisions) → batch Merkle trees → per-batch Groth16 → SnarkPack aggregation (4.11) → period attestation object → SIP delivery → regulator verifies against published VK; VK fingerprints are themselves registered with supervisors out-of-band (preventing VK-substitution attacks). + +## 4.6 Kafka-Based Telemetry and Systemic Risk Monitoring + +Extends 2.1.2/2.9: the systemic-risk layer consumes governance topics into streaming aggregations (Flink/ksqlDB): per-model violation rates, autonomy-utilization curves (how close agents run to ceilings), cross-model correlation monitors (co-movement of outputs across desks sharing a foundation model — an early-warning indicator for herding), and the **G-SRI**: a composite index over control coverage, exception load, drift signals, concentration metrics, and incident momentum, reported to the board weekly and to supervisors per cadence. + +## 4.7 OmniSentinel Kill-Switch Logic + +Operational design wrapped around the verified protocol (2.4, 4.2): + +- **Graduated response ladder**: L0 observe → L1 throttle (rate/value limits tighten) → L2 quarantine (egress severed, session frozen, state snapshotted for forensics) → L3 terminate (workload killed, credentials revoked, registry epoch closed) → L4 fabric isolate (network partition of the containment cluster; out-of-band actuation). +- **Actuation independence**: L3/L4 paths run on isolated control infrastructure (separate accounts, separate IAM root, hardware network kill via switch-port disable for on-prem enclaves); the contained system has no credential path to the actuation plane (verified by automated IAM reachability analysis). +- **Anti-weaponization**: a kill-switch is also a denial-of-service target. Dual-control quorum, signed actuation commands, and rate-limited arming protect against an attacker triggering mass de-autonomization as a market-disruption attack — this scenario is in the Red Dawn library and the CESE scenario set. +- **Testing**: quarterly live actuation tests on production-representative canaries (not just staging); test evidence feeds the SR 26-2-scenario attestation and DORA resilience-testing record. + +## 4.8 Cognitive-Economic Simulation Engine (CESE) + +- **Purpose**: agent-based simulation of the institution's AI-mediated decision ecology — credit pipelines, trading agents, treasury automation — under shocks: model recall, jailbreak epidemic, correlated drift, kill-switch mass-actuation, vendor outage. +- **Method**: calibrated agent populations (behavior cloned from telemetry distributions, *not* live models), market/credit environment models, counterfactual policy evaluation ("if autonomy ceilings were X, tail loss is Y"). +- **Outputs**: stress scenarios for P3 (Basel-style packages), autonomy-ceiling recommendations (consumed as *proposals* by the policy pipeline), de-autonomization playbook validation (does shutting down agent class A within 90s create operational gaps elsewhere?). +- **Honest caveat**: simulation of cognitive agents is approximation, not prediction; CESE results are decision-support with documented model risk (CESE itself is a registered T2 model under SR 11-7 — governance applies reflexively). + +## 4.9 Sovereign API Gateway and Credit Explainability Dashboards + +- **Sovereign API Gateway**: the single regulated ingress/egress for AI services across jurisdictions — per-jurisdiction routing (EU traffic served by EU-resident inference with EU evidence-plane residency), policy-enforced data-transfer controls (GDPR Ch. V), supervisory tap points (lawful, logged inspection interfaces per SIP scopes), and emergency sovereign controls (a national regulator's scoped suspension order can be enforced at the gateway for that jurisdiction without global outage). +- **Explainability dashboards** (credit): decision-level views (reason codes, feature attributions via SHAP-class methods with documented limitations, counterfactual "nearest approval" explanations), cohort fairness views (adverse-impact ratios, calibration by segment), and regulator mode (read-only, evidence-linked: every chart cell links to signed underlying evidence). Adverse-action notice generation is wired to the same artifacts → notices, dashboards, and dossiers cannot diverge. + +## 4.10 Reflexive Treaty Evolution Engine + +Institutional consumer described in 2.10. The "reflexive" loop in v2.4: (1) ingest obligation feeds + supervisory correspondence (NLP-assisted obligation extraction, human-validated); (2) diff against the current obligation lattice; (3) compile candidate policy/data changes; (4) simulate impact (CESE + shadow policy evaluation); (5) route to human ratification with full impact dossier; (6) post-enactment, monitor for obligation-interpretation drift. Governance implication: this engine is where **EU AI Office, Federal Reserve, ECB, and (if instantiated) ICGC** obligations meet institution code — its change-log is itself supervisory evidence of "compliance velocity" (obligation-publication → enforcement lag becomes a measured KPI). + +## 4.11 Recursive SnarkPack Aggregation Pipeline + +- **SnarkPack** (Gailly–Maller–Nitulescu) aggregates n Groth16 proofs into one O(log n)-size argument with fast verification — built for exactly this "thousands of batch proofs per period" shape; it reuses Powers-of-Tau, avoiding new ceremonies. +- **"Recursive" tiering in v2.4**: hourly proofs → daily SnarkPack aggregates → period-level aggregation. True recursion (proof-verifying circuits, Nova/Halo2-style IVC) is the research-edge upgrade path for *continuous* attestation (rolling proof updated per batch) — flagged research-stage in Part 6. +- **Operational notes**: aggregation jobs are stateless and replayable from WORM data; aggregate proofs anchor to the same Merkle/transparency chain; verifier tooling is shipped to regulators as an auditable open-source CLI (verification must not require trusting the institution's software). + +## 4.12 Hardware Attestation Daemons + +- **Function**: per-node daemons producing boot-time and periodic runtime attestation: TPM 2.0 measured boot quotes; confidential-computing evidence (AMD SEV-SNP attestation reports / Intel TDX quotes) proving model weights and sidecars execute in the measured environment; NVIDIA confidential-computing attestation (H100-class) for GPU workloads. +- **Integration**: attestation results are admission preconditions (no valid quote → no scheduling of T0/T1 pods) and chain into evidence: a CAS-SPP proof over decisions is only as good as the claim that the *signing sidecars* were genuine — attestation closes that loop (2.6.3). +- **Treaty relevance**: attested compute metering is the technical substrate any ICGC/GACMO-style regime would need; building it now serves domestic assurance regardless. + +## 4.13 Governance Implications for Regulators (EU AI Office, Federal Reserve, ECB, ICGC) + +- **EU AI Office**: receives Annex IV/OSCAL bundles + zk fairness attestations via SIP; the regulator-sandbox pattern (2.8) operationalizes Art. 74-style market-surveillance access without bulk data transfer; GPAI systemic-risk coordination consumes the institution's fine-tune registry. +- **Federal Reserve / OCC**: SR 11-7 continuity preserved (independent validation evidenced in WorkflowAI Pro); the scenario SR 26-2 controls (autonomy ceilings, kill-switch attestations, AI concentration reporting) are already emitted by the containment plane and G-SRI; CCAR-adjacent AI stress packages from P3. +- **ECB/SSM**: AI exposure in ICAAP, on-site-inspection support via sandboxes, DORA incident feeds; TRIM-style model-investigation support through decision replay. +- **ICGC (speculative)**: if instantiated, the institution's attested-compute telemetry, registry exports, and GACP-parameterized containment levels provide compliance-by-construction; absent ICGC, the same artifacts serve national supervisors. +- **Two-sided implication**: machine-speed supervision changes regulator operating models too — supervisors need verifier tooling, schema governance participation, and staff fluent in policy-as-code; the institution should fund/contribute open verifier tools (it is in its interest that verification be easy and standard). + +## 4.14 Implementation Challenges and Risk Mitigation (2026–2035) + +| # | Challenge | Risk | Mitigation | +|---|---|---|---| +| 1 | Formal-methods talent scarcity | Spec debt; unverified protocol changes | Small central verification guild + spec-pattern library; train SREs in TLA+ reading; restrict scope to containment-critical protocols | +| 2 | Policy/legal semantic drift | Rego encodes the wrong obligation | Paired legal-engineering review; regulatory-text-derived fixtures; shadow evaluation before enforce | +| 3 | zk trusted-setup and circuit churn | Compromised ceremony or stale circuits | MPC ceremonies with external participants + published transcripts; PLONK/Halo2 path for fast-evolving statements; circuit change control | +| 4 | Garbage-in-proven-garbage-out | Proofs over corrupted telemetry | Hardware attestation chain (4.12) + signed-at-source envelopes + transparency-log anchoring | +| 5 | Kill-switch weaponization / false actuation | Malicious or erroneous mass de-autonomization = operational incident | Dual-control quorum, signed commands, graduated ladder, CESE-validated playbooks, market-impact circuit breakers | +| 6 | Latency vs. governance depth | P99 inflation on trading/payments paths | Tiered enforcement: synchronous cheap checks + async deep checks with hold-and-release only where mandated; pre-computed decisions for hot paths | +| 7 | Vendor opacity (foundation models) | Cannot evidence Annex IV/SR 11-7 for black-box vendor models | Contractual evidence rights (DORA-style), vendor scorecards in registry, capability-eval independence, concentration limits as backstop | +| 8 | Multi-jurisdiction conflicts | Contradictory obligations (e.g., data localization vs. consolidated supervision) | Obligation lattice with most-restrictive default + documented derogations; Sovereign Gateway jurisdiction routing | +| 9 | Evidence-plane compromise (insider) | History rewrite, selective deletion | WORM compliance mode, dual-anchored Merkle roots (internal + external timestamping), separation of evidence-plane IAM root | +| 10 | PQC migration errors | Long-retention evidence verifiable in 2040? | Hybrid dual signatures through ~2030; crypto-agility in envelope format; hash-based (SLH-DSA) for roots of trust | +| 11 | ASA false confidence | "Deception detectors" trusted beyond validity | ASAs scoped to anomaly/consistency detection; verdicts are risk inputs, never sole authorization basis; published validity studies | +| 12 | Governance-system model risk (reflexivity) | CESE/ASA/treaty-engine models are themselves models | All governance models registered, tiered, validated under SR 11-7 — no exemption for the watchers | +| 13 | Organizational antibodies | Governance seen as friction; shadow AI proliferates | Paved-road strategy: governed path is the *fastest* path (golden templates, instant sandbox, pre-approved patterns); shadow-AI detection in CASB/DLP | +| 14 | Regulator capacity asymmetry | Supervisors can't consume machine-speed evidence | Open-source verifier tooling, supervisor sandboxes, joint schema governance, phased API adoption | +| 15 | Frontier capability outpacing containment | T0 ceiling assumptions invalidated by a capability jump | Capability-eval tripwires gating deployment (deny-by-default above eval thresholds); standing decision rights to freeze classes of deployment; treaty-engine watch on external eval results | + +--- + +# PART 5 — Enterprise AI Governance & Task Management Platform: Design and Implementation Guidelines + +## 5.1 Product Definition + +A Fortune 500-grade internal platform unifying: (a) AI governance operations (registry, policy, evidence, compliance dashboards) and (b) governed work execution (task boards for model/agent lifecycle work, validations, remediations) — so that governance work *is* tracked work, and tasks carry compliance context natively. + +## 5.2 Enterprise AI Reference Architecture (platform view) + +``` +┌────────────────────────── Experience Layer ──────────────────────────┐ +│ Next.js portal: Task Boards │ Registry │ Dashboards │ Regulator View │ +├────────────────────────── API Layer ─────────────────────────────────┤ +│ GraphQL/REST gateway · OIDC (PKCE) · RBAC/ABAC (OPA) · rate limits │ +├──────────────── Domain Services (microservices) ─────────────────────┤ +│ Task Service (DAG) │ Registry Service │ Policy Service (OPA mgmt) │ +│ Evidence Service │ RAG Gateway │ Agent Hub (EAIP) │ Eval Service │ +├──────────────────────── Platform Layer ──────────────────────────────┤ +│ Kafka (events) │ Postgres (OLTP) │ object store (WORM) │ vector DB │ +│ K8s/EKS · Terraform · GitOps · Vault/KMS · SPIFFE mTLS │ +└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ +``` + +## 5.3 AI Safety Governance & Regulatory Compliance Modules + +- **Frameworks in scope**: EU AI Act (classification wizard → tier assignment → obligation checklist auto-instantiated as tasks), NIST AI RMF (Govern/Map/Measure/Manage control tracker), ISO/IEC 42001 (AIMS clauses → recurring management-review tasks), GDPR (DPIA workflows, Art. 22 safeguard tracking), **ANSM where applicable** (French health-products authority — relevant only for AI features touching health/insurance-medical products, e.g., underwriting using medical data or wellness apps; the platform's jurisdiction/domain classifier flags such use cases and instantiates the ANSM/EU MDR-adjacent checklist). +- **Compliance objects are first-class**: an obligation links to controls, controls link to evidence queries, gaps auto-generate tasks with deadlines and accountable owners (SMCR-mapped). + +## 5.4 RAG Security and Governance + +- **Ingestion governance**: source allowlists, provenance capture (document hash, ACL snapshot, classification), PII scanning/redaction at ingestion, signed chunk manifests. +- **Query-time security**: retrieval honors *user-time* ACLs (no ACL-bypass via embeddings — filter by document ACL at query, never rely on ingestion-time ACLs alone); tenant isolation in the vector DB (namespace per domain + encryption); prompt-injection defenses on retrieved content (content sanitization, instruction-data separation, retrieval-result provenance shown to users). +- **Output governance**: citation enforcement (answers must bind to retrieved chunks above a relevance floor or abstain), groundedness scoring logged per response, DLP on outputs. +- **Auditability**: every RAG response logs `{query_digest, chunk_ids, model, policy decisions, groundedness}` to the evidence plane. + +## 5.5 RBAC and API Security + +- **AuthN**: OIDC with enterprise IdP, phishing-resistant MFA (FIDO2) for governance-admin roles; service-to-service via SPIFFE mTLS. +- **AuthZ**: RBAC base roles (Viewer, Contributor, Model Owner, Validator, Compliance Officer, Governance Admin, Regulator-ReadOnly) + ABAC overlays in OPA (jurisdiction, tier, business line); deny-by-default; segregation-of-duty rules (a Model Owner cannot validate their own model; a policy author cannot approve their own bundle). +- **API security**: OWASP API Top-10 controls — object-level authorization checks per resource, strict schemas (no mass assignment), rate limiting per principal, audit of every mutating call; tokens are short-lived, sender-constrained (DPoP/mTLS-bound) for high-privilege scopes. + +## 5.6 Secure Model Registry (Scanning + Lineage) + +- **Entry schema**: model card, intended use, tier, jurisdiction scope, training-data lineage refs, eval results, license, vendor terms. +- **Security scanning on registration**: serialized-model scanning (pickle/joblib deserialization attack detection — ModelScan-class tooling; prefer safetensors), dependency SBOM + CVE scan, license compliance, secret scanning in artifacts; container image signing (cosign) for the serving bundle. +- **Lineage graph**: dataset → training run → checkpoint → fine-tune → deployment → decisions (edges signed; supports "which decisions did dataset D influence?" queries — essential for data-poisoning incident response and GDPR erasure-impact analysis). +- **State machine**: PROPOSED → SCANNED → VALIDATED → APPROVED → DEPLOYED → (SUSPENDED|RETIRED); transitions are policy-gated and emit lifecycle events. + +## 5.7 OPA/Rego Policy Integration, WORM/PQC Audit, CI/CD Safety Gates + +- Platform actions (deploy, export, role grant, registry transition) all route through the same OPA PDPs as runtime AI decisions — one policy plane (per 2.3). +- WORM + PQC logging exactly per 2.7 (the platform writes to the shared evidence plane; no platform-private audit silo). +- **CI/CD safety & bias testing**: pipeline stages — unit/integration → security (SAST/DAST/SBOM) → **model eval gate** (task-appropriate benchmark deltas, regression suites) → **bias gate** (fairness metrics vs. tier thresholds: adverse-impact ratio, equalized-odds deltas, calibration by segment, with statistical power checks so small samples can't green-wash) → **safety gate** (jailbreak/prompt-injection suites, refusal-behavior tests, toxicity) → policy gate (OPA: dossier present, owner assigned, attestation fresh) → signed deploy. Any gate failure auto-creates a remediation task linked to the blocking obligation. + +## 5.8 AI Agent Interoperability (EAIP) and Swarm Governance + +- **EAIP (Enterprise AI Interoperability Protocol)**: the in-house profile over open agent-interop standards (MCP for tool access; A2A-style agent messaging), adding mandatory envelope fields: agent identity (SPIFFE), delegation token (capability-scoped, expiring, chained — encodes the Part 2.4 no-amplification invariant), tier, jurisdiction, and policy-decision references. +- **Swarm governance**: registry of agent collectives (membership, topology, joint ceilings); aggregate budget enforcement (a swarm's cumulative authority ≤ chartered ceiling even if individual agents are within limits); emergent-behavior monitors (interaction-graph anomaly detection — unexpected coordination patterns alert GAI-SOC); swarm-level kill-switch (terminating a swarm tears down all delegation tokens atomically); inter-agent messages sampled into evidence with privacy filtering. + +## 5.9 Advanced Task Board + +- **Data model**: tasks as nodes in a DAG (`blocks/blocked_by` edges; cycle detection on edge insert via incremental topological check); projects, epics, swimlanes. +- **Dependencies (DAG)**: critical-path computation surfaces governance bottlenecks ("ISO 42001 cert blocked by 3 validation tasks, critical path 24 days"); dependency-aware status propagation (a task cannot move to DONE while open blockers exist, unless an exception object is attached — same exception machinery as policy). +- **Priorities**: P0–P4 with SLA clocks; regulatory-deadline tasks auto-priority-escalate as deadlines approach (deadline objects come from the obligation tracker). +- **Recurring tasks**: RRULE (RFC 5545)-based generation for cadence work (quarterly kill-switch tests, annual DPIA refresh, monthly fairness re-evals); generated instances pre-linked to the control they evidence — completing the task *is* the evidence event. +- **Commenting**: threaded comments with @mentions, evidence attachment (hash-referenced), regulator-visible flag (comments marked discoverable appear in sandbox views), immutable edit history (comment edits are append-only versions). +- **Filtering/search**: faceted (tier, regime, owner, status, deadline horizon, business line) + full-text + saved views; query language exposed via API for compliance reporting ("all open P0/P1 tasks evidencing EU AI Act Art. 9 controls past SLA"). + +## 5.10 Integrated Dashboards + +- **Compliance dashboard**: per-regime obligation coverage, evidence freshness heatmap, exception aging, upcoming statutory deadlines. +- **Risk dashboard**: G-SRI trend, tier-population drift, concentration metrics, top model-risk findings, CESE scenario summaries. +- **Telemetry dashboard**: policy-decision rates/latencies, deny-rate anomalies, ASA verdict distributions, containment-event timeline, RAG groundedness trends. +- All dashboard cells are evidence-linked (click-through to signed underlying events) — dashboards are *views over the evidence plane*, never a separate truth. + +## 5.11 Build Sequencing (platform) + +1. **MVP (2 quarters)**: registry + task DAG + OIDC/RBAC + OPA gateway + Postgres/Kafka spine + basic compliance checklists. +2. **Q3–Q4**: evidence plane integration (WORM), CI/CD gates, RAG gateway with ACL-aware retrieval, compliance dashboard. +3. **Year 2**: EAIP agent hub, swarm governance, recurring-task evidence automation, risk/telemetry dashboards, regulator read-only mode. +4. **Year 3**: zk-attestation surfacing, sandbox provisioning integration, adaptive SLA/priority intelligence. + +--- + +# PART 6 — Consolidated Roadmap, Recommendations, and Feasibility Taxonomy + +## 6.1 Consolidated 2026–2035 Timeline + +| Year | Governance | Architecture | Regulatory | +|---|---|---|---| +| 2026 | Constitution, inventory, tiering, board committee | Sentinel hub shadow mode; Kafka/evidence spine; PQC plan | EU AI Act high-risk readiness; DORA pipeline; ISO 42001 stage 1 | +| 2027 | Policy packs enforced; exception machinery | OPA enforce on T0/T1; TLA+ specs v1; Annex IV auto-fill; platform MVP | ISO 42001 cert; Annex IV live; regional packs | +| 2028 | Red Dawn cadence; MTTC <90s | Omni-Sentinel enforce; ASA v1; PQC WORM prod; attestation daemons | Art. 73 automation; TLPT alignment; (scenario) SR 26-2 ready | +| 2029 | AI stress regime; concentration limits | G-SRI v2; CESE prod; BBOM dashboard | ICAAP integration; Basel op-risk AI scenarios | +| 2030 | API-first supervision | SIP v2.4 endpoints; OSCAL/zk delivery; regulator sandboxes | ≥2 supervisors on API; zk pilots | +| 2031–32 | Adaptive governance in verified envelopes | Dynamic risk budgets; ASA v2 diversity; incident-sharing utility | Cross-border evidence portability | +| 2033–35 | Treaty-era posture | Treaty-engine feeds (contingent); continuous conformity; joint sandboxes | Multi-regulator simulations; ICGC-class interfaces if instantiated | + +## 6.2 Top-10 Recommendations + +1. Fund governance as Tier-0 infrastructure with a named accountable executive (SMCR-style) from day one. +2. Build the canonical control library before any regime-specific program — regimes are views. +3. Put OPA in the execution path (admission + runtime) in 2027; shadow-evaluate every bundle before enforce. +4. Formally verify only containment-critical protocols (kill-switch, delegation, HITL ordering, evidence delivery) — high leverage, bounded scope. +5. Sign telemetry at source with hybrid classical+PQC signatures now; WORM with compliance-mode locks and dual Merkle anchoring. +6. Treat zk-attestation as an evidence-compression and privacy tool, never as a substitute for input integrity — chain it to hardware attestation. +7. Apply governance reflexively: every governance model (ASA, CESE, treaty engine) is itself a registered, validated model. +8. Make the governed path the fastest path (paved-road) to defeat shadow AI organizationally, and instrument for it technically. +9. Negotiate model-vendor evidence/kill-switch cooperation rights contractually in 2026 renewals (DORA critical-third-party logic). +10. Build adapters for international compute-governance machinery (attestation, registry export, obligation ingestion) without betting the program on its emergence. + +## 6.3 Feasibility Taxonomy — Speculative vs. Currently Feasible + +### Tier A — Currently feasible, production-deployable (2026) +Kubernetes/Gatekeeper admission control; OPA/Rego policy-as-code incl. the fairness/autonomy gates shown; Kafka schema-governed telemetry; mTLS/SPIFFE zero-trust sidecars; S3 Object Lock WORM; Merkle anchoring + RFC 3161 timestamping; hybrid Ed25519+ML-DSA signing (FIPS 203/204/205 are final); TLA+/TLC/Apalache verification of containment protocols; Sigstore image signing; ModelScan-class registry scanning; SHAP-class explainability with documented limits; Terraform/GitOps sandboxes; OSCAL tooling; DAG task systems; RAG ACL-aware retrieval; TPM/SEV-SNP/TDX and NVIDIA CC attestation; Groth16/Circom proofs and SnarkPack aggregation (engineering-heavy but demonstrated technology). + +### Tier B — Feasible with significant engineering/maturity risk (2026–2030) +zk fairness attestation **at G-SIFI decision volumes** (proving-cost engineering, circuit governance, regulator verifier adoption); ASA anomaly supervision (valuable, but validity bounds must be published); CESE-grade institution-wide simulation (decision-support quality, not predictive); automated Annex IV generation at high fill rates; SIP-style supervisory APIs (technically easy; *regulator adoption* is the risk); trace-conformance checking of TLA+ specs against production logs; dynamic risk budgets inside verified envelopes. + +### Tier C — Research-stage (credible direction, not yet dependable) +Reliable deception/scheming detection in frontier models; true recursive IVC (Nova/Halo2-class) continuous attestation at enterprise scale; formal verification of learned-model *behavior* (vs. surrounding protocol); zk proofs *of training properties* (proof-of-training-data/compute); fully automated obligation-extraction-to-policy compilation without human ratification. + +### Tier D — Speculative / fictional constructs (institutional and product fiction used as design fixtures) +The named international bodies — **ICGC, GAIVS, GAICS, GACMO, GAIGA, GAIRA, GAICA, GFMCF, GACP, GATI** — do not exist; they are coherent design fictions with real-world analogues (IAEA, FSB, BIS, OECD/GPAI). **"SR 26-2"** is a hypothetical planning scenario, not issued Federal Reserve guidance (SR 11-7 remains the operative letter). **"HKMA Fintech 2030"** is treated as a forward scenario extrapolating from HKMA's Fintech 2025 strategy and GenAI guidance. **US EO 14110** is real but was substantially rescinded in January 2025 — treat as historical baseline and track successor policy. The product names **Sentinel v2.4, WorkflowAI Pro, G-Stack, Omni-Sentinel, SIP v2.4, CAS-SPP, CESE, EAIP, BBOM, ARRE/VAR, G-SRI, Reflexive Treaty Evolution Engine** are a reference taxonomy — capability bundles realizable with the Tier A/B technologies above, not commercially available turnkey products. Finally, *guaranteed* containment of strongly superintelligent systems is not a claim any architecture can honestly make; the defensible posture is capability-gated deployment plus defense-in-depth, which this blueprint encodes. + +### Operating rule for the taxonomy +Plan and budget on Tier A; pilot Tier B with explicit maturity gates; track Tier C as research watch-items with annual reassessment; use Tier D only as forward-compatibility interfaces and scenario-planning fixtures — never as compliance dependencies. + +## 6.4 Closing Statement + +The decade 2026–2035 will reward institutions that treat AI governance as verifiable infrastructure rather than documentation. Every mechanism in this blueprint reduces to one discipline: **make claims checkable** — by a policy engine at runtime, by a model checker at design time, by a cryptographic verifier at audit time, and by a supervisor through an API at any time. Institutions that build this discipline on today's Tier-A technology will absorb whatever regulatory and capability shocks the 2030s deliver; those that defer will face them with PDFs. + + diff --git a/rag-agentic-dashboard/data/gcir-zk-recursive-2035.json b/rag-agentic-dashboard/data/gcir-zk-recursive-2035.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000..26ca2cd --- /dev/null +++ b/rag-agentic-dashboard/data/gcir-zk-recursive-2035.json @@ -0,0 +1,1186 @@ +{ + "docRef": "GCIR-ZK-RECURSIVE-2035-WP-067", + "version": "1.0.0", + "title": "GC-IR Formal Cryptographic Bridge, Recursive zk-Proof Attestation & Civilizational Recoverability Synthesis 2026-2035 — TLA+->zk-SNARK/zk-STARK Compilation, SystemicRiskAggregator Circuits, Federated zk Compliance & Research Apex for G-SIFIs", + "horizon": "2026-2035", + "apiPrefix": "/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035", + "buildsOn": [ + "WP-062", + "WP-063", + "WP-064", + "WP-065", + "WP-066" + ], + "status": "formal-cryptographic-bridge-and-research-apex", + "classification": "Confidential / Restricted — Board, CRO, CCO, CISO, CDAO, CTO, Cryptography Engineers, Formal-Methods Engineers, AI Safety Researchers, Model Risk, Internal Audit, External Regulators & Supervisory Colleges", + "audiences": [ + "Board & Board Technology/Risk Committees", + "C-Suite (CRO, CCO, CISO, CDAO, CTO)", + "Cryptography & Zero-Knowledge Engineers", + "Formal-Methods & TLA+ Engineers", + "AI Safety & Alignment Researchers", + "Model Risk Management & Independent Validation", + "Internal Audit & SMCR Accountable Executives", + "External Regulators & Supervisory Colleges" + ], + "directive": { + "scope": "Deliver the 2026-2035 formal cryptographic-bridge and research-apex layer for G-SIFIs: (1) GC-IR, a typed intermediate representation that compiles TLA+ safety/liveness invariants (incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) into zk-SNARK/zk-STARK circuits with semantic preservation; (2) recursive / proof-carrying compliance via IVC and folding, with rolling 5-minute proof windows fed into G-SRI (WP-066); (3) SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuits + Groth16 pipelines + trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack aggregation + verification-key management; (4) OSCAL proof extensions bound to assessment-results, Merkle evidence commitments and deterministic audit replay; (5) federated zk compliance for EU AI Act financial supervision; (6) DevSecOps/CI/CD/regulatory-sandbox validation of the proof stack; and (7) research synthesis of epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability and continuity-survivability. Cross-references WP-062/063/064/065/066 as the architectural and protocol substrate.", + "outcomes": [ + "GC-IR compiles core TLA+ invariants (incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) to zk circuits with proven semantic preservation by 2027", + "Recursive proof-carrying compliance with rolling 5-minute windows live and feeding G-SRI by 2028", + "SystemicRiskAggregator Groth16 pipeline with trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack aggregation in production by 2028", + "OSCAL proof extensions + Merkle commitments + deterministic audit replay accepted by supervisors by 2029", + "Federated zk compliance pilot with EU AI Act supervisors operating by 2029", + "Research-apex synthesis (recoverability & continuity-survivability) ratified into board doctrine through 2035" + ], + "doNot": [ + "Do NOT emit a zk attestation whose GC-IR circuit is not provably equivalent to the source TLA+ invariant", + "Do NOT recurse/fold proofs without verifying each base proof's verification key provenance", + "Do NOT operate Groth16 circuits whose trusted-setup MPC ceremony lacks >=1 honest-participant guarantee", + "Do NOT bind an OSCAL proof extension to evidence that fails deterministic audit replay", + "Do NOT federate proofs across jurisdictions without strictest-applicable obligation resolution", + "Do NOT treat recoverability/continuity-survivability as theoretical — operationalize and drill it" + ] + }, + "indices": { + "GCIR-SemanticPreservation": "1.0 (every compiled circuit provably equivalent to source TLA+ invariant)", + "GCIR-InvariantCoverage": ">=0.95 (safety+liveness invariants compiled to circuits)", + "Recursive-FoldDepth": ">=10000 (per-window proofs folded into one succinct state)", + "Recursive-WindowCadence": "rolling 5-minute (continuous attestation windows)", + "Recursive-VerifyLatency": "<=250ms (succinct verifier on aggregated proof)", + "Aggregation-Compression": ">=100x (SnarkPack aggregate vs individual proofs)", + "MPC-HonestParticipant": ">=1 (trusted-setup ceremony soundness assumption)", + "VK-RotationSLA": "<=90 days (verification-key rotation cadence)", + "OSCALProof-BindingValidity": "1.0 (proof extensions schema-valid & Merkle-bound)", + "AuditReplay-Determinism": "1.0 (byte-identical replay of evidence)", + "FederatedZK-DisclosureLeakage": "0 (zero raw-data disclosure across federation)", + "GSRI-ProofFreshness": ">=0.98 (G-SRI fed by fresh in-window proofs)", + "Recoverability-DrillPass": ">=0.95 (continuity-survivability drills survived)", + "ResonanceCalculus-Consistency": ">=0.99 (resonance-stability monitors consistent)" + }, + "tiers": { + "T0": { + "name": "Foundational AI", + "gate": 0.3, + "desc": "Low-criticality AI; periodic attestation, no recursion required." + }, + "T1": { + "name": "High-Risk AI", + "gate": 0.2, + "desc": "EU AI Act high-risk; per-deploy zk attestation + OSCAL proof extension." + }, + "T2": { + "name": "Frontier / GPAI-systemic", + "gate": 0.1, + "desc": "Frontier/GPAI; recursive rolling-window proofs feeding G-SRI." + }, + "T3": { + "name": "AGI/ASI-class", + "gate": 0.05, + "desc": "AGI/ASI-class; continuous proof-carrying containment + recoverability drills." + } + }, + "severities": { + "SEV1": "Civilizational / systemic — proof soundness or kill-switch liveness failure; recoverability-class.", + "SEV2": "Institutional — proof staleness, VK compromise or federation leakage.", + "SEV3": "Operational — fold-depth degradation or window-cadence slip.", + "SEV4": "Informational — circuit drift or semantic-preservation warning." + }, + "investment": { + "total": "$210M-$360M over ten years (2026-2035, risk-adjusted, G-SIFI scale)", + "phase1_2026_2030": "$130M-$220M (GC-IR compiler, recursive prover, SystemicRiskAggregator, OSCAL proof extensions, federated pilot)", + "phase2_2030_2035": "$80M-$140M (research-apex operationalization, recoverability/continuity-survivability, crypto-agility)", + "note": "Incremental to WP-062/063/064/065/066 platform & implementation spend; this is the formal-bridge and research-apex layer." + }, + "modules": [ + { + "mid": "M1", + "title": "GC-IR — Governed-Compliance Intermediate Representation", + "purpose": "A formal, typed intermediate representation that compiles TLA+ safety and liveness invariants (including Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) into zk-SNARK / zk-STARK arithmetic circuits while preserving semantics from specification to proof to OSCAL evidence, closing the gap left by WP-064/065/066 which assert TLA+ and zk-SNARK separately but never the formal bridge between them.", + "sections": [ + { + "sid": "M1.1", + "title": "TLA+ invariant ingestion", + "description": "Parse and type TLA+ safety ([]Inv) and liveness (<>P, []<>P) invariants into the GC-IR typed AST; Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers is a first-class liveness obligation.", + "controls": [ + "Typed AST", + "Safety/liveness classification", + "First-class kill-switch liveness" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M1.2", + "title": "GC-IR lowering to arithmetic constraints", + "description": "Lower the typed IR to R1CS (for SNARK) and AIR (for STARK) constraint systems with witness-generation contracts.", + "controls": [ + "R1CS lowering", + "AIR lowering", + "Witness-generation contract" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M1.3", + "title": "Semantic-preservation proof obligation", + "description": "Each lowering carries a proof obligation that the circuit's accepting relation is equivalent to the TLA+ invariant's truth, discharged in Coq/Lean and gated in CI.", + "controls": [ + "Equivalence proof obligation", + "Coq/Lean discharge", + "CI-gated semantic preservation" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M1.4", + "title": "Liveness compilation strategy", + "description": "Compile liveness/temporal obligations via bounded-horizon unrolling + fairness encodings so Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers becomes a checkable circuit predicate over an attestation window.", + "controls": [ + "Bounded-horizon unrolling", + "Fairness encoding", + "Windowed liveness predicate" + ] + } + ] + }, + { + "mid": "M2", + "title": "Recursive / Proof-Carrying Compliance", + "purpose": "Recursive proof architectures (IVC / folding / recursive SNARK composition) that compress a continuous stream of per-window compliance attestations into a single succinct verifiable state, with rolling 5-minute proof windows whose results feed G-SRI risk scoring (WP-066).", + "sections": [ + { + "sid": "M2.1", + "title": "Rolling 5-minute attestation windows", + "description": "Each 5-minute window produces a base proof over GC-IR circuits attesting in-window invariant satisfaction (incl. kill-switch liveness).", + "controls": [ + "5-minute window prover", + "Per-window base proof", + "Window->evidence binding" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M2.2", + "title": "IVC / folding accumulation", + "description": "Incrementally-verifiable computation (Nova-style folding) accumulates per-window proofs into one running instance; fold depth is unbounded in principle, gated in practice.", + "controls": [ + "Folding scheme", + "Accumulated running instance", + "Fold-depth monitoring" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M2.3", + "title": "Recursive SNARK composition", + "description": "A recursive verifier circuit verifies prior proofs inside a new proof, yielding constant-size succinct attestation of the entire history.", + "controls": [ + "Recursive verifier circuit", + "Constant-size succinct proof", + "History compression" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M2.4", + "title": "G-SRI integration", + "description": "Window proof outcomes (pass/fail, freshness) feed the G-SRI composite (WP-066) as cryptographically-attested evidence with freshness SLA.", + "controls": [ + "Proof-fed G-SRI inputs", + "Freshness SLA", + "Attested risk scoring" + ] + } + ] + }, + { + "mid": "M3", + "title": "SystemicRiskAggregator Circuits, Groth16, Trusted-Setup MPC & VK Management", + "purpose": "Sentinel v2.4 cryptographic systemic-risk controls: a Circom SystemicRiskAggregator circuit, a Groth16 zk-SNARK pipeline, a trusted-setup MPC ceremony, SnarkPack proof aggregation, and supervisor-facing verification-key (VK) management and rotation — extending WP-064/065's Groth16/Circom usage with the aggregator, ceremony and key-lifecycle controls the corpus lacked.", + "sections": [ + { + "sid": "M3.1", + "title": "SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuit", + "description": "A Circom circuit that aggregates per-system risk witnesses (G-SRI sub-indices) into a single attested systemic-risk commitment without revealing per-system inputs.", + "controls": [ + "Aggregating circuit", + "Per-system witness privacy", + "Attested systemic-risk commitment" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M3.2", + "title": "Groth16 proving pipeline", + "description": "Compile-prove-verify pipeline (circom -> r1cs -> Groth16 setup -> prove -> verify) with deterministic, reproducible builds and signed artifacts.", + "controls": [ + "circom->r1cs->Groth16", + "Reproducible build", + "Signed artifacts" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M3.3", + "title": "Trusted-setup MPC ceremony", + "description": "A multi-party computation ceremony (powers-of-tau + circuit-specific phase 2) with public transcript and >=1 honest-participant soundness assumption.", + "controls": [ + "Powers-of-tau", + "Circuit-specific phase 2", + "Public transcript + >=1 honest participant" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M3.4", + "title": "SnarkPack proof aggregation", + "description": "Aggregate many Groth16 proofs into one with logarithmic verification cost for supervisor-scale batch verification.", + "controls": [ + "SnarkPack aggregation", + "Logarithmic verification", + "Batch supervisory verify" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M3.5", + "title": "Verification-key management", + "description": "Supervisor-facing VK registry with provenance, rotation SLA, revocation and binding to OSCAL proof extensions.", + "controls": [ + "VK registry + provenance", + "Rotation SLA <=90d", + "Revocation + OSCAL binding" + ] + } + ] + }, + { + "mid": "M4", + "title": "OSCAL Proof Extensions, Merkle Commitments & Deterministic Audit Replay", + "purpose": "OSCAL proof extensions that bind succinct cryptographic proofs to OSCAL assessment-results, anchored by Merkle evidence commitments and verified by deterministic audit replay — extending the OSCAL mapping (WP-064/065/066) with proof-carrying, replayable evidence.", + "sections": [ + { + "sid": "M4.1", + "title": "OSCAL proof extension schema", + "description": "An OSCAL extension (props/links + embedded proof object) carrying proof bytes, VK reference, circuit hash and GC-IR provenance inside assessment-results.", + "controls": [ + "Proof object in OSCAL", + "VK + circuit-hash references", + "GC-IR provenance" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M4.2", + "title": "Merkle evidence commitments", + "description": "Evidence (OPA/Rego logs, GAI-SOC telemetry, Sentinel events, TPM attestations, WORM logs) is committed in a Merkle tree whose root is the public input to the proof.", + "controls": [ + "Merkle commitment of evidence", + "Root as public input", + "Inclusion proofs on demand" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M4.3", + "title": "Deterministic audit replay", + "description": "A replay engine deterministically reconstructs evidence and re-derives the Merkle root byte-identically, proving the attested state was real and untampered.", + "controls": [ + "Deterministic replay engine", + "Byte-identical root re-derivation", + "Tamper-evidence" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M4.4", + "title": "TPM attestation binding", + "description": "TPM-rooted hardware attestations of the prover/runtime are bound into the evidence commitment so supervisors trust the execution environment.", + "controls": [ + "TPM attestation", + "Runtime measurement binding", + "Hardware root-of-trust" + ] + } + ] + }, + { + "mid": "M5", + "title": "Federated zk Compliance for EU AI Act Financial Supervision", + "purpose": "Cross-institution and cross-jurisdiction proof federation that lets G-SIFIs and supervisors verify compliance (EU AI Act high-risk/GPAI-systemic financial supervision) without disclosing raw data or proprietary model internals.", + "sections": [ + { + "sid": "M5.1", + "title": "Federated proof topology", + "description": "Each institution emits local zk attestations; a federation aggregator (SnarkPack/recursive) produces sector-level attested posture for supervisors.", + "controls": [ + "Local attestation", + "Federation aggregator", + "Sector-level posture" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M5.2", + "title": "Zero-disclosure guarantees", + "description": "Only proof validity and public commitments cross the boundary; raw data, weights and per-institution witnesses never leave the institution.", + "controls": [ + "Zero raw-data disclosure", + "Public-commitment-only sharing", + "Witness confinement" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M5.3", + "title": "Jurisdiction resolution", + "description": "Federation honors strictest-applicable obligations across jurisdictions (reusing WP-065 jurisdiction resolver) before aggregating proofs.", + "controls": [ + "Strictest-applicable resolution", + "Jurisdiction tagging", + "Pre-aggregation policy check" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M5.4", + "title": "Supervisory verification portal", + "description": "Regulators verify aggregate proofs and drill into per-institution inclusion proofs under authorization, with WCAG 2.1 AA accessible dashboards (reusing WP-066 patterns).", + "controls": [ + "Aggregate verify portal", + "Authorized inclusion drill-down", + "WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility" + ] + } + ] + }, + { + "mid": "M6", + "title": "DevSecOps, CI/CD & Regulatory-Sandbox Validation of the Proof Stack", + "purpose": "DevSecOps, CI/CD and regulatory-sandbox strategies that validate the GC-IR compiler, recursive prover, SystemicRiskAggregator, OSCAL proof extensions and federated stack as blocking gates and sandbox exercises.", + "sections": [ + { + "sid": "M6.1", + "title": "Proof-stack CI gates", + "description": "Every merge runs GC-IR semantic-preservation checks, circuit reproducible-build verification, MPC-transcript validation and proof/VK verification as blocking gates.", + "controls": [ + "Semantic-preservation gate", + "Reproducible-build gate", + "MPC-transcript + proof verify gate" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M6.2", + "title": "Recursion & aggregation soundness tests", + "description": "Property tests and adversarial harnesses validate folding/recursion soundness and SnarkPack aggregation correctness before promotion.", + "controls": [ + "Folding soundness tests", + "Aggregation correctness tests", + "Adversarial proof harness" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M6.3", + "title": "Regulatory sandbox exercises", + "description": "EU/US regulatory-sandbox runs co-verify federated proofs, VK rotation and deterministic audit replay with signed evidence packs.", + "controls": [ + "Sandbox co-verification", + "VK-rotation exercise", + "Signed evidence packs" + ] + } + ] + }, + { + "mid": "M7", + "title": "Research Synthesis — Epistemic Universality/Singularity, Resonance Calculi, Recoverability & Continuity-Survivability", + "purpose": "Research-level synthesis connecting federated zk AI compliance to resonance-based cosmologies, recoverability science and constitutional governance — framing epistemic universality, epistemic singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability governance and continuity-survivability architectures for civilizational-scale AI safety.", + "sections": [ + { + "sid": "M7.1", + "title": "Epistemic universality & epistemic singularity", + "description": "Formalize epistemic universality (a governance system's capacity to represent and verify any compliance claim within its calculus) and epistemic singularity (the point at which verification capability is overtaken by capability growth) as design constraints on the proof stack.", + "controls": [ + "Universality bound on the calculus", + "Singularity early-warning indicators", + "Verification-ahead-of-capability invariant" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M7.2", + "title": "Resonance calculi", + "description": "A calculus of cognitive-resonance stability that treats safe operation as a resonance-stable regime, with monitors that detect resonance drift toward instability and tie back to Cognitive Resonance monitoring.", + "controls": [ + "Resonance-stability regime", + "Resonance-drift monitors", + "Stability-consistency >=0.99" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M7.3", + "title": "Recoverability science", + "description": "Recoverability as a first-class governed property: the ability to provably return to a safe, attested state after perturbation, with recoverability proofs and drills feeding G-SRI.", + "controls": [ + "Recoverability proofs", + "Safe-state attestation", + "Recoverability drills" + ] + }, + { + "sid": "M7.4", + "title": "Continuity-survivability architectures", + "description": "Architectures that preserve continuity of governance and survivability of containment/kill-switch guarantees under civilizational-scale stress, including degraded-mode and post-quantum survivability.", + "controls": [ + "Continuity-of-governance design", + "Survivable kill-switch liveness", + "Degraded-mode + PQC survivability" + ] + } + ] + }, + { + "mid": "M8", + "title": "Regulator-Ready Report Sections", + "purpose": "Board- and regulator-facing narrative sections rendered with /<abstract>/<content> for direct inclusion in supervisory dossiers.", + "sections": [ + { + "sid": "M8.1", + "title": "Report section index", + "description": "Six sections covering GC-IR, recursive proof-carrying compliance, SystemicRiskAggregator/MPC/aggregation, OSCAL proof extensions + audit replay, federated zk compliance, and the research-apex synthesis.", + "controls": [ + "Sections versioned", + "Board-reviewed", + "Regulator-ready" + ] + } + ] + } + ], + "tlaInvariants": [ + { + "tiid": "TLA-01", + "invariant": "Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers", + "kind": "liveness", + "tla": "[]<>(KillSignal => <>Halted)", + "gcir": "windowed-liveness predicate (bounded-horizon unroll + fairness)", + "circuit": "STARK AIR + SNARK fairness gadget", + "criticality": "SEV1" + }, + { + "tiid": "TLA-02", + "invariant": "Safety_NoUnmediatedEgress", + "kind": "safety", + "tla": "[](Egress => Mediated)", + "gcir": "R1CS membership constraint", + "circuit": "Groth16 R1CS", + "criticality": "SEV1" + }, + { + "tiid": "TLA-03", + "invariant": "Safety_ContainmentMonotone", + "kind": "safety", + "tla": "[](TierDemotion => []ContainmentLevel >= prev)", + "gcir": "monotonicity constraint over state trace", + "circuit": "AIR transition constraint", + "criticality": "SEV1" + }, + { + "tiid": "TLA-04", + "invariant": "Safety_EvidenceCommitted", + "kind": "safety", + "tla": "[](AttestedState => MerkleRootCommitted)", + "gcir": "Merkle-root public-input binding", + "circuit": "Groth16 + Merkle gadget", + "criticality": "SEV2" + }, + { + "tiid": "TLA-05", + "invariant": "Liveness_EscalationBounded", + "kind": "liveness", + "tla": "[](SEV1 => <>(EscalatedWithin60s))", + "gcir": "bounded-time liveness predicate", + "circuit": "STARK AIR timestamp constraint", + "criticality": "SEV2" + }, + { + "tiid": "TLA-06", + "invariant": "Safety_VKProvenanceValid", + "kind": "safety", + "tla": "[](RecursiveVerify => VKProvenanceValid)", + "gcir": "VK-provenance membership constraint", + "circuit": "recursive verifier circuit", + "criticality": "SEV2" + }, + { + "tiid": "TLA-07", + "invariant": "Safety_RecoverableToSafeState", + "kind": "safety", + "tla": "[](Perturbed => <>AttestedSafeState)", + "gcir": "recoverability reachability predicate", + "circuit": "STARK AIR reachability", + "criticality": "SEV1" + } + ], + "gcirBridges": [ + { + "gbid": "GB-01", + "stage": "Ingest", + "from": "TLA+ invariant (safety/liveness)", + "to": "GC-IR typed AST", + "guarantee": "well-typed faithful representation" + }, + { + "gbid": "GB-02", + "stage": "Lower-SNARK", + "from": "GC-IR typed AST", + "to": "R1CS constraint system", + "guarantee": "witness-generation contract" + }, + { + "gbid": "GB-03", + "stage": "Lower-STARK", + "from": "GC-IR typed AST", + "to": "AIR constraint system", + "guarantee": "transition+boundary constraints" + }, + { + "gbid": "GB-04", + "stage": "Prove-Equivalence", + "from": "circuit accepting relation", + "to": "TLA+ invariant truth", + "guarantee": "Coq/Lean equivalence proof (CI-gated)" + }, + { + "gbid": "GB-05", + "stage": "Emit-Evidence", + "from": "succinct proof", + "to": "OSCAL proof extension", + "guarantee": "Merkle-bound, VK-referenced, replayable" + } + ], + "zkCircuits": [ + { + "zcid": "ZC-01", + "circuit": "SystemicRiskAggregator", + "system": "Circom", + "proof": "Groth16", + "publicInputs": [ + "merkleRoot", + "tierGate" + ], + "privateWitness": [ + "per-system G-SRI sub-indices" + ], + "purpose": "Attest composite systemic risk without revealing per-system inputs" + }, + { + "zcid": "ZC-02", + "circuit": "KillSwitchLiveness", + "system": "STARK (AIR)", + "proof": "zk-STARK", + "publicInputs": [ + "windowId", + "killSignalCommit" + ], + "privateWitness": [ + "halt-trace" + ], + "purpose": "Attest Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers over a 5-minute window" + }, + { + "zcid": "ZC-03", + "circuit": "EgressMediation", + "system": "Circom", + "proof": "Groth16", + "publicInputs": [ + "policyHash" + ], + "privateWitness": [ + "egress-decision trace" + ], + "purpose": "Attest no unmediated egress" + }, + { + "zcid": "ZC-04", + "circuit": "RecursiveFoldVerifier", + "system": "Circom", + "proof": "Groth16 (recursive)", + "publicInputs": [ + "accumulatorCommit" + ], + "privateWitness": [ + "prior proof" + ], + "purpose": "Verify prior window proofs inside a new proof (IVC/folding)" + }, + { + "zcid": "ZC-05", + "circuit": "MerkleEvidenceInclusion", + "system": "Circom", + "proof": "Groth16", + "publicInputs": [ + "merkleRoot", + "leafCommit" + ], + "privateWitness": [ + "inclusion path" + ], + "purpose": "Prove evidence inclusion for deterministic audit replay" + }, + { + "zcid": "ZC-06", + "circuit": "FederatedPostureAggregate", + "system": "SnarkPack", + "proof": "aggregated Groth16", + "publicInputs": [ + "sectorCommit" + ], + "privateWitness": [ + "institution proofs" + ], + "purpose": "Aggregate institution proofs into sector-level supervisory posture" + } + ], + "proofPipelines": [ + { + "ppid": "PP-01", + "stage": "Window Prove", + "tool": "GC-IR prover (Groth16/STARK)", + "cadence": "rolling 5-minute", + "output": "per-window base proof + Merkle root", + "sla": "prove <=120s/window" + }, + { + "ppid": "PP-02", + "stage": "Fold/Accumulate", + "tool": "Nova-style folding", + "cadence": "per window", + "output": "updated accumulator instance", + "sla": "fold <=2s/window" + }, + { + "ppid": "PP-03", + "stage": "Recursive Compress", + "tool": "recursive SNARK verifier", + "cadence": "hourly", + "output": "constant-size succinct history proof", + "sla": "compress <=60s" + }, + { + "ppid": "PP-04", + "stage": "Aggregate", + "tool": "SnarkPack", + "cadence": "supervisory batch", + "output": "aggregate proof (log verify)", + "sla": "verify <=250ms" + }, + { + "ppid": "PP-05", + "stage": "Bind OSCAL", + "tool": "OSCAL proof-extension emitter", + "cadence": "per attestation", + "output": "assessment-results + proof object", + "sla": "bind <=5s" + }, + { + "ppid": "PP-06", + "stage": "VK Manage", + "tool": "VK registry", + "cadence": "<=90 days", + "output": "rotated/revoked VK with provenance", + "sla": "rotation drill quarterly" + } + ], + "oscalProofExtensions": [ + { + "opid": "OPX-01", + "extension": "proof-object", + "boundTo": "assessment-results.result", + "fields": [ + "proofBytes", + "scheme", + "vkRef", + "circuitHash", + "gcirProvenance" + ], + "validation": "schema-valid + verifier-checked" + }, + { + "opid": "OPX-02", + "extension": "merkle-commitment", + "boundTo": "assessment-results.result.props", + "fields": [ + "merkleRoot", + "treeAlgo", + "leafCount" + ], + "validation": "root = replay-derived root" + }, + { + "opid": "OPX-03", + "extension": "tpm-attestation", + "boundTo": "assessment-results.result.props", + "fields": [ + "pcrQuote", + "akCertRef", + "runtimeMeasure" + ], + "validation": "TPM quote verified vs golden measures" + }, + { + "opid": "OPX-04", + "extension": "recursion-state", + "boundTo": "assessment-results.result.links", + "fields": [ + "accumulatorCommit", + "foldDepth", + "historyHash" + ], + "validation": "accumulator consistent with prior" + }, + { + "opid": "OPX-05", + "extension": "federation-posture", + "boundTo": "assessment-results.result.props", + "fields": [ + "sectorCommit", + "institutionCount", + "jurisdictionSet" + ], + "validation": "aggregate proof verified; zero-disclosure" + } + ], + "evidencePipelines": [ + { + "epid": "EP-01", + "source": "OPA/Rego decision logs", + "normalize": "OSCAL observation", + "commit": "Merkle leaf", + "replay": "deterministic re-derivation" + }, + { + "epid": "EP-02", + "source": "GAI-SOC telemetry", + "normalize": "OSCAL observation", + "commit": "Merkle leaf", + "replay": "deterministic re-derivation" + }, + { + "epid": "EP-03", + "source": "WorkflowAI Pro traces", + "normalize": "OSCAL observation", + "commit": "Merkle leaf", + "replay": "deterministic re-derivation" + }, + { + "epid": "EP-04", + "source": "Sentinel Core events", + "normalize": "OSCAL observation", + "commit": "Merkle leaf", + "replay": "deterministic re-derivation" + }, + { + "epid": "EP-05", + "source": "TPM attestation quotes", + "normalize": "OSCAL observation", + "commit": "Merkle leaf", + "replay": "TPM-quote re-verification" + }, + { + "epid": "EP-06", + "source": "PQC WORM audit logs", + "normalize": "OSCAL observation + assessment-results", + "commit": "Merkle root (public input)", + "replay": "byte-identical WORM replay" + } + ], + "researchSyntheses": [ + { + "rsyid": "RSY-01", + "theme": "Epistemic Universality", + "thesis": "A governance calculus is epistemically universal if it can represent and verify any compliance claim it is asked to adjudicate.", + "operationalization": "GC-IR completeness bound + verification-ahead-of-capability invariant", + "implication": "Bounds what the proof stack can ever attest; flags un-expressible obligations early." + }, + { + "rsyid": "RSY-02", + "theme": "Epistemic Singularity", + "thesis": "The point at which capability growth outpaces verification capability, breaking governance closure.", + "operationalization": "Singularity early-warning indicators tied to G-SRI capability-overhang", + "implication": "Demands containment + recoverability before the boundary is crossed." + }, + { + "rsyid": "RSY-03", + "theme": "Resonance Calculi", + "thesis": "Safe operation is a resonance-stable regime; instability manifests as resonance drift.", + "operationalization": "Resonance-stability monitors + drift detection (Cognitive Resonance)", + "implication": "Provides a continuous early-warning safety signal complementary to discrete proofs." + }, + { + "rsyid": "RSY-04", + "theme": "Recoverability Science", + "thesis": "Recoverability — provable return to an attested safe state after perturbation — is a first-class governed property.", + "operationalization": "Recoverability proofs (TLA-07) + drills feeding G-SRI", + "implication": "Turns resilience from aspiration into a verifiable, drilled guarantee." + }, + { + "rsyid": "RSY-05", + "theme": "Continuity-Survivability", + "thesis": "Governance continuity and containment/kill-switch survivability must hold under civilizational-scale stress.", + "operationalization": "Degraded-mode + PQC-survivable kill-switch liveness architectures", + "implication": "Ensures the most safety-critical guarantees outlast crises and crypto-breaks." + }, + { + "rsyid": "RSY-06", + "theme": "Constitutional Governance", + "thesis": "Federated zk compliance + recoverability compose into a constitutional governance frame binding capability under verifiable, recoverable rule-of-law.", + "operationalization": "Federated proofs + OSCAL constitution + recoverability doctrine", + "implication": "A civilizational-scale, jurisdiction-spanning, cryptographically-enforced governance order." + } + ], + "roadmapPhases": [ + { + "rpid": "RM-2026", + "window": "2026", + "milestone": "GC-IR compiler v1: TLA+ -> R1CS/AIR for core safety invariants; semantic-preservation obligations in CI", + "horizon": "2026-2030" + }, + { + "rpid": "RM-2027", + "window": "2027", + "milestone": "Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers compiled + proven; window prover live; SystemicRiskAggregator Circom + Groth16 + MPC ceremony", + "horizon": "2026-2030" + }, + { + "rpid": "RM-2028", + "window": "2028", + "milestone": "Recursive folding + SnarkPack aggregation in production; rolling 5-minute proofs feeding G-SRI; OSCAL proof extensions emitted", + "horizon": "2026-2030" + }, + { + "rpid": "RM-2029", + "window": "2029", + "milestone": "Federated zk compliance pilot with EU AI Act supervisors; deterministic audit replay + TPM binding accepted", + "horizon": "2026-2030" + }, + { + "rpid": "RM-2030", + "window": "2030", + "milestone": "Full proof-carrying containment for T3 systems; research-apex doctrine (recoverability/continuity-survivability) board-ratified", + "horizon": "2026-2030" + }, + { + "rpid": "RM-2031-2035", + "window": "2030-2035", + "milestone": "Operationalized recoverability & continuity-survivability; crypto-agility (PQC + STARK transparency); epistemic-singularity early-warning sustained", + "horizon": "2030-2035" + } + ], + "reportSections": [ + { + "rsid": "RS-01", + "title": "GC-IR — A Formal Bridge from TLA+ Invariants to zk Circuits", + "abstract": "The Governed-Compliance Intermediate Representation compiles TLA+ safety and liveness invariants — including Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers — into zk-SNARK/zk-STARK circuits with proven semantic preservation.", + "content": "Prior work in this corpus asserts TLA+ invariants (WP-064/065) and zk-SNARK proofs (WP-064/065/066) as separate pillars, but never the formal bridge between them. GC-IR closes that gap. It ingests TLA+ safety ([]Inv) and liveness (<>P, []<>P) obligations into a typed AST in which Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers is a first-class liveness obligation, then lowers that IR to R1CS (for Groth16 SNARKs) and AIR (for STARKs) with explicit witness-generation contracts. Crucially, every lowering carries a semantic-preservation proof obligation — that the circuit's accepting relation is equivalent to the source invariant's truth — discharged in Coq/Lean and enforced as a blocking CI gate. Liveness and temporal obligations are compiled via bounded-horizon unrolling plus fairness encodings so that kill-switch liveness becomes a checkable circuit predicate over a defined attestation window. GC-IR is the connective tissue that makes the platform's formal claims cryptographically attestable end to end." + }, + { + "rsid": "RS-02", + "title": "Recursive, Proof-Carrying Compliance with Rolling 5-Minute Windows", + "abstract": "Incrementally-verifiable computation and recursive SNARK composition compress a continuous stream of per-window attestations into a single succinct verifiable state feeding G-SRI.", + "content": "Compliance is not a point-in-time event but a continuous obligation, so WP-067 attests it continuously. Each rolling 5-minute window produces a base proof over GC-IR circuits attesting in-window invariant satisfaction, including kill-switch liveness. Nova-style folding accumulates these per-window proofs into one running instance, and a recursive verifier circuit verifies prior proofs inside each new proof, yielding a constant-size succinct attestation of the entire operating history. Window outcomes — pass/fail and freshness — feed the G-SRI composite from WP-066 as cryptographically-attested evidence under a strict freshness SLA, so that systemic-risk scoring is grounded in proofs rather than self-reported telemetry. The result is proof-carrying compliance: at any instant a supervisor can verify, in constant time, that the institution has continuously satisfied its safety and liveness obligations." + }, + { + "rsid": "RS-03", + "title": "SystemicRiskAggregator, Trusted-Setup MPC, SnarkPack & VK Management", + "abstract": "A Circom SystemicRiskAggregator circuit, Groth16 pipeline, trusted-setup MPC ceremony, SnarkPack aggregation and verification-key lifecycle controls operationalize Sentinel v2.4 cryptographic systemic-risk controls.", + "content": "The SystemicRiskAggregator is a Circom circuit that aggregates per-system risk witnesses — the G-SRI sub-indices from WP-066 — into a single attested systemic-risk commitment without revealing any per-system input. Its Groth16 pipeline (circom -> r1cs -> setup -> prove -> verify) is built reproducibly with signed artifacts, and its structured reference string is produced by a multi-party trusted-setup ceremony — powers-of-tau plus a circuit-specific phase 2 — with a public transcript and a one-honest-participant soundness assumption. SnarkPack aggregates many Groth16 proofs into one with logarithmic verification cost, enabling supervisor-scale batch verification, while a verification-key registry manages VK provenance, a <=90-day rotation SLA, revocation and binding to OSCAL proof extensions. Together these close the ceremony, aggregation and key-lifecycle gaps that the corpus's prior Groth16/Circom usage left open." + }, + { + "rsid": "RS-04", + "title": "OSCAL Proof Extensions, Merkle Commitments & Deterministic Audit Replay", + "abstract": "Succinct proofs are bound to OSCAL assessment-results via proof extensions, anchored by Merkle evidence commitments and verified by deterministic, byte-identical audit replay.", + "content": "To make proofs first-class supervisory evidence, WP-067 defines OSCAL proof extensions that embed a proof object — proof bytes, scheme, verification-key reference, circuit hash and GC-IR provenance — inside assessment-results. The evidence those proofs attest (OPA/Rego decision logs, GAI-SOC telemetry, WorkflowAI Pro traces, Sentinel Core events, TPM attestations and PQC WORM logs) is committed in a Merkle tree whose root is the proof's public input. A deterministic audit-replay engine reconstructs the evidence and re-derives the Merkle root byte-identically, proving the attested state was real and untampered; TPM-rooted hardware attestations of the prover runtime are bound into the commitment so supervisors can trust the execution environment itself. This yields proof-carrying, replayable, hardware-anchored OSCAL evidence." + }, + { + "rsid": "RS-05", + "title": "Federated zk Compliance for EU AI Act Financial Supervision", + "abstract": "Cross-institution, cross-jurisdiction proof federation lets supervisors verify sector-level compliance without any raw-data or model disclosure.", + "content": "EU AI Act financial supervision spans many institutions and jurisdictions, yet raw data and proprietary model internals cannot be pooled. Federated zk compliance resolves the tension: each institution emits local zk attestations, and a federation aggregator — SnarkPack or recursive composition — produces a sector-level attested posture for supervisors. Only proof validity and public commitments cross the institutional boundary; raw data, weights and per-institution witnesses never leave. The federation honors strictest-applicable obligations across jurisdictions using the WP-065 jurisdiction resolver before aggregating, and regulators verify aggregate proofs and drill into per-institution inclusion proofs under authorization through WCAG 2.1 AA accessible dashboards. The outcome is verifiable, privacy-preserving, jurisdiction-aware sector supervision at G-SIFI scale." + }, + { + "rsid": "RS-06", + "title": "Research Apex — Epistemic Universality/Singularity, Resonance Calculi, Recoverability & Continuity-Survivability", + "abstract": "A research-level synthesis frames the proof stack within epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability science and continuity-survivability architectures for civilizational-scale AI safety.", + "content": "WP-067 closes with the research apex that gives the engineering its meaning. Epistemic universality asks whether the governance calculus can represent and verify any compliance claim it must adjudicate, bounding what the proof stack can ever attest and flagging un-expressible obligations early; epistemic singularity names the boundary at which capability growth outpaces verification capability, demanding containment and recoverability before it is crossed. Resonance calculi treat safe operation as a resonance-stable regime, with drift monitors providing a continuous early-warning signal complementary to discrete proofs. Recoverability science elevates provable return to an attested safe state (invariant TLA-07) into a first-class, drilled guarantee feeding G-SRI, and continuity-survivability architectures ensure governance continuity and kill-switch survivability — including degraded-mode and post-quantum survivability — under civilizational-scale stress. Composed, federated zk compliance and recoverability form a constitutional governance order that binds capability under verifiable, recoverable rule-of-law." + } + ], + "schemas": { + "TlaInvariant": "tiid, invariant, kind, tla, gcir, circuit, criticality", + "GcirBridge": "gbid, stage, from, to, guarantee", + "ZkCircuit": "zcid, circuit, system, proof, publicInputs[], privateWitness[], purpose", + "ProofPipeline": "ppid, stage, tool, cadence, output, sla", + "OscalProofExtension": "opid, extension, boundTo, fields[], validation", + "EvidencePipeline": "epid, source, normalize, commit, replay", + "ResearchSynthesis": "rsyid, theme, thesis, operationalization, implication", + "RoadmapPhase": "rpid, window, milestone, horizon" + }, + "code": { + "tla_snippets": [ + "---- MODULE KillSwitchLiveness ----\nVARIABLES killSignal, halted\nLiveness_KillSwitchTriggers == [](killSignal => <>halted)\nTHEOREM Spec => Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers\n====", + "---- MODULE Recoverability ----\nVARIABLES state\nSafe(s) == s \\in AttestedSafeStates\nRecoverable == [](\\E s : ~Safe(state) => <>Safe(state))\nTHEOREM Spec => Recoverable\n====" + ], + "circom_snippets": [ + "pragma circom 2.1.6;\n// SystemicRiskAggregator: attest composite risk without revealing sub-indices\ntemplate SystemicRiskAggregator(n) {\n signal input subIndices[n]; // private witness (per-system G-SRI)\n signal input tierGate; // public input\n signal output composite; // attested composite\n var acc = 0;\n for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) { acc += subIndices[i]; }\n composite <== acc;\n // constraint: composite <= tierGate enforced by range gadget (omitted)\n}\ncomponent main { public [tierGate] } = SystemicRiskAggregator(8);", + "pragma circom 2.1.6;\n// MerkleEvidenceInclusion: prove an evidence leaf is committed in the root\ntemplate MerkleInclusion(depth) {\n signal input leaf;\n signal input root; // public input\n signal input path[depth];\n signal input idx[depth];\n // hash up the path and assert == root (poseidon gadget omitted)\n}\ncomponent main { public [root] } = MerkleInclusion(20);" + ], + "groth16_snippets": [ + "# Groth16 pipeline (deterministic, reproducible)\ncircom SystemicRiskAggregator.circom --r1cs --wasm --sym\nsnarkjs groth16 setup SystemicRiskAggregator.r1cs pot_final.ptau circ_0000.zkey\nsnarkjs zkey contribute circ_0000.zkey circ_final.zkey -e=\"mpc-phase2\"\nsnarkjs zkey export verificationkey circ_final.zkey vk.json\nsnarkjs groth16 prove circ_final.zkey witness.wtns proof.json public.json\nsnarkjs groth16 verify vk.json public.json proof.json" + ], + "snarkpack_snippets": [ + "// SnarkPack aggregation (supervisor-scale batch verify)\nlet agg = snarkpack::aggregate_proofs(&srs, &transcript, &proofs)?;\nlet ok = snarkpack::verify_aggregate(&vk, &agg, &public_inputs)?; // log verify cost" + ], + "rego_examples": [ + "package gcir.proofgate\n# Deny emitting an attestation unless GC-IR semantic preservation is proven\ndefault emit = false\nemit {\n input.semanticPreservation == \"proven\"\n input.mpcTranscriptValid == true\n input.vkProvenanceValid == true\n input.auditReplayDeterministic == true\n}" + ], + "oscal_snippets": [ + "{\n \"assessment-results\": {\n \"metadata\": {\"title\": \"WP-067 zk Proof Extension\", \"oscal-version\": \"1.1.2\"},\n \"results\": [{\n \"title\": \"Rolling-window compliance proof\",\n \"props\": [\n {\"name\": \"proof-scheme\", \"value\": \"groth16\"},\n {\"name\": \"merkle-root\", \"value\": \"0x...\"},\n {\"name\": \"vk-ref\", \"value\": \"vk://registry/v12\"},\n {\"name\": \"gcir-provenance\", \"value\": \"TLA-01:Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers\"}\n ]\n }]\n }\n}" + ], + "openapi_snippets": [ + "paths:\n /api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/zk-circuits:\n get: { summary: List zk circuits, responses: { '200': { description: OK } } }\n /api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/tla-invariants/{id}:\n get: { summary: Get TLA+ invariant by id, responses: { '200': { description: OK }, '404': { description: Not found } } }" + ] + }, + "kpis": { + "GCIR-SemanticPreservation": "1.0 (per compiled circuit)", + "GCIR-InvariantCoverage": ">=0.95 by 2028", + "Recursive-FoldDepth": ">=10000 (running accumulator)", + "Recursive-WindowCadence": "rolling 5-minute", + "Recursive-VerifyLatency": "<=250ms (aggregate)", + "Aggregation-Compression": ">=100x (SnarkPack)", + "MPC-HonestParticipant": ">=1 (ceremony assumption)", + "VK-RotationSLA": "<=90 days", + "OSCALProof-BindingValidity": "1.0 (per extension)", + "AuditReplay-Determinism": "1.0 (byte-identical)", + "FederatedZK-DisclosureLeakage": "0 (zero raw-data)", + "GSRI-ProofFreshness": ">=0.98 (continuous)", + "Recoverability-DrillPass": ">=0.95 (quarterly)", + "ResonanceCalculus-Consistency": ">=0.99 (continuous)" + }, + "riskControlMatrix": [ + { + "risk": "Circuit not equivalent to TLA+ invariant", + "control": "GC-IR semantic-preservation proof obligation (Coq/Lean, CI-gated)", + "owner": "Head of Formal Methods", + "evidence": "Equivalence proofs + CI gate results" + }, + { + "risk": "Kill-switch liveness unattested", + "control": "Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers compiled to windowed-liveness circuit; per-window proof", + "owner": "CISO / Safety Lead", + "evidence": "Window proofs (KillSwitchLiveness)" + }, + { + "risk": "Recursion/fold soundness break", + "control": "VK-provenance constraint + folding soundness tests", + "owner": "Head of Cryptography", + "evidence": "Soundness test reports + recursive verifier logs" + }, + { + "risk": "Compromised trusted setup", + "control": "MPC ceremony with >=1 honest participant + public transcript", + "owner": "Head of Cryptography", + "evidence": "MPC transcript + participant attestations" + }, + { + "risk": "Verification-key compromise/stale", + "control": "VK registry + <=90d rotation + revocation", + "owner": "CISO", + "evidence": "VK rotation/revocation logs" + }, + { + "risk": "Tampered or fabricated evidence", + "control": "Merkle commitment + deterministic audit replay + TPM binding", + "owner": "Internal Audit", + "evidence": "Replay reports + TPM quotes" + }, + { + "risk": "Disclosure leakage in federation", + "control": "Zero-disclosure federation (public commitments only)", + "owner": "CCO", + "evidence": "Federation disclosure audit (leakage = 0)" + }, + { + "risk": "G-SRI fed by stale/unattested data", + "control": "Rolling-window proof freshness SLA into G-SRI", + "owner": "CRO", + "evidence": "Proof-freshness reports" + }, + { + "risk": "Verification overtaken by capability (singularity)", + "control": "Epistemic-singularity early-warning + verification-ahead invariant", + "owner": "Chief AI Safety Officer", + "evidence": "Singularity indicator dashboards" + }, + { + "risk": "Irrecoverable state after crisis", + "control": "Recoverability proofs (TLA-07) + continuity-survivability drills", + "owner": "GEA / Board", + "evidence": "Recoverability drill after-action reports" + } + ], + "traceability": [ + { + "from": "GC-IR (M1)", + "to": "WP-064/065 TLA+ invariants & zk-SNARK", + "via": "TLA+ -> typed IR -> R1CS/AIR with equivalence proofs" + }, + { + "from": "Recursive compliance (M2)", + "to": "WP-066 G-SRI risk scoring", + "via": "Rolling 5-minute window proofs -> attested G-SRI inputs" + }, + { + "from": "SystemicRiskAggregator (M3)", + "to": "WP-066 G-SRI sub-indices", + "via": "Circom aggregation of per-system witnesses" + }, + { + "from": "OSCAL proof extensions (M4)", + "to": "WP-064/065/066 OSCAL mapping & evidence", + "via": "Proof object + Merkle commitment + replay" + }, + { + "from": "Federated zk (M5)", + "to": "WP-065 jurisdiction resolver / EU AI Act", + "via": "Strictest-applicable resolution + aggregate proofs" + }, + { + "from": "CI/CD validation (M6)", + "to": "WP-066 SIP v2.4 CI gates", + "via": "Proof-stack gates added to GitOps promotion" + }, + { + "from": "Research apex (M7)", + "to": "WP-062 civilizational synthesis / ICGC", + "via": "Recoverability + continuity-survivability doctrine" + } + ], + "dataFlows": [ + { + "flow": "TLA+ invariant -> GC-IR typed AST -> R1CS/AIR -> equivalence proof (Coq/Lean) -> CI gate" + }, + { + "flow": "5-minute window -> GC-IR prover -> base proof + Merkle root -> fold (IVC) -> recursive compress -> succinct proof" + }, + { + "flow": "Per-system G-SRI witnesses -> SystemicRiskAggregator (Circom/Groth16) -> SnarkPack aggregate -> supervisor verify" + }, + { + "flow": "Evidence (OPA/GAI-SOC/Sentinel/TPM/WORM) -> Merkle commit -> public input -> proof -> OSCAL proof extension" + }, + { + "flow": "Institution local proofs -> jurisdiction resolution -> federation aggregator -> sector posture -> regulator portal" + }, + { + "flow": "Window proof outcome + freshness -> G-SRI composite (WP-066) -> tier gate + supervisory dashboard" + } + ], + "regulators": [ + { + "name": "EU AI Office", + "scope": "EU AI Act 2024/1689, Annex IV, GPAI systemic risk; federated zk financial supervision" + }, + { + "name": "ESAs (EBA/ESMA/EIOPA)", + "scope": "DORA oversight; cryptographic assurance of ICT resilience" + }, + { + "name": "ECB / SSM", + "scope": "Prudential supervision; attested systemic-risk aggregation (G-SRI)" + }, + { + "name": "Federal Reserve / OCC", + "scope": "SR 11-7 / SR 26-2 model risk; proof-carrying validation evidence" + }, + { + "name": "NIST", + "scope": "AI RMF 1.0, AI 600-1; measurable, verifiable assurance" + }, + { + "name": "ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42", + "scope": "ISO/IEC 42001; auditable AI management evidence" + }, + { + "name": "FCA / PRA", + "scope": "SMCR, Consumer Duty; accessible (WCAG) supervisory verification" + }, + { + "name": "MAS", + "scope": "FEAT; verifiable fairness/accountability attestations" + }, + { + "name": "HKMA", + "scope": "FEAT / Fintech 2030; APAC federated supervision" + }, + { + "name": "NIST PQC / Standards", + "scope": "Post-quantum crypto-agility; STARK transparency; continuity-survivability" + } + ], + "rollout90": [ + { + "day": "0-15", + "task": "Stand up GC-IR compiler skeleton; ingest first TLA+ safety invariants into typed AST." + }, + { + "day": "15-30", + "task": "Lower a safety invariant to R1CS; prove first semantic-preservation obligation in Coq/Lean; wire CI gate." + }, + { + "day": "30-45", + "task": "Compile Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers to a windowed-liveness STARK circuit; produce first window proof." + }, + { + "day": "45-60", + "task": "Build SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuit + Groth16 pipeline; run a 3-party trusted-setup MPC ceremony." + }, + { + "day": "60-75", + "task": "Add Nova-style folding + SnarkPack aggregation; verify an aggregate proof under 250ms." + }, + { + "day": "75-90", + "task": "Emit first OSCAL proof extension with Merkle commitment + deterministic audit replay; demo to a sandbox regulator." + } + ], + "evidencePack": [ + "GC-IR compiler outputs + semantic-preservation equivalence proofs (Coq/Lean) + CI gate results", + "Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers windowed-liveness circuit + per-window proofs", + "SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuit + Groth16 artifacts (reproducible, signed)", + "Trusted-setup MPC ceremony public transcript + participant attestations", + "SnarkPack aggregate proofs + verification logs (log-time verify)", + "Verification-key registry: provenance, rotation (<=90d) and revocation records", + "OSCAL proof extensions (proof object + Merkle commitment + TPM attestation)", + "Deterministic audit-replay reports (byte-identical Merkle-root re-derivation)", + "Federated zk compliance posture proofs + zero-disclosure audit (leakage = 0)", + "Recoverability proofs + continuity-survivability drill after-action reports (2026-2035)" + ], + "executiveSummary": { + "headline": "WP-067 is the formal cryptographic bridge and research apex that turns the WP-062/063/064/065/066 platform's TLA+ invariants into recursively-proven, OSCAL-bound, federated zero-knowledge compliance attestations — and frames the whole programme within epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability and continuity-survivability for civilizational-scale AI safety.", + "scope": "GC-IR (TLA+ -> zk-SNARK/zk-STARK with semantic preservation, incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers), recursive/proof-carrying compliance with rolling 5-minute windows feeding G-SRI, SystemicRiskAggregator Circom/Groth16 + trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack + VK management, OSCAL proof extensions + Merkle commitments + deterministic audit replay + TPM binding, federated zk compliance for EU AI Act supervision, proof-stack DevSecOps/CI/CD/regulatory-sandbox validation, and the research apex (epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability, continuity-survivability).", + "investment": "$210M-$360M over ten years (2026-2035, risk-adjusted; incremental to platform & implementation spend).", + "targetIndices": "Semantic preservation 1.0; invariant coverage >=0.95; recursive verify <=250ms; aggregation >=100x; MPC honest participant >=1; VK rotation <=90d; audit-replay determinism 1.0; federation disclosure leakage 0; recoverability drill pass >=0.95.", + "recommendation": "Approve the formal-bridge build first (GC-IR + Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers + SystemicRiskAggregator + MPC), then recursive proof-carrying compliance feeding G-SRI, then OSCAL proof extensions + deterministic audit replay, then the federated zk pilot — and ratify the research-apex doctrine (recoverability & continuity-survivability) into board governance, keeping verification provably ahead of capability through 2035.", + "differentiators": [ + "GC-IR: the missing formal bridge compiling TLA+ invariants (incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) into zk circuits with proven semantic preservation", + "Recursive, proof-carrying compliance with rolling 5-minute windows feeding G-SRI", + "SystemicRiskAggregator Circom/Groth16 + trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack aggregation + VK lifecycle management", + "OSCAL proof extensions + Merkle commitments + deterministic audit replay + TPM attestation binding", + "Federated zk compliance (zero raw-data disclosure) + research apex: epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability, continuity-survivability" + ] + }, + "counts": { + "modules": 8, + "sections": 29, + "tlaInvariants": 7, + "gcirBridges": 5, + "zkCircuits": 6, + "proofPipelines": 6, + "oscalProofExtensions": 5, + "evidencePipelines": 6, + "researchSyntheses": 6, + "roadmapPhases": 6, + "reportSections": 6, + "kpis": 14, + "riskControlMatrix": 10, + "traceability": 7, + "dataFlows": 6, + "regulators": 10, + "rollout90": 6, + "evidencePack": 10, + "indices": 14 + } +} diff --git a/rag-agentic-dashboard/gen-gcir-zk-recursive-2035-html.py b/rag-agentic-dashboard/gen-gcir-zk-recursive-2035-html.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5567dc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/rag-agentic-dashboard/gen-gcir-zk-recursive-2035-html.py @@ -0,0 +1,282 @@ +#!/usr/bin/env python3 +"""WP-067 HTML renderer — GC-IR formal bridge, recursive zk-proof attestation & recoverability synthesis blueprint.""" +import json +from pathlib import Path +from html import escape + +ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parent +SRC = ROOT / "data" / "gcir-zk-recursive-2035.json" +OUT = ROOT / "public" / "gcir-zk-recursive-2035.html" +OUT.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) +DOC = json.loads(SRC.read_text(encoding="utf-8")) + + +def e(x): + return escape(str(x)) + + +SKIP = ( + "mid", "sid", "tiid", "gbid", "zcid", "ppid", "opid", "epid", "rsyid", + "rpid", "rsid", + "title", "abstract", "content", "invariant", "stage", "circuit", "theme", + "extension", "source", "window", +) + + +def kv_pairs(d, skip=SKIP): + parts = [] + for k, v in d.items(): + if k in skip: + continue + if isinstance(v, list): + inner = "".join( + f"<li>{e(x) if not isinstance(x, dict) else e(json.dumps(x))}</li>" + for x in v + ) + parts.append(f"<div class='kv'><b>{e(k)}</b><ul>{inner}</ul></div>") + elif isinstance(v, dict): + inner = "".join(f"<li><b>{e(kk)}</b>: {e(vv)}</li>" for kk, vv in v.items()) + parts.append(f"<div class='kv'><b>{e(k)}</b><ul>{inner}</ul></div>") + else: + parts.append(f"<div class='kv'><b>{e(k)}</b>: {e(v)}</div>") + return "".join(parts) + + +def section_html(s): + return f"<div class='sec'><h4>{e(s['sid'])}. {e(s['title'])}</h4>{kv_pairs(s)}</div>" + + +def module_html(m): + secs = "".join(section_html(s) for s in m["sections"]) + purpose = m.get("purpose") or "" + return ( + f"<section class='module' id='{e(m['mid'])}'>" + f"<h3>{e(m['mid'])} — {e(m['title'])}</h3>" + f"<p class='sum'>{e(purpose)}</p>{secs}</section>" + ) + + +def list_array(arr, label_keys, anchor, title): + rows = [] + for it in arr: + head_parts = [e(it.get(label_keys[0], ""))] + [e(it.get(k, "")) for k in label_keys[1:]] + head = " · ".join(p for p in head_parts if p) + rows.append(f"<div class='card'><div class='card-head'>{head}</div>{kv_pairs(it)}</div>") + return f"<section id='{anchor}'><h3>{title} ({len(arr)})</h3>{''.join(rows)}</section>" + + +distinctive = [ + ("tlaInvariants", "tla-invariants", "TLA+ Invariants -> zk Circuits (M1)", ["tiid", "invariant", "kind"]), + ("gcirBridges", "gcir-bridges", "GC-IR Bridge Stages (M1)", ["gbid", "stage"]), + ("zkCircuits", "zk-circuits", "zk Circuits (M2/M3)", ["zcid", "circuit", "proof"]), + ("proofPipelines", "proof-pipelines", "Recursive Proof Pipelines (M2/M3)", ["ppid", "stage"]), + ("oscalProofExtensions", "oscal-proof-extensions", "OSCAL Proof Extensions (M4)", ["opid", "extension"]), + ("evidencePipelines", "evidence-pipelines", "Evidence Ingestion Pipelines (M4)", ["epid", "source"]), + ("researchSyntheses", "research-syntheses", "Research Apex Syntheses (M7)", ["rsyid", "theme"]), + ("roadmapPhases", "roadmap-phases", "2026-2035 Roadmap Phases", ["rpid", "window"]), +] + + +toc_modules = "".join( + f"<li><a href='#{e(m['mid'])}'>{e(m['mid'])} — {e(m['title'])}</a></li>" + for m in DOC["modules"] +) +toc_distinct = "".join( + f"<li><a href='#{anchor}'>{e(label)}</a></li>" + for _, anchor, label, _ in distinctive +) + +modules_html = "".join(module_html(m) for m in DOC["modules"]) +distinctive_html = "".join( + list_array(DOC[key], keys, anchor, label) + for key, anchor, label, keys in distinctive +) + + +def table_rows(rows, cols): + head = "".join(f"<th>{e(c)}</th>" for c in cols) + body = "".join("<tr>" + "".join(f"<td>{e(r.get(c, ''))}</td>" for c in cols) + "</tr>" for r in rows) + return f"<table><thead><tr>{head}</tr></thead><tbody>{body}</tbody></table>" + + +def table_dict(d, key_label, val_label="value"): + head = f"<tr><th>{e(key_label)}</th><th>{e(val_label)}</th></tr>" + rows = [] + for k, v in d.items(): + if isinstance(v, dict): + vstr = "; ".join(f"{kk}={vv}" for kk, vv in v.items()) + elif isinstance(v, list): + vstr = "; ".join(json.dumps(x) if isinstance(x, dict) else str(x) for x in v) + else: + vstr = str(v) + rows.append(f"<tr><td>{e(k)}</td><td>{e(vstr)}</td></tr>") + return f"<table><thead>{head}</thead><tbody>{''.join(rows)}</tbody></table>" + + +report_full_html = ( + "<section id='report-sections-full'><h3>Whitepaper Sections — <title> / <abstract> / <content></h3>" + + "".join( + f"<div class='card'><div class='card-head'>{e(rs['rsid'])} · {e(rs['title'])}</div>" + f"<div class='kv'><b>abstract</b>: {e(rs['abstract'])}</div>" + f"<div class='kv'><b>content</b>: {e(rs['content'])}</div></div>" + for rs in DOC["reportSections"] + ) + + "</section>" +) + +schemas_html = f"<section id='schemas'><h3>Schemas ({len(DOC['schemas'])})</h3>{table_dict(DOC['schemas'], 'schema', 'fields')}</section>" +code_html = ( + "<section id='code'><h3>Code & Artifacts (TLA+ / Circom / Groth16 / SnarkPack / Rego / OSCAL / OpenAPI)</h3>" + + "".join( + f"<div class='kv'><b>{e(k)}</b><ul>" + "".join(f"<li><pre>{e(item)}</pre></li>" for item in v) + "</ul></div>" + for k, v in DOC["code"].items() + ) + + "</section>" +) +kpis_html = f"<section id='kpis'><h3>KPIs / Indices ({len(DOC['kpis'])})</h3>{table_dict(DOC['kpis'], 'index', 'target/cadence')}</section>" +rcm_html = f"<section id='rcm'><h3>Risk Control Matrix ({len(DOC['riskControlMatrix'])})</h3>{table_rows(DOC['riskControlMatrix'], ['risk','control','owner','evidence'])}</section>" +trace_html = f"<section id='trace'><h3>Traceability ({len(DOC['traceability'])})</h3>{table_rows(DOC['traceability'], ['from','to','via'])}</section>" +flows_html = f"<section id='data-flows'><h3>Data Flows ({len(DOC['dataFlows'])})</h3>{table_rows(DOC['dataFlows'], ['flow'])}</section>" +regs_html = f"<section id='regulators'><h3>Regulators ({len(DOC['regulators'])})</h3>{table_rows(DOC['regulators'], ['name','scope'])}</section>" +rollout_html = f"<section id='rollout-90'><h3>90-Day Rollout ({len(DOC['rollout90'])})</h3>{table_rows(DOC['rollout90'], ['day','task'])}</section>" +evidence_html = ( + f"<section id='evidence-pack'><h3>Regulator Evidence Pack ({len(DOC['evidencePack'])})</h3>" + + "<ul>" + "".join(f"<li>{e(x)}</li>" for x in DOC["evidencePack"]) + "</ul></section>" +) + +tail_html = schemas_html + code_html + kpis_html + rcm_html + trace_html + flows_html + regs_html + rollout_html + evidence_html + + +exs = DOC["executiveSummary"] +exec_html = f""" +<section id='exec'><h3>Executive Summary</h3> +<p><b>Headline:</b> {e(exs['headline'])}</p> +<p><b>Scope:</b> {e(exs['scope'])}</p> +<p><b>Investment:</b> {e(exs['investment'])}</p> +<p><b>Target Indices:</b> {e(exs['targetIndices'])}</p> +<p><b>Board Recommendation:</b> {e(exs['recommendation'])}</p> +<div class='kv'><b>Differentiators</b><ul>{''.join(f'<li>{e(x)}</li>' for x in exs['differentiators'])}</ul></div> +</section> +""" + + +directive = DOC["directive"] +indices_rows = "".join(f"<li><b>{e(k)}</b>: {e(v)}</li>" for k, v in DOC["indices"].items()) +tier_rows = "".join(f"<li><b>{e(k)}</b>: {e(v)}</li>" for k, v in DOC["tiers"].items()) +sev_rows = "".join(f"<li><b>{e(k)}</b>: {e(v)}</li>" for k, v in DOC["severities"].items()) +invest = DOC["investment"] +invest_rows = "".join(f"<li><b>{e(k)}</b>: {e(v)}</li>" for k, v in invest.items()) +audiences_list = "".join(f"<li>{e(a)}</li>" for a in DOC["audiences"]) + +meta_html = f""" +<section id='directive'><h3>Strategic Directive</h3> +<p><b>Scope:</b> {e(directive['scope'])}</p> +<div class='kv'><b>Outcomes</b><ul>{''.join(f'<li>{e(x)}</li>' for x in directive['outcomes'])}</ul></div> +<div class='kv'><b>Do NOT</b><ul>{''.join(f'<li>{e(x)}</li>' for x in directive['doNot'])}</ul></div> +</section> + +<section id='audiences'><h3>Intended Audiences ({len(DOC['audiences'])})</h3><ul>{audiences_list}</ul></section> + +<section id='indices'><h3>Performance Indices ({len(DOC['indices'])})</h3><ul>{indices_rows}</ul></section> + +<section id='tiers'><h3>Tiers (T0-T3)</h3><ul>{tier_rows}</ul></section> + +<section id='severities'><h3>Severity Levels</h3><ul>{sev_rows}</ul></section> + +<section id='investment'><h3>Investment Envelope (2026-2035)</h3><ul>{invest_rows}</ul></section> +""" + + +html = f"""<!doctype html> +<html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"> +<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> +<title>{e(DOC['title'])} + + +
+

{e(DOC['title'])}

+
docRef {e(DOC['docRef'])} · v{e(DOC['version'])} · {e(DOC['status'])}
+
{e(DOC['classification'])}
+
Horizon: {e(DOC['horizon'])} · API prefix: {e(DOC['apiPrefix'])} · builds on {' · '.join(e(b) for b in DOC['buildsOn'])}
+
+{''.join(f"{v} {e(k)}" for k,v in DOC['counts'].items())} +
+
+
+ +
+{exec_html} +{meta_html} +{modules_html} +{distinctive_html} +{report_full_html} +{tail_html} +
+
+ +""" + +OUT.write_text(html, encoding="utf-8") +print(f"WP-067 HTML written: {OUT} ({OUT.stat().st_size} bytes)") diff --git a/rag-agentic-dashboard/gen-gcir-zk-recursive-2035.py b/rag-agentic-dashboard/gen-gcir-zk-recursive-2035.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..262a5fa --- /dev/null +++ b/rag-agentic-dashboard/gen-gcir-zk-recursive-2035.py @@ -0,0 +1,434 @@ +#!/usr/bin/env python3 +""" +WP-067: GC-IR Formal Cryptographic Bridge, Recursive zk-Proof Attestation & +Civilizational Recoverability Synthesis 2026-2035 for G-SIFIs. + +This blueprint delivers the genuinely-new cryptographic-bridge + research-synthesis +layer that the prior corpus (WP-062 master synthesis, WP-063 WRE/Sentinel/G-SIB, +WP-064 BBOM/UMIF/CAS-SPP+BBN/ARRE+zk-SNARK, WP-065 Sentinel v2.4 + G-Stack, +WP-066 SIP v2.4/G-SRI/Red Dawn/ASA) does NOT contain. Prior WPs ship the *substrate* +(TLA+ invariants, OPA/Rego enforcement, Groth16/Circom zk-SNARK proofs, Merkle +commitments, OSCAL mapping, EAIP, SPIFFE/SPIRE, WCAG, active-learning loops); +WP-067 adds the missing *formal bridge and research apex*: + + (1) GC-IR — the Governed-Compliance Intermediate Representation: a formal, + typed bridge that compiles TLA+ safety/liveness invariants (including the + Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers invariant) into zk-SNARK / zk-STARK arithmetic + circuits, preserving semantics from spec to proof to OSCAL evidence. + (2) Recursive proof architectures (proof-carrying compliance): folding/IVC and + recursive SNARK composition that compress a continuous stream of per-window + attestations into a single succinct verifiable state, with rolling + 5-minute proof windows fed into G-SRI risk scoring (WP-066). + (3) SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuits + Groth16 pipelines + trusted-setup + MPC ceremony + SnarkPack proof aggregation + supervisor-facing verification- + key (VK) management and rotation. + (4) OSCAL proof extensions — machine-readable proof artifacts bound to OSCAL + assessment-results, with Merkle evidence commitments and deterministic + audit replay (cross-referencing WP-064/065/066 evidence pipelines). + (5) Federated zk compliance — cross-institution / cross-jurisdiction proof + federation for EU AI Act financial supervision without raw-data disclosure. + (6) Research-level synthesis — epistemic universality, epistemic singularity, + resonance calculi, recoverability science and continuity-survivability + architectures, and their implications for civilizational-scale AI safety. + +Eight modules: + M1 — GC-IR formal bridge (TLA+ -> typed IR -> zk-SNARK/zk-STARK circuits) + M2 — Recursive / proof-carrying compliance (IVC, folding, rolling 5-min windows) + M3 — SystemicRiskAggregator Circom/Groth16, trusted-setup MPC, SnarkPack, VK mgmt + M4 — OSCAL proof extensions, Merkle commitments & deterministic audit replay + M5 — Federated zk compliance for EU AI Act financial supervision + M6 — DevSecOps / CI/CD / regulatory-sandbox validation of the proof stack + M7 — Research synthesis: epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, + recoverability & continuity-survivability + M8 — Regulator-ready report sections (/<abstract>/<content>) +""" +import json +import os + +OUT = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "data", "gcir-zk-recursive-2035.json") + +DOC = { + "docRef": "GCIR-ZK-RECURSIVE-2035-WP-067", + "version": "1.0.0", + "title": "GC-IR Formal Cryptographic Bridge, Recursive zk-Proof Attestation & Civilizational Recoverability Synthesis 2026-2035 — TLA+->zk-SNARK/zk-STARK Compilation, SystemicRiskAggregator Circuits, Federated zk Compliance & Research Apex for G-SIFIs", + "horizon": "2026-2035", + "apiPrefix": "/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035", + "buildsOn": ["WP-062", "WP-063", "WP-064", "WP-065", "WP-066"], + "status": "formal-cryptographic-bridge-and-research-apex", + "classification": "Confidential / Restricted — Board, CRO, CCO, CISO, CDAO, CTO, Cryptography Engineers, Formal-Methods Engineers, AI Safety Researchers, Model Risk, Internal Audit, External Regulators & Supervisory Colleges", + "audiences": [ + "Board & Board Technology/Risk Committees", + "C-Suite (CRO, CCO, CISO, CDAO, CTO)", + "Cryptography & Zero-Knowledge Engineers", + "Formal-Methods & TLA+ Engineers", + "AI Safety & Alignment Researchers", + "Model Risk Management & Independent Validation", + "Internal Audit & SMCR Accountable Executives", + "External Regulators & Supervisory Colleges", + ], + "directive": { + "scope": "Deliver the 2026-2035 formal cryptographic-bridge and research-apex layer for G-SIFIs: (1) GC-IR, a typed intermediate representation that compiles TLA+ safety/liveness invariants (incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) into zk-SNARK/zk-STARK circuits with semantic preservation; (2) recursive / proof-carrying compliance via IVC and folding, with rolling 5-minute proof windows fed into G-SRI (WP-066); (3) SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuits + Groth16 pipelines + trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack aggregation + verification-key management; (4) OSCAL proof extensions bound to assessment-results, Merkle evidence commitments and deterministic audit replay; (5) federated zk compliance for EU AI Act financial supervision; (6) DevSecOps/CI/CD/regulatory-sandbox validation of the proof stack; and (7) research synthesis of epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability and continuity-survivability. Cross-references WP-062/063/064/065/066 as the architectural and protocol substrate.", + "outcomes": [ + "GC-IR compiles core TLA+ invariants (incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) to zk circuits with proven semantic preservation by 2027", + "Recursive proof-carrying compliance with rolling 5-minute windows live and feeding G-SRI by 2028", + "SystemicRiskAggregator Groth16 pipeline with trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack aggregation in production by 2028", + "OSCAL proof extensions + Merkle commitments + deterministic audit replay accepted by supervisors by 2029", + "Federated zk compliance pilot with EU AI Act supervisors operating by 2029", + "Research-apex synthesis (recoverability & continuity-survivability) ratified into board doctrine through 2035", + ], + "doNot": [ + "Do NOT emit a zk attestation whose GC-IR circuit is not provably equivalent to the source TLA+ invariant", + "Do NOT recurse/fold proofs without verifying each base proof's verification key provenance", + "Do NOT operate Groth16 circuits whose trusted-setup MPC ceremony lacks >=1 honest-participant guarantee", + "Do NOT bind an OSCAL proof extension to evidence that fails deterministic audit replay", + "Do NOT federate proofs across jurisdictions without strictest-applicable obligation resolution", + "Do NOT treat recoverability/continuity-survivability as theoretical — operationalize and drill it", + ], + }, + "indices": { + "GCIR-SemanticPreservation": "1.0 (every compiled circuit provably equivalent to source TLA+ invariant)", + "GCIR-InvariantCoverage": ">=0.95 (safety+liveness invariants compiled to circuits)", + "Recursive-FoldDepth": ">=10000 (per-window proofs folded into one succinct state)", + "Recursive-WindowCadence": "rolling 5-minute (continuous attestation windows)", + "Recursive-VerifyLatency": "<=250ms (succinct verifier on aggregated proof)", + "Aggregation-Compression": ">=100x (SnarkPack aggregate vs individual proofs)", + "MPC-HonestParticipant": ">=1 (trusted-setup ceremony soundness assumption)", + "VK-RotationSLA": "<=90 days (verification-key rotation cadence)", + "OSCALProof-BindingValidity": "1.0 (proof extensions schema-valid & Merkle-bound)", + "AuditReplay-Determinism": "1.0 (byte-identical replay of evidence)", + "FederatedZK-DisclosureLeakage": "0 (zero raw-data disclosure across federation)", + "GSRI-ProofFreshness": ">=0.98 (G-SRI fed by fresh in-window proofs)", + "Recoverability-DrillPass": ">=0.95 (continuity-survivability drills survived)", + "ResonanceCalculus-Consistency": ">=0.99 (resonance-stability monitors consistent)", + }, + "tiers": { + "T0": {"name": "Foundational AI", "gate": 0.30, "desc": "Low-criticality AI; periodic attestation, no recursion required."}, + "T1": {"name": "High-Risk AI", "gate": 0.20, "desc": "EU AI Act high-risk; per-deploy zk attestation + OSCAL proof extension."}, + "T2": {"name": "Frontier / GPAI-systemic", "gate": 0.10, "desc": "Frontier/GPAI; recursive rolling-window proofs feeding G-SRI."}, + "T3": {"name": "AGI/ASI-class", "gate": 0.05, "desc": "AGI/ASI-class; continuous proof-carrying containment + recoverability drills."}, + }, + "severities": { + "SEV1": "Civilizational / systemic — proof soundness or kill-switch liveness failure; recoverability-class.", + "SEV2": "Institutional — proof staleness, VK compromise or federation leakage.", + "SEV3": "Operational — fold-depth degradation or window-cadence slip.", + "SEV4": "Informational — circuit drift or semantic-preservation warning.", + }, + "investment": { + "total": "$210M-$360M over ten years (2026-2035, risk-adjusted, G-SIFI scale)", + "phase1_2026_2030": "$130M-$220M (GC-IR compiler, recursive prover, SystemicRiskAggregator, OSCAL proof extensions, federated pilot)", + "phase2_2030_2035": "$80M-$140M (research-apex operationalization, recoverability/continuity-survivability, crypto-agility)", + "note": "Incremental to WP-062/063/064/065/066 platform & implementation spend; this is the formal-bridge and research-apex layer.", + }, + "modules": [ + { + "mid": "M1", + "title": "GC-IR — Governed-Compliance Intermediate Representation", + "purpose": "A formal, typed intermediate representation that compiles TLA+ safety and liveness invariants (including Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) into zk-SNARK / zk-STARK arithmetic circuits while preserving semantics from specification to proof to OSCAL evidence, closing the gap left by WP-064/065/066 which assert TLA+ and zk-SNARK separately but never the formal bridge between them.", + "sections": [ + {"sid": "M1.1", "title": "TLA+ invariant ingestion", "description": "Parse and type TLA+ safety ([]Inv) and liveness (<>P, []<>P) invariants into the GC-IR typed AST; Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers is a first-class liveness obligation.", "controls": ["Typed AST", "Safety/liveness classification", "First-class kill-switch liveness"]}, + {"sid": "M1.2", "title": "GC-IR lowering to arithmetic constraints", "description": "Lower the typed IR to R1CS (for SNARK) and AIR (for STARK) constraint systems with witness-generation contracts.", "controls": ["R1CS lowering", "AIR lowering", "Witness-generation contract"]}, + {"sid": "M1.3", "title": "Semantic-preservation proof obligation", "description": "Each lowering carries a proof obligation that the circuit's accepting relation is equivalent to the TLA+ invariant's truth, discharged in Coq/Lean and gated in CI.", "controls": ["Equivalence proof obligation", "Coq/Lean discharge", "CI-gated semantic preservation"]}, + {"sid": "M1.4", "title": "Liveness compilation strategy", "description": "Compile liveness/temporal obligations via bounded-horizon unrolling + fairness encodings so Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers becomes a checkable circuit predicate over an attestation window.", "controls": ["Bounded-horizon unrolling", "Fairness encoding", "Windowed liveness predicate"]}, + ], + }, + { + "mid": "M2", + "title": "Recursive / Proof-Carrying Compliance", + "purpose": "Recursive proof architectures (IVC / folding / recursive SNARK composition) that compress a continuous stream of per-window compliance attestations into a single succinct verifiable state, with rolling 5-minute proof windows whose results feed G-SRI risk scoring (WP-066).", + "sections": [ + {"sid": "M2.1", "title": "Rolling 5-minute attestation windows", "description": "Each 5-minute window produces a base proof over GC-IR circuits attesting in-window invariant satisfaction (incl. kill-switch liveness).", "controls": ["5-minute window prover", "Per-window base proof", "Window->evidence binding"]}, + {"sid": "M2.2", "title": "IVC / folding accumulation", "description": "Incrementally-verifiable computation (Nova-style folding) accumulates per-window proofs into one running instance; fold depth is unbounded in principle, gated in practice.", "controls": ["Folding scheme", "Accumulated running instance", "Fold-depth monitoring"]}, + {"sid": "M2.3", "title": "Recursive SNARK composition", "description": "A recursive verifier circuit verifies prior proofs inside a new proof, yielding constant-size succinct attestation of the entire history.", "controls": ["Recursive verifier circuit", "Constant-size succinct proof", "History compression"]}, + {"sid": "M2.4", "title": "G-SRI integration", "description": "Window proof outcomes (pass/fail, freshness) feed the G-SRI composite (WP-066) as cryptographically-attested evidence with freshness SLA.", "controls": ["Proof-fed G-SRI inputs", "Freshness SLA", "Attested risk scoring"]}, + ], + }, + { + "mid": "M3", + "title": "SystemicRiskAggregator Circuits, Groth16, Trusted-Setup MPC & VK Management", + "purpose": "Sentinel v2.4 cryptographic systemic-risk controls: a Circom SystemicRiskAggregator circuit, a Groth16 zk-SNARK pipeline, a trusted-setup MPC ceremony, SnarkPack proof aggregation, and supervisor-facing verification-key (VK) management and rotation — extending WP-064/065's Groth16/Circom usage with the aggregator, ceremony and key-lifecycle controls the corpus lacked.", + "sections": [ + {"sid": "M3.1", "title": "SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuit", "description": "A Circom circuit that aggregates per-system risk witnesses (G-SRI sub-indices) into a single attested systemic-risk commitment without revealing per-system inputs.", "controls": ["Aggregating circuit", "Per-system witness privacy", "Attested systemic-risk commitment"]}, + {"sid": "M3.2", "title": "Groth16 proving pipeline", "description": "Compile-prove-verify pipeline (circom -> r1cs -> Groth16 setup -> prove -> verify) with deterministic, reproducible builds and signed artifacts.", "controls": ["circom->r1cs->Groth16", "Reproducible build", "Signed artifacts"]}, + {"sid": "M3.3", "title": "Trusted-setup MPC ceremony", "description": "A multi-party computation ceremony (powers-of-tau + circuit-specific phase 2) with public transcript and >=1 honest-participant soundness assumption.", "controls": ["Powers-of-tau", "Circuit-specific phase 2", "Public transcript + >=1 honest participant"]}, + {"sid": "M3.4", "title": "SnarkPack proof aggregation", "description": "Aggregate many Groth16 proofs into one with logarithmic verification cost for supervisor-scale batch verification.", "controls": ["SnarkPack aggregation", "Logarithmic verification", "Batch supervisory verify"]}, + {"sid": "M3.5", "title": "Verification-key management", "description": "Supervisor-facing VK registry with provenance, rotation SLA, revocation and binding to OSCAL proof extensions.", "controls": ["VK registry + provenance", "Rotation SLA <=90d", "Revocation + OSCAL binding"]}, + ], + }, + { + "mid": "M4", + "title": "OSCAL Proof Extensions, Merkle Commitments & Deterministic Audit Replay", + "purpose": "OSCAL proof extensions that bind succinct cryptographic proofs to OSCAL assessment-results, anchored by Merkle evidence commitments and verified by deterministic audit replay — extending the OSCAL mapping (WP-064/065/066) with proof-carrying, replayable evidence.", + "sections": [ + {"sid": "M4.1", "title": "OSCAL proof extension schema", "description": "An OSCAL extension (props/links + embedded proof object) carrying proof bytes, VK reference, circuit hash and GC-IR provenance inside assessment-results.", "controls": ["Proof object in OSCAL", "VK + circuit-hash references", "GC-IR provenance"]}, + {"sid": "M4.2", "title": "Merkle evidence commitments", "description": "Evidence (OPA/Rego logs, GAI-SOC telemetry, Sentinel events, TPM attestations, WORM logs) is committed in a Merkle tree whose root is the public input to the proof.", "controls": ["Merkle commitment of evidence", "Root as public input", "Inclusion proofs on demand"]}, + {"sid": "M4.3", "title": "Deterministic audit replay", "description": "A replay engine deterministically reconstructs evidence and re-derives the Merkle root byte-identically, proving the attested state was real and untampered.", "controls": ["Deterministic replay engine", "Byte-identical root re-derivation", "Tamper-evidence"]}, + {"sid": "M4.4", "title": "TPM attestation binding", "description": "TPM-rooted hardware attestations of the prover/runtime are bound into the evidence commitment so supervisors trust the execution environment.", "controls": ["TPM attestation", "Runtime measurement binding", "Hardware root-of-trust"]}, + ], + }, + { + "mid": "M5", + "title": "Federated zk Compliance for EU AI Act Financial Supervision", + "purpose": "Cross-institution and cross-jurisdiction proof federation that lets G-SIFIs and supervisors verify compliance (EU AI Act high-risk/GPAI-systemic financial supervision) without disclosing raw data or proprietary model internals.", + "sections": [ + {"sid": "M5.1", "title": "Federated proof topology", "description": "Each institution emits local zk attestations; a federation aggregator (SnarkPack/recursive) produces sector-level attested posture for supervisors.", "controls": ["Local attestation", "Federation aggregator", "Sector-level posture"]}, + {"sid": "M5.2", "title": "Zero-disclosure guarantees", "description": "Only proof validity and public commitments cross the boundary; raw data, weights and per-institution witnesses never leave the institution.", "controls": ["Zero raw-data disclosure", "Public-commitment-only sharing", "Witness confinement"]}, + {"sid": "M5.3", "title": "Jurisdiction resolution", "description": "Federation honors strictest-applicable obligations across jurisdictions (reusing WP-065 jurisdiction resolver) before aggregating proofs.", "controls": ["Strictest-applicable resolution", "Jurisdiction tagging", "Pre-aggregation policy check"]}, + {"sid": "M5.4", "title": "Supervisory verification portal", "description": "Regulators verify aggregate proofs and drill into per-institution inclusion proofs under authorization, with WCAG 2.1 AA accessible dashboards (reusing WP-066 patterns).", "controls": ["Aggregate verify portal", "Authorized inclusion drill-down", "WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility"]}, + ], + }, + { + "mid": "M6", + "title": "DevSecOps, CI/CD & Regulatory-Sandbox Validation of the Proof Stack", + "purpose": "DevSecOps, CI/CD and regulatory-sandbox strategies that validate the GC-IR compiler, recursive prover, SystemicRiskAggregator, OSCAL proof extensions and federated stack as blocking gates and sandbox exercises.", + "sections": [ + {"sid": "M6.1", "title": "Proof-stack CI gates", "description": "Every merge runs GC-IR semantic-preservation checks, circuit reproducible-build verification, MPC-transcript validation and proof/VK verification as blocking gates.", "controls": ["Semantic-preservation gate", "Reproducible-build gate", "MPC-transcript + proof verify gate"]}, + {"sid": "M6.2", "title": "Recursion & aggregation soundness tests", "description": "Property tests and adversarial harnesses validate folding/recursion soundness and SnarkPack aggregation correctness before promotion.", "controls": ["Folding soundness tests", "Aggregation correctness tests", "Adversarial proof harness"]}, + {"sid": "M6.3", "title": "Regulatory sandbox exercises", "description": "EU/US regulatory-sandbox runs co-verify federated proofs, VK rotation and deterministic audit replay with signed evidence packs.", "controls": ["Sandbox co-verification", "VK-rotation exercise", "Signed evidence packs"]}, + ], + }, + { + "mid": "M7", + "title": "Research Synthesis — Epistemic Universality/Singularity, Resonance Calculi, Recoverability & Continuity-Survivability", + "purpose": "Research-level synthesis connecting federated zk AI compliance to resonance-based cosmologies, recoverability science and constitutional governance — framing epistemic universality, epistemic singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability governance and continuity-survivability architectures for civilizational-scale AI safety.", + "sections": [ + {"sid": "M7.1", "title": "Epistemic universality & epistemic singularity", "description": "Formalize epistemic universality (a governance system's capacity to represent and verify any compliance claim within its calculus) and epistemic singularity (the point at which verification capability is overtaken by capability growth) as design constraints on the proof stack.", "controls": ["Universality bound on the calculus", "Singularity early-warning indicators", "Verification-ahead-of-capability invariant"]}, + {"sid": "M7.2", "title": "Resonance calculi", "description": "A calculus of cognitive-resonance stability that treats safe operation as a resonance-stable regime, with monitors that detect resonance drift toward instability and tie back to Cognitive Resonance monitoring.", "controls": ["Resonance-stability regime", "Resonance-drift monitors", "Stability-consistency >=0.99"]}, + {"sid": "M7.3", "title": "Recoverability science", "description": "Recoverability as a first-class governed property: the ability to provably return to a safe, attested state after perturbation, with recoverability proofs and drills feeding G-SRI.", "controls": ["Recoverability proofs", "Safe-state attestation", "Recoverability drills"]}, + {"sid": "M7.4", "title": "Continuity-survivability architectures", "description": "Architectures that preserve continuity of governance and survivability of containment/kill-switch guarantees under civilizational-scale stress, including degraded-mode and post-quantum survivability.", "controls": ["Continuity-of-governance design", "Survivable kill-switch liveness", "Degraded-mode + PQC survivability"]}, + ], + }, + { + "mid": "M8", + "title": "Regulator-Ready Report Sections", + "purpose": "Board- and regulator-facing narrative sections rendered with <title>/<abstract>/<content> for direct inclusion in supervisory dossiers.", + "sections": [ + {"sid": "M8.1", "title": "Report section index", "description": "Six sections covering GC-IR, recursive proof-carrying compliance, SystemicRiskAggregator/MPC/aggregation, OSCAL proof extensions + audit replay, federated zk compliance, and the research-apex synthesis.", "controls": ["Sections versioned", "Board-reviewed", "Regulator-ready"]}, + ], + }, + ], + "tlaInvariants": [ + {"tiid": "TLA-01", "invariant": "Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers", "kind": "liveness", "tla": "[]<>(KillSignal => <>Halted)", "gcir": "windowed-liveness predicate (bounded-horizon unroll + fairness)", "circuit": "STARK AIR + SNARK fairness gadget", "criticality": "SEV1"}, + {"tiid": "TLA-02", "invariant": "Safety_NoUnmediatedEgress", "kind": "safety", "tla": "[](Egress => Mediated)", "gcir": "R1CS membership constraint", "circuit": "Groth16 R1CS", "criticality": "SEV1"}, + {"tiid": "TLA-03", "invariant": "Safety_ContainmentMonotone", "kind": "safety", "tla": "[](TierDemotion => []ContainmentLevel >= prev)", "gcir": "monotonicity constraint over state trace", "circuit": "AIR transition constraint", "criticality": "SEV1"}, + {"tiid": "TLA-04", "invariant": "Safety_EvidenceCommitted", "kind": "safety", "tla": "[](AttestedState => MerkleRootCommitted)", "gcir": "Merkle-root public-input binding", "circuit": "Groth16 + Merkle gadget", "criticality": "SEV2"}, + {"tiid": "TLA-05", "invariant": "Liveness_EscalationBounded", "kind": "liveness", "tla": "[](SEV1 => <>(EscalatedWithin60s))", "gcir": "bounded-time liveness predicate", "circuit": "STARK AIR timestamp constraint", "criticality": "SEV2"}, + {"tiid": "TLA-06", "invariant": "Safety_VKProvenanceValid", "kind": "safety", "tla": "[](RecursiveVerify => VKProvenanceValid)", "gcir": "VK-provenance membership constraint", "circuit": "recursive verifier circuit", "criticality": "SEV2"}, + {"tiid": "TLA-07", "invariant": "Safety_RecoverableToSafeState", "kind": "safety", "tla": "[](Perturbed => <>AttestedSafeState)", "gcir": "recoverability reachability predicate", "circuit": "STARK AIR reachability", "criticality": "SEV1"}, + ], + "gcirBridges": [ + {"gbid": "GB-01", "stage": "Ingest", "from": "TLA+ invariant (safety/liveness)", "to": "GC-IR typed AST", "guarantee": "well-typed faithful representation"}, + {"gbid": "GB-02", "stage": "Lower-SNARK", "from": "GC-IR typed AST", "to": "R1CS constraint system", "guarantee": "witness-generation contract"}, + {"gbid": "GB-03", "stage": "Lower-STARK", "from": "GC-IR typed AST", "to": "AIR constraint system", "guarantee": "transition+boundary constraints"}, + {"gbid": "GB-04", "stage": "Prove-Equivalence", "from": "circuit accepting relation", "to": "TLA+ invariant truth", "guarantee": "Coq/Lean equivalence proof (CI-gated)"}, + {"gbid": "GB-05", "stage": "Emit-Evidence", "from": "succinct proof", "to": "OSCAL proof extension", "guarantee": "Merkle-bound, VK-referenced, replayable"}, + ], + "zkCircuits": [ + {"zcid": "ZC-01", "circuit": "SystemicRiskAggregator", "system": "Circom", "proof": "Groth16", "publicInputs": ["merkleRoot", "tierGate"], "privateWitness": ["per-system G-SRI sub-indices"], "purpose": "Attest composite systemic risk without revealing per-system inputs"}, + {"zcid": "ZC-02", "circuit": "KillSwitchLiveness", "system": "STARK (AIR)", "proof": "zk-STARK", "publicInputs": ["windowId", "killSignalCommit"], "privateWitness": ["halt-trace"], "purpose": "Attest Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers over a 5-minute window"}, + {"zcid": "ZC-03", "circuit": "EgressMediation", "system": "Circom", "proof": "Groth16", "publicInputs": ["policyHash"], "privateWitness": ["egress-decision trace"], "purpose": "Attest no unmediated egress"}, + {"zcid": "ZC-04", "circuit": "RecursiveFoldVerifier", "system": "Circom", "proof": "Groth16 (recursive)", "publicInputs": ["accumulatorCommit"], "privateWitness": ["prior proof"], "purpose": "Verify prior window proofs inside a new proof (IVC/folding)"}, + {"zcid": "ZC-05", "circuit": "MerkleEvidenceInclusion", "system": "Circom", "proof": "Groth16", "publicInputs": ["merkleRoot", "leafCommit"], "privateWitness": ["inclusion path"], "purpose": "Prove evidence inclusion for deterministic audit replay"}, + {"zcid": "ZC-06", "circuit": "FederatedPostureAggregate", "system": "SnarkPack", "proof": "aggregated Groth16", "publicInputs": ["sectorCommit"], "privateWitness": ["institution proofs"], "purpose": "Aggregate institution proofs into sector-level supervisory posture"}, + ], + "proofPipelines": [ + {"ppid": "PP-01", "stage": "Window Prove", "tool": "GC-IR prover (Groth16/STARK)", "cadence": "rolling 5-minute", "output": "per-window base proof + Merkle root", "sla": "prove <=120s/window"}, + {"ppid": "PP-02", "stage": "Fold/Accumulate", "tool": "Nova-style folding", "cadence": "per window", "output": "updated accumulator instance", "sla": "fold <=2s/window"}, + {"ppid": "PP-03", "stage": "Recursive Compress", "tool": "recursive SNARK verifier", "cadence": "hourly", "output": "constant-size succinct history proof", "sla": "compress <=60s"}, + {"ppid": "PP-04", "stage": "Aggregate", "tool": "SnarkPack", "cadence": "supervisory batch", "output": "aggregate proof (log verify)", "sla": "verify <=250ms"}, + {"ppid": "PP-05", "stage": "Bind OSCAL", "tool": "OSCAL proof-extension emitter", "cadence": "per attestation", "output": "assessment-results + proof object", "sla": "bind <=5s"}, + {"ppid": "PP-06", "stage": "VK Manage", "tool": "VK registry", "cadence": "<=90 days", "output": "rotated/revoked VK with provenance", "sla": "rotation drill quarterly"}, + ], + "oscalProofExtensions": [ + {"opid": "OPX-01", "extension": "proof-object", "boundTo": "assessment-results.result", "fields": ["proofBytes", "scheme", "vkRef", "circuitHash", "gcirProvenance"], "validation": "schema-valid + verifier-checked"}, + {"opid": "OPX-02", "extension": "merkle-commitment", "boundTo": "assessment-results.result.props", "fields": ["merkleRoot", "treeAlgo", "leafCount"], "validation": "root = replay-derived root"}, + {"opid": "OPX-03", "extension": "tpm-attestation", "boundTo": "assessment-results.result.props", "fields": ["pcrQuote", "akCertRef", "runtimeMeasure"], "validation": "TPM quote verified vs golden measures"}, + {"opid": "OPX-04", "extension": "recursion-state", "boundTo": "assessment-results.result.links", "fields": ["accumulatorCommit", "foldDepth", "historyHash"], "validation": "accumulator consistent with prior"}, + {"opid": "OPX-05", "extension": "federation-posture", "boundTo": "assessment-results.result.props", "fields": ["sectorCommit", "institutionCount", "jurisdictionSet"], "validation": "aggregate proof verified; zero-disclosure"}, + ], + "evidencePipelines": [ + {"epid": "EP-01", "source": "OPA/Rego decision logs", "normalize": "OSCAL observation", "commit": "Merkle leaf", "replay": "deterministic re-derivation"}, + {"epid": "EP-02", "source": "GAI-SOC telemetry", "normalize": "OSCAL observation", "commit": "Merkle leaf", "replay": "deterministic re-derivation"}, + {"epid": "EP-03", "source": "WorkflowAI Pro traces", "normalize": "OSCAL observation", "commit": "Merkle leaf", "replay": "deterministic re-derivation"}, + {"epid": "EP-04", "source": "Sentinel Core events", "normalize": "OSCAL observation", "commit": "Merkle leaf", "replay": "deterministic re-derivation"}, + {"epid": "EP-05", "source": "TPM attestation quotes", "normalize": "OSCAL observation", "commit": "Merkle leaf", "replay": "TPM-quote re-verification"}, + {"epid": "EP-06", "source": "PQC WORM audit logs", "normalize": "OSCAL observation + assessment-results", "commit": "Merkle root (public input)", "replay": "byte-identical WORM replay"}, + ], + "researchSyntheses": [ + {"rsyid": "RSY-01", "theme": "Epistemic Universality", "thesis": "A governance calculus is epistemically universal if it can represent and verify any compliance claim it is asked to adjudicate.", "operationalization": "GC-IR completeness bound + verification-ahead-of-capability invariant", "implication": "Bounds what the proof stack can ever attest; flags un-expressible obligations early."}, + {"rsyid": "RSY-02", "theme": "Epistemic Singularity", "thesis": "The point at which capability growth outpaces verification capability, breaking governance closure.", "operationalization": "Singularity early-warning indicators tied to G-SRI capability-overhang", "implication": "Demands containment + recoverability before the boundary is crossed."}, + {"rsyid": "RSY-03", "theme": "Resonance Calculi", "thesis": "Safe operation is a resonance-stable regime; instability manifests as resonance drift.", "operationalization": "Resonance-stability monitors + drift detection (Cognitive Resonance)", "implication": "Provides a continuous early-warning safety signal complementary to discrete proofs."}, + {"rsyid": "RSY-04", "theme": "Recoverability Science", "thesis": "Recoverability — provable return to an attested safe state after perturbation — is a first-class governed property.", "operationalization": "Recoverability proofs (TLA-07) + drills feeding G-SRI", "implication": "Turns resilience from aspiration into a verifiable, drilled guarantee."}, + {"rsyid": "RSY-05", "theme": "Continuity-Survivability", "thesis": "Governance continuity and containment/kill-switch survivability must hold under civilizational-scale stress.", "operationalization": "Degraded-mode + PQC-survivable kill-switch liveness architectures", "implication": "Ensures the most safety-critical guarantees outlast crises and crypto-breaks."}, + {"rsyid": "RSY-06", "theme": "Constitutional Governance", "thesis": "Federated zk compliance + recoverability compose into a constitutional governance frame binding capability under verifiable, recoverable rule-of-law.", "operationalization": "Federated proofs + OSCAL constitution + recoverability doctrine", "implication": "A civilizational-scale, jurisdiction-spanning, cryptographically-enforced governance order."}, + ], + "roadmapPhases": [ + {"rpid": "RM-2026", "window": "2026", "milestone": "GC-IR compiler v1: TLA+ -> R1CS/AIR for core safety invariants; semantic-preservation obligations in CI", "horizon": "2026-2030"}, + {"rpid": "RM-2027", "window": "2027", "milestone": "Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers compiled + proven; window prover live; SystemicRiskAggregator Circom + Groth16 + MPC ceremony", "horizon": "2026-2030"}, + {"rpid": "RM-2028", "window": "2028", "milestone": "Recursive folding + SnarkPack aggregation in production; rolling 5-minute proofs feeding G-SRI; OSCAL proof extensions emitted", "horizon": "2026-2030"}, + {"rpid": "RM-2029", "window": "2029", "milestone": "Federated zk compliance pilot with EU AI Act supervisors; deterministic audit replay + TPM binding accepted", "horizon": "2026-2030"}, + {"rpid": "RM-2030", "window": "2030", "milestone": "Full proof-carrying containment for T3 systems; research-apex doctrine (recoverability/continuity-survivability) board-ratified", "horizon": "2026-2030"}, + {"rpid": "RM-2031-2035", "window": "2030-2035", "milestone": "Operationalized recoverability & continuity-survivability; crypto-agility (PQC + STARK transparency); epistemic-singularity early-warning sustained", "horizon": "2030-2035"}, + ], + "reportSections": [ + {"rsid": "RS-01", "title": "GC-IR — A Formal Bridge from TLA+ Invariants to zk Circuits", "abstract": "The Governed-Compliance Intermediate Representation compiles TLA+ safety and liveness invariants — including Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers — into zk-SNARK/zk-STARK circuits with proven semantic preservation.", "content": "Prior work in this corpus asserts TLA+ invariants (WP-064/065) and zk-SNARK proofs (WP-064/065/066) as separate pillars, but never the formal bridge between them. GC-IR closes that gap. It ingests TLA+ safety ([]Inv) and liveness (<>P, []<>P) obligations into a typed AST in which Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers is a first-class liveness obligation, then lowers that IR to R1CS (for Groth16 SNARKs) and AIR (for STARKs) with explicit witness-generation contracts. Crucially, every lowering carries a semantic-preservation proof obligation — that the circuit's accepting relation is equivalent to the source invariant's truth — discharged in Coq/Lean and enforced as a blocking CI gate. Liveness and temporal obligations are compiled via bounded-horizon unrolling plus fairness encodings so that kill-switch liveness becomes a checkable circuit predicate over a defined attestation window. GC-IR is the connective tissue that makes the platform's formal claims cryptographically attestable end to end."}, + {"rsid": "RS-02", "title": "Recursive, Proof-Carrying Compliance with Rolling 5-Minute Windows", "abstract": "Incrementally-verifiable computation and recursive SNARK composition compress a continuous stream of per-window attestations into a single succinct verifiable state feeding G-SRI.", "content": "Compliance is not a point-in-time event but a continuous obligation, so WP-067 attests it continuously. Each rolling 5-minute window produces a base proof over GC-IR circuits attesting in-window invariant satisfaction, including kill-switch liveness. Nova-style folding accumulates these per-window proofs into one running instance, and a recursive verifier circuit verifies prior proofs inside each new proof, yielding a constant-size succinct attestation of the entire operating history. Window outcomes — pass/fail and freshness — feed the G-SRI composite from WP-066 as cryptographically-attested evidence under a strict freshness SLA, so that systemic-risk scoring is grounded in proofs rather than self-reported telemetry. The result is proof-carrying compliance: at any instant a supervisor can verify, in constant time, that the institution has continuously satisfied its safety and liveness obligations."}, + {"rsid": "RS-03", "title": "SystemicRiskAggregator, Trusted-Setup MPC, SnarkPack & VK Management", "abstract": "A Circom SystemicRiskAggregator circuit, Groth16 pipeline, trusted-setup MPC ceremony, SnarkPack aggregation and verification-key lifecycle controls operationalize Sentinel v2.4 cryptographic systemic-risk controls.", "content": "The SystemicRiskAggregator is a Circom circuit that aggregates per-system risk witnesses — the G-SRI sub-indices from WP-066 — into a single attested systemic-risk commitment without revealing any per-system input. Its Groth16 pipeline (circom -> r1cs -> setup -> prove -> verify) is built reproducibly with signed artifacts, and its structured reference string is produced by a multi-party trusted-setup ceremony — powers-of-tau plus a circuit-specific phase 2 — with a public transcript and a one-honest-participant soundness assumption. SnarkPack aggregates many Groth16 proofs into one with logarithmic verification cost, enabling supervisor-scale batch verification, while a verification-key registry manages VK provenance, a <=90-day rotation SLA, revocation and binding to OSCAL proof extensions. Together these close the ceremony, aggregation and key-lifecycle gaps that the corpus's prior Groth16/Circom usage left open."}, + {"rsid": "RS-04", "title": "OSCAL Proof Extensions, Merkle Commitments & Deterministic Audit Replay", "abstract": "Succinct proofs are bound to OSCAL assessment-results via proof extensions, anchored by Merkle evidence commitments and verified by deterministic, byte-identical audit replay.", "content": "To make proofs first-class supervisory evidence, WP-067 defines OSCAL proof extensions that embed a proof object — proof bytes, scheme, verification-key reference, circuit hash and GC-IR provenance — inside assessment-results. The evidence those proofs attest (OPA/Rego decision logs, GAI-SOC telemetry, WorkflowAI Pro traces, Sentinel Core events, TPM attestations and PQC WORM logs) is committed in a Merkle tree whose root is the proof's public input. A deterministic audit-replay engine reconstructs the evidence and re-derives the Merkle root byte-identically, proving the attested state was real and untampered; TPM-rooted hardware attestations of the prover runtime are bound into the commitment so supervisors can trust the execution environment itself. This yields proof-carrying, replayable, hardware-anchored OSCAL evidence."}, + {"rsid": "RS-05", "title": "Federated zk Compliance for EU AI Act Financial Supervision", "abstract": "Cross-institution, cross-jurisdiction proof federation lets supervisors verify sector-level compliance without any raw-data or model disclosure.", "content": "EU AI Act financial supervision spans many institutions and jurisdictions, yet raw data and proprietary model internals cannot be pooled. Federated zk compliance resolves the tension: each institution emits local zk attestations, and a federation aggregator — SnarkPack or recursive composition — produces a sector-level attested posture for supervisors. Only proof validity and public commitments cross the institutional boundary; raw data, weights and per-institution witnesses never leave. The federation honors strictest-applicable obligations across jurisdictions using the WP-065 jurisdiction resolver before aggregating, and regulators verify aggregate proofs and drill into per-institution inclusion proofs under authorization through WCAG 2.1 AA accessible dashboards. The outcome is verifiable, privacy-preserving, jurisdiction-aware sector supervision at G-SIFI scale."}, + {"rsid": "RS-06", "title": "Research Apex — Epistemic Universality/Singularity, Resonance Calculi, Recoverability & Continuity-Survivability", "abstract": "A research-level synthesis frames the proof stack within epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability science and continuity-survivability architectures for civilizational-scale AI safety.", "content": "WP-067 closes with the research apex that gives the engineering its meaning. Epistemic universality asks whether the governance calculus can represent and verify any compliance claim it must adjudicate, bounding what the proof stack can ever attest and flagging un-expressible obligations early; epistemic singularity names the boundary at which capability growth outpaces verification capability, demanding containment and recoverability before it is crossed. Resonance calculi treat safe operation as a resonance-stable regime, with drift monitors providing a continuous early-warning signal complementary to discrete proofs. Recoverability science elevates provable return to an attested safe state (invariant TLA-07) into a first-class, drilled guarantee feeding G-SRI, and continuity-survivability architectures ensure governance continuity and kill-switch survivability — including degraded-mode and post-quantum survivability — under civilizational-scale stress. Composed, federated zk compliance and recoverability form a constitutional governance order that binds capability under verifiable, recoverable rule-of-law."}, + ], + "schemas": { + "TlaInvariant": "tiid, invariant, kind, tla, gcir, circuit, criticality", + "GcirBridge": "gbid, stage, from, to, guarantee", + "ZkCircuit": "zcid, circuit, system, proof, publicInputs[], privateWitness[], purpose", + "ProofPipeline": "ppid, stage, tool, cadence, output, sla", + "OscalProofExtension": "opid, extension, boundTo, fields[], validation", + "EvidencePipeline": "epid, source, normalize, commit, replay", + "ResearchSynthesis": "rsyid, theme, thesis, operationalization, implication", + "RoadmapPhase": "rpid, window, milestone, horizon", + }, + "code": { + "tla_snippets": [ + "---- MODULE KillSwitchLiveness ----\nVARIABLES killSignal, halted\nLiveness_KillSwitchTriggers == [](killSignal => <>halted)\nTHEOREM Spec => Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers\n====", + "---- MODULE Recoverability ----\nVARIABLES state\nSafe(s) == s \\in AttestedSafeStates\nRecoverable == [](\\E s : ~Safe(state) => <>Safe(state))\nTHEOREM Spec => Recoverable\n====", + ], + "circom_snippets": [ + "pragma circom 2.1.6;\n// SystemicRiskAggregator: attest composite risk without revealing sub-indices\ntemplate SystemicRiskAggregator(n) {\n signal input subIndices[n]; // private witness (per-system G-SRI)\n signal input tierGate; // public input\n signal output composite; // attested composite\n var acc = 0;\n for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) { acc += subIndices[i]; }\n composite <== acc;\n // constraint: composite <= tierGate enforced by range gadget (omitted)\n}\ncomponent main { public [tierGate] } = SystemicRiskAggregator(8);", + "pragma circom 2.1.6;\n// MerkleEvidenceInclusion: prove an evidence leaf is committed in the root\ntemplate MerkleInclusion(depth) {\n signal input leaf;\n signal input root; // public input\n signal input path[depth];\n signal input idx[depth];\n // hash up the path and assert == root (poseidon gadget omitted)\n}\ncomponent main { public [root] } = MerkleInclusion(20);", + ], + "groth16_snippets": [ + "# Groth16 pipeline (deterministic, reproducible)\ncircom SystemicRiskAggregator.circom --r1cs --wasm --sym\nsnarkjs groth16 setup SystemicRiskAggregator.r1cs pot_final.ptau circ_0000.zkey\nsnarkjs zkey contribute circ_0000.zkey circ_final.zkey -e=\"mpc-phase2\"\nsnarkjs zkey export verificationkey circ_final.zkey vk.json\nsnarkjs groth16 prove circ_final.zkey witness.wtns proof.json public.json\nsnarkjs groth16 verify vk.json public.json proof.json", + ], + "snarkpack_snippets": [ + "// SnarkPack aggregation (supervisor-scale batch verify)\nlet agg = snarkpack::aggregate_proofs(&srs, &transcript, &proofs)?;\nlet ok = snarkpack::verify_aggregate(&vk, &agg, &public_inputs)?; // log verify cost", + ], + "rego_examples": [ + "package gcir.proofgate\n# Deny emitting an attestation unless GC-IR semantic preservation is proven\ndefault emit = false\nemit {\n input.semanticPreservation == \"proven\"\n input.mpcTranscriptValid == true\n input.vkProvenanceValid == true\n input.auditReplayDeterministic == true\n}", + ], + "oscal_snippets": [ + "{\n \"assessment-results\": {\n \"metadata\": {\"title\": \"WP-067 zk Proof Extension\", \"oscal-version\": \"1.1.2\"},\n \"results\": [{\n \"title\": \"Rolling-window compliance proof\",\n \"props\": [\n {\"name\": \"proof-scheme\", \"value\": \"groth16\"},\n {\"name\": \"merkle-root\", \"value\": \"0x...\"},\n {\"name\": \"vk-ref\", \"value\": \"vk://registry/v12\"},\n {\"name\": \"gcir-provenance\", \"value\": \"TLA-01:Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers\"}\n ]\n }]\n }\n}", + ], + "openapi_snippets": [ + "paths:\n /api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/zk-circuits:\n get: { summary: List zk circuits, responses: { '200': { description: OK } } }\n /api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/tla-invariants/{id}:\n get: { summary: Get TLA+ invariant by id, responses: { '200': { description: OK }, '404': { description: Not found } } }", + ], + }, + "kpis": { + "GCIR-SemanticPreservation": "1.0 (per compiled circuit)", + "GCIR-InvariantCoverage": ">=0.95 by 2028", + "Recursive-FoldDepth": ">=10000 (running accumulator)", + "Recursive-WindowCadence": "rolling 5-minute", + "Recursive-VerifyLatency": "<=250ms (aggregate)", + "Aggregation-Compression": ">=100x (SnarkPack)", + "MPC-HonestParticipant": ">=1 (ceremony assumption)", + "VK-RotationSLA": "<=90 days", + "OSCALProof-BindingValidity": "1.0 (per extension)", + "AuditReplay-Determinism": "1.0 (byte-identical)", + "FederatedZK-DisclosureLeakage": "0 (zero raw-data)", + "GSRI-ProofFreshness": ">=0.98 (continuous)", + "Recoverability-DrillPass": ">=0.95 (quarterly)", + "ResonanceCalculus-Consistency": ">=0.99 (continuous)", + }, + "riskControlMatrix": [ + {"risk": "Circuit not equivalent to TLA+ invariant", "control": "GC-IR semantic-preservation proof obligation (Coq/Lean, CI-gated)", "owner": "Head of Formal Methods", "evidence": "Equivalence proofs + CI gate results"}, + {"risk": "Kill-switch liveness unattested", "control": "Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers compiled to windowed-liveness circuit; per-window proof", "owner": "CISO / Safety Lead", "evidence": "Window proofs (KillSwitchLiveness)"}, + {"risk": "Recursion/fold soundness break", "control": "VK-provenance constraint + folding soundness tests", "owner": "Head of Cryptography", "evidence": "Soundness test reports + recursive verifier logs"}, + {"risk": "Compromised trusted setup", "control": "MPC ceremony with >=1 honest participant + public transcript", "owner": "Head of Cryptography", "evidence": "MPC transcript + participant attestations"}, + {"risk": "Verification-key compromise/stale", "control": "VK registry + <=90d rotation + revocation", "owner": "CISO", "evidence": "VK rotation/revocation logs"}, + {"risk": "Tampered or fabricated evidence", "control": "Merkle commitment + deterministic audit replay + TPM binding", "owner": "Internal Audit", "evidence": "Replay reports + TPM quotes"}, + {"risk": "Disclosure leakage in federation", "control": "Zero-disclosure federation (public commitments only)", "owner": "CCO", "evidence": "Federation disclosure audit (leakage = 0)"}, + {"risk": "G-SRI fed by stale/unattested data", "control": "Rolling-window proof freshness SLA into G-SRI", "owner": "CRO", "evidence": "Proof-freshness reports"}, + {"risk": "Verification overtaken by capability (singularity)", "control": "Epistemic-singularity early-warning + verification-ahead invariant", "owner": "Chief AI Safety Officer", "evidence": "Singularity indicator dashboards"}, + {"risk": "Irrecoverable state after crisis", "control": "Recoverability proofs (TLA-07) + continuity-survivability drills", "owner": "GEA / Board", "evidence": "Recoverability drill after-action reports"}, + ], + "traceability": [ + {"from": "GC-IR (M1)", "to": "WP-064/065 TLA+ invariants & zk-SNARK", "via": "TLA+ -> typed IR -> R1CS/AIR with equivalence proofs"}, + {"from": "Recursive compliance (M2)", "to": "WP-066 G-SRI risk scoring", "via": "Rolling 5-minute window proofs -> attested G-SRI inputs"}, + {"from": "SystemicRiskAggregator (M3)", "to": "WP-066 G-SRI sub-indices", "via": "Circom aggregation of per-system witnesses"}, + {"from": "OSCAL proof extensions (M4)", "to": "WP-064/065/066 OSCAL mapping & evidence", "via": "Proof object + Merkle commitment + replay"}, + {"from": "Federated zk (M5)", "to": "WP-065 jurisdiction resolver / EU AI Act", "via": "Strictest-applicable resolution + aggregate proofs"}, + {"from": "CI/CD validation (M6)", "to": "WP-066 SIP v2.4 CI gates", "via": "Proof-stack gates added to GitOps promotion"}, + {"from": "Research apex (M7)", "to": "WP-062 civilizational synthesis / ICGC", "via": "Recoverability + continuity-survivability doctrine"}, + ], + "dataFlows": [ + {"flow": "TLA+ invariant -> GC-IR typed AST -> R1CS/AIR -> equivalence proof (Coq/Lean) -> CI gate"}, + {"flow": "5-minute window -> GC-IR prover -> base proof + Merkle root -> fold (IVC) -> recursive compress -> succinct proof"}, + {"flow": "Per-system G-SRI witnesses -> SystemicRiskAggregator (Circom/Groth16) -> SnarkPack aggregate -> supervisor verify"}, + {"flow": "Evidence (OPA/GAI-SOC/Sentinel/TPM/WORM) -> Merkle commit -> public input -> proof -> OSCAL proof extension"}, + {"flow": "Institution local proofs -> jurisdiction resolution -> federation aggregator -> sector posture -> regulator portal"}, + {"flow": "Window proof outcome + freshness -> G-SRI composite (WP-066) -> tier gate + supervisory dashboard"}, + ], + "regulators": [ + {"name": "EU AI Office", "scope": "EU AI Act 2024/1689, Annex IV, GPAI systemic risk; federated zk financial supervision"}, + {"name": "ESAs (EBA/ESMA/EIOPA)", "scope": "DORA oversight; cryptographic assurance of ICT resilience"}, + {"name": "ECB / SSM", "scope": "Prudential supervision; attested systemic-risk aggregation (G-SRI)"}, + {"name": "Federal Reserve / OCC", "scope": "SR 11-7 / SR 26-2 model risk; proof-carrying validation evidence"}, + {"name": "NIST", "scope": "AI RMF 1.0, AI 600-1; measurable, verifiable assurance"}, + {"name": "ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42", "scope": "ISO/IEC 42001; auditable AI management evidence"}, + {"name": "FCA / PRA", "scope": "SMCR, Consumer Duty; accessible (WCAG) supervisory verification"}, + {"name": "MAS", "scope": "FEAT; verifiable fairness/accountability attestations"}, + {"name": "HKMA", "scope": "FEAT / Fintech 2030; APAC federated supervision"}, + {"name": "NIST PQC / Standards", "scope": "Post-quantum crypto-agility; STARK transparency; continuity-survivability"}, + ], + "rollout90": [ + {"day": "0-15", "task": "Stand up GC-IR compiler skeleton; ingest first TLA+ safety invariants into typed AST."}, + {"day": "15-30", "task": "Lower a safety invariant to R1CS; prove first semantic-preservation obligation in Coq/Lean; wire CI gate."}, + {"day": "30-45", "task": "Compile Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers to a windowed-liveness STARK circuit; produce first window proof."}, + {"day": "45-60", "task": "Build SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuit + Groth16 pipeline; run a 3-party trusted-setup MPC ceremony."}, + {"day": "60-75", "task": "Add Nova-style folding + SnarkPack aggregation; verify an aggregate proof under 250ms."}, + {"day": "75-90", "task": "Emit first OSCAL proof extension with Merkle commitment + deterministic audit replay; demo to a sandbox regulator."}, + ], + "evidencePack": [ + "GC-IR compiler outputs + semantic-preservation equivalence proofs (Coq/Lean) + CI gate results", + "Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers windowed-liveness circuit + per-window proofs", + "SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuit + Groth16 artifacts (reproducible, signed)", + "Trusted-setup MPC ceremony public transcript + participant attestations", + "SnarkPack aggregate proofs + verification logs (log-time verify)", + "Verification-key registry: provenance, rotation (<=90d) and revocation records", + "OSCAL proof extensions (proof object + Merkle commitment + TPM attestation)", + "Deterministic audit-replay reports (byte-identical Merkle-root re-derivation)", + "Federated zk compliance posture proofs + zero-disclosure audit (leakage = 0)", + "Recoverability proofs + continuity-survivability drill after-action reports (2026-2035)", + ], + "executiveSummary": { + "headline": "WP-067 is the formal cryptographic bridge and research apex that turns the WP-062/063/064/065/066 platform's TLA+ invariants into recursively-proven, OSCAL-bound, federated zero-knowledge compliance attestations — and frames the whole programme within epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability and continuity-survivability for civilizational-scale AI safety.", + "scope": "GC-IR (TLA+ -> zk-SNARK/zk-STARK with semantic preservation, incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers), recursive/proof-carrying compliance with rolling 5-minute windows feeding G-SRI, SystemicRiskAggregator Circom/Groth16 + trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack + VK management, OSCAL proof extensions + Merkle commitments + deterministic audit replay + TPM binding, federated zk compliance for EU AI Act supervision, proof-stack DevSecOps/CI/CD/regulatory-sandbox validation, and the research apex (epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability, continuity-survivability).", + "investment": "$210M-$360M over ten years (2026-2035, risk-adjusted; incremental to platform & implementation spend).", + "targetIndices": "Semantic preservation 1.0; invariant coverage >=0.95; recursive verify <=250ms; aggregation >=100x; MPC honest participant >=1; VK rotation <=90d; audit-replay determinism 1.0; federation disclosure leakage 0; recoverability drill pass >=0.95.", + "recommendation": "Approve the formal-bridge build first (GC-IR + Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers + SystemicRiskAggregator + MPC), then recursive proof-carrying compliance feeding G-SRI, then OSCAL proof extensions + deterministic audit replay, then the federated zk pilot — and ratify the research-apex doctrine (recoverability & continuity-survivability) into board governance, keeping verification provably ahead of capability through 2035.", + "differentiators": [ + "GC-IR: the missing formal bridge compiling TLA+ invariants (incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) into zk circuits with proven semantic preservation", + "Recursive, proof-carrying compliance with rolling 5-minute windows feeding G-SRI", + "SystemicRiskAggregator Circom/Groth16 + trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack aggregation + VK lifecycle management", + "OSCAL proof extensions + Merkle commitments + deterministic audit replay + TPM attestation binding", + "Federated zk compliance (zero raw-data disclosure) + research apex: epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability, continuity-survivability", + ], + }, +} + +DOC["counts"] = { + "modules": len(DOC["modules"]), + "sections": sum(len(m["sections"]) for m in DOC["modules"]), + "tlaInvariants": len(DOC["tlaInvariants"]), + "gcirBridges": len(DOC["gcirBridges"]), + "zkCircuits": len(DOC["zkCircuits"]), + "proofPipelines": len(DOC["proofPipelines"]), + "oscalProofExtensions": len(DOC["oscalProofExtensions"]), + "evidencePipelines": len(DOC["evidencePipelines"]), + "researchSyntheses": len(DOC["researchSyntheses"]), + "roadmapPhases": len(DOC["roadmapPhases"]), + "reportSections": len(DOC["reportSections"]), + "kpis": len(DOC["kpis"]), + "riskControlMatrix": len(DOC["riskControlMatrix"]), + "traceability": len(DOC["traceability"]), + "dataFlows": len(DOC["dataFlows"]), + "regulators": len(DOC["regulators"]), + "rollout90": len(DOC["rollout90"]), + "evidencePack": len(DOC["evidencePack"]), + "indices": len(DOC["indices"]), +} + +with open(OUT, "w", encoding="utf-8") as f: + json.dump(DOC, f, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False) + f.write("\n") +print(f"[WP-067] Wrote {OUT}") +print(f"[WP-067] Counts: {DOC['counts']}") diff --git a/rag-agentic-dashboard/public/gcir-zk-recursive-2035.html b/rag-agentic-dashboard/public/gcir-zk-recursive-2035.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b33fac4 --- /dev/null +++ b/rag-agentic-dashboard/public/gcir-zk-recursive-2035.html @@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ +<!doctype html> +<html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"> +<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> +<title>GC-IR Formal Cryptographic Bridge, Recursive zk-Proof Attestation & Civilizational Recoverability Synthesis 2026-2035 — TLA+->zk-SNARK/zk-STARK Compilation, SystemicRiskAggregator Circuits, Federated zk Compliance & Research Apex for G-SIFIs + + +
+

GC-IR Formal Cryptographic Bridge, Recursive zk-Proof Attestation & Civilizational Recoverability Synthesis 2026-2035 — TLA+->zk-SNARK/zk-STARK Compilation, SystemicRiskAggregator Circuits, Federated zk Compliance & Research Apex for G-SIFIs

+
docRef GCIR-ZK-RECURSIVE-2035-WP-067 · v1.0.0 · formal-cryptographic-bridge-and-research-apex
+
Confidential / Restricted — Board, CRO, CCO, CISO, CDAO, CTO, Cryptography Engineers, Formal-Methods Engineers, AI Safety Researchers, Model Risk, Internal Audit, External Regulators & Supervisory Colleges
+
Horizon: 2026-2035 · API prefix: /api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035 · builds on WP-062 · WP-063 · WP-064 · WP-065 · WP-066
+
+8 modules29 sections7 tlaInvariants5 gcirBridges6 zkCircuits6 proofPipelines5 oscalProofExtensions6 evidencePipelines6 researchSyntheses6 roadmapPhases6 reportSections14 kpis10 riskControlMatrix7 traceability6 dataFlows10 regulators6 rollout9010 evidencePack14 indices +
+
+
+ +
+ +

Executive Summary

+

Headline: WP-067 is the formal cryptographic bridge and research apex that turns the WP-062/063/064/065/066 platform's TLA+ invariants into recursively-proven, OSCAL-bound, federated zero-knowledge compliance attestations — and frames the whole programme within epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability and continuity-survivability for civilizational-scale AI safety.

+

Scope: GC-IR (TLA+ -> zk-SNARK/zk-STARK with semantic preservation, incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers), recursive/proof-carrying compliance with rolling 5-minute windows feeding G-SRI, SystemicRiskAggregator Circom/Groth16 + trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack + VK management, OSCAL proof extensions + Merkle commitments + deterministic audit replay + TPM binding, federated zk compliance for EU AI Act supervision, proof-stack DevSecOps/CI/CD/regulatory-sandbox validation, and the research apex (epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability, continuity-survivability).

+

Investment: $210M-$360M over ten years (2026-2035, risk-adjusted; incremental to platform & implementation spend).

+

Target Indices: Semantic preservation 1.0; invariant coverage >=0.95; recursive verify <=250ms; aggregation >=100x; MPC honest participant >=1; VK rotation <=90d; audit-replay determinism 1.0; federation disclosure leakage 0; recoverability drill pass >=0.95.

+

Board Recommendation: Approve the formal-bridge build first (GC-IR + Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers + SystemicRiskAggregator + MPC), then recursive proof-carrying compliance feeding G-SRI, then OSCAL proof extensions + deterministic audit replay, then the federated zk pilot — and ratify the research-apex doctrine (recoverability & continuity-survivability) into board governance, keeping verification provably ahead of capability through 2035.

+
Differentiators
  • GC-IR: the missing formal bridge compiling TLA+ invariants (incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) into zk circuits with proven semantic preservation
  • Recursive, proof-carrying compliance with rolling 5-minute windows feeding G-SRI
  • SystemicRiskAggregator Circom/Groth16 + trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack aggregation + VK lifecycle management
  • OSCAL proof extensions + Merkle commitments + deterministic audit replay + TPM attestation binding
  • Federated zk compliance (zero raw-data disclosure) + research apex: epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability, continuity-survivability
+
+ + +

Strategic Directive

+

Scope: Deliver the 2026-2035 formal cryptographic-bridge and research-apex layer for G-SIFIs: (1) GC-IR, a typed intermediate representation that compiles TLA+ safety/liveness invariants (incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) into zk-SNARK/zk-STARK circuits with semantic preservation; (2) recursive / proof-carrying compliance via IVC and folding, with rolling 5-minute proof windows fed into G-SRI (WP-066); (3) SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuits + Groth16 pipelines + trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack aggregation + verification-key management; (4) OSCAL proof extensions bound to assessment-results, Merkle evidence commitments and deterministic audit replay; (5) federated zk compliance for EU AI Act financial supervision; (6) DevSecOps/CI/CD/regulatory-sandbox validation of the proof stack; and (7) research synthesis of epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability and continuity-survivability. Cross-references WP-062/063/064/065/066 as the architectural and protocol substrate.

+
Outcomes
  • GC-IR compiles core TLA+ invariants (incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) to zk circuits with proven semantic preservation by 2027
  • Recursive proof-carrying compliance with rolling 5-minute windows live and feeding G-SRI by 2028
  • SystemicRiskAggregator Groth16 pipeline with trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack aggregation in production by 2028
  • OSCAL proof extensions + Merkle commitments + deterministic audit replay accepted by supervisors by 2029
  • Federated zk compliance pilot with EU AI Act supervisors operating by 2029
  • Research-apex synthesis (recoverability & continuity-survivability) ratified into board doctrine through 2035
+
Do NOT
  • Do NOT emit a zk attestation whose GC-IR circuit is not provably equivalent to the source TLA+ invariant
  • Do NOT recurse/fold proofs without verifying each base proof's verification key provenance
  • Do NOT operate Groth16 circuits whose trusted-setup MPC ceremony lacks >=1 honest-participant guarantee
  • Do NOT bind an OSCAL proof extension to evidence that fails deterministic audit replay
  • Do NOT federate proofs across jurisdictions without strictest-applicable obligation resolution
  • Do NOT treat recoverability/continuity-survivability as theoretical — operationalize and drill it
+
+ +

Intended Audiences (8)

  • Board & Board Technology/Risk Committees
  • C-Suite (CRO, CCO, CISO, CDAO, CTO)
  • Cryptography & Zero-Knowledge Engineers
  • Formal-Methods & TLA+ Engineers
  • AI Safety & Alignment Researchers
  • Model Risk Management & Independent Validation
  • Internal Audit & SMCR Accountable Executives
  • External Regulators & Supervisory Colleges
+ +

Performance Indices (14)

  • GCIR-SemanticPreservation: 1.0 (every compiled circuit provably equivalent to source TLA+ invariant)
  • GCIR-InvariantCoverage: >=0.95 (safety+liveness invariants compiled to circuits)
  • Recursive-FoldDepth: >=10000 (per-window proofs folded into one succinct state)
  • Recursive-WindowCadence: rolling 5-minute (continuous attestation windows)
  • Recursive-VerifyLatency: <=250ms (succinct verifier on aggregated proof)
  • Aggregation-Compression: >=100x (SnarkPack aggregate vs individual proofs)
  • MPC-HonestParticipant: >=1 (trusted-setup ceremony soundness assumption)
  • VK-RotationSLA: <=90 days (verification-key rotation cadence)
  • OSCALProof-BindingValidity: 1.0 (proof extensions schema-valid & Merkle-bound)
  • AuditReplay-Determinism: 1.0 (byte-identical replay of evidence)
  • FederatedZK-DisclosureLeakage: 0 (zero raw-data disclosure across federation)
  • GSRI-ProofFreshness: >=0.98 (G-SRI fed by fresh in-window proofs)
  • Recoverability-DrillPass: >=0.95 (continuity-survivability drills survived)
  • ResonanceCalculus-Consistency: >=0.99 (resonance-stability monitors consistent)
+ +

Tiers (T0-T3)

  • T0: {'name': 'Foundational AI', 'gate': 0.3, 'desc': 'Low-criticality AI; periodic attestation, no recursion required.'}
  • T1: {'name': 'High-Risk AI', 'gate': 0.2, 'desc': 'EU AI Act high-risk; per-deploy zk attestation + OSCAL proof extension.'}
  • T2: {'name': 'Frontier / GPAI-systemic', 'gate': 0.1, 'desc': 'Frontier/GPAI; recursive rolling-window proofs feeding G-SRI.'}
  • T3: {'name': 'AGI/ASI-class', 'gate': 0.05, 'desc': 'AGI/ASI-class; continuous proof-carrying containment + recoverability drills.'}
+ +

Severity Levels

  • SEV1: Civilizational / systemic — proof soundness or kill-switch liveness failure; recoverability-class.
  • SEV2: Institutional — proof staleness, VK compromise or federation leakage.
  • SEV3: Operational — fold-depth degradation or window-cadence slip.
  • SEV4: Informational — circuit drift or semantic-preservation warning.
+ +

Investment Envelope (2026-2035)

  • total: $210M-$360M over ten years (2026-2035, risk-adjusted, G-SIFI scale)
  • phase1_2026_2030: $130M-$220M (GC-IR compiler, recursive prover, SystemicRiskAggregator, OSCAL proof extensions, federated pilot)
  • phase2_2030_2035: $80M-$140M (research-apex operationalization, recoverability/continuity-survivability, crypto-agility)
  • note: Incremental to WP-062/063/064/065/066 platform & implementation spend; this is the formal-bridge and research-apex layer.
+ +

M1 — GC-IR — Governed-Compliance Intermediate Representation

A formal, typed intermediate representation that compiles TLA+ safety and liveness invariants (including Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers) into zk-SNARK / zk-STARK arithmetic circuits while preserving semantics from specification to proof to OSCAL evidence, closing the gap left by WP-064/065/066 which assert TLA+ and zk-SNARK separately but never the formal bridge between them.

M1.1. TLA+ invariant ingestion

description: Parse and type TLA+ safety ([]Inv) and liveness (<>P, []<>P) invariants into the GC-IR typed AST; Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers is a first-class liveness obligation.
controls
  • Typed AST
  • Safety/liveness classification
  • First-class kill-switch liveness

M1.2. GC-IR lowering to arithmetic constraints

description: Lower the typed IR to R1CS (for SNARK) and AIR (for STARK) constraint systems with witness-generation contracts.
controls
  • R1CS lowering
  • AIR lowering
  • Witness-generation contract

M1.3. Semantic-preservation proof obligation

description: Each lowering carries a proof obligation that the circuit's accepting relation is equivalent to the TLA+ invariant's truth, discharged in Coq/Lean and gated in CI.
controls
  • Equivalence proof obligation
  • Coq/Lean discharge
  • CI-gated semantic preservation

M1.4. Liveness compilation strategy

description: Compile liveness/temporal obligations via bounded-horizon unrolling + fairness encodings so Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers becomes a checkable circuit predicate over an attestation window.
controls
  • Bounded-horizon unrolling
  • Fairness encoding
  • Windowed liveness predicate

M2 — Recursive / Proof-Carrying Compliance

Recursive proof architectures (IVC / folding / recursive SNARK composition) that compress a continuous stream of per-window compliance attestations into a single succinct verifiable state, with rolling 5-minute proof windows whose results feed G-SRI risk scoring (WP-066).

M2.1. Rolling 5-minute attestation windows

description: Each 5-minute window produces a base proof over GC-IR circuits attesting in-window invariant satisfaction (incl. kill-switch liveness).
controls
  • 5-minute window prover
  • Per-window base proof
  • Window->evidence binding

M2.2. IVC / folding accumulation

description: Incrementally-verifiable computation (Nova-style folding) accumulates per-window proofs into one running instance; fold depth is unbounded in principle, gated in practice.
controls
  • Folding scheme
  • Accumulated running instance
  • Fold-depth monitoring

M2.3. Recursive SNARK composition

description: A recursive verifier circuit verifies prior proofs inside a new proof, yielding constant-size succinct attestation of the entire history.
controls
  • Recursive verifier circuit
  • Constant-size succinct proof
  • History compression

M2.4. G-SRI integration

description: Window proof outcomes (pass/fail, freshness) feed the G-SRI composite (WP-066) as cryptographically-attested evidence with freshness SLA.
controls
  • Proof-fed G-SRI inputs
  • Freshness SLA
  • Attested risk scoring

M3 — SystemicRiskAggregator Circuits, Groth16, Trusted-Setup MPC & VK Management

Sentinel v2.4 cryptographic systemic-risk controls: a Circom SystemicRiskAggregator circuit, a Groth16 zk-SNARK pipeline, a trusted-setup MPC ceremony, SnarkPack proof aggregation, and supervisor-facing verification-key (VK) management and rotation — extending WP-064/065's Groth16/Circom usage with the aggregator, ceremony and key-lifecycle controls the corpus lacked.

M3.1. SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuit

description: A Circom circuit that aggregates per-system risk witnesses (G-SRI sub-indices) into a single attested systemic-risk commitment without revealing per-system inputs.
controls
  • Aggregating circuit
  • Per-system witness privacy
  • Attested systemic-risk commitment

M3.2. Groth16 proving pipeline

description: Compile-prove-verify pipeline (circom -> r1cs -> Groth16 setup -> prove -> verify) with deterministic, reproducible builds and signed artifacts.
controls
  • circom->r1cs->Groth16
  • Reproducible build
  • Signed artifacts

M3.3. Trusted-setup MPC ceremony

description: A multi-party computation ceremony (powers-of-tau + circuit-specific phase 2) with public transcript and >=1 honest-participant soundness assumption.
controls
  • Powers-of-tau
  • Circuit-specific phase 2
  • Public transcript + >=1 honest participant

M3.4. SnarkPack proof aggregation

description: Aggregate many Groth16 proofs into one with logarithmic verification cost for supervisor-scale batch verification.
controls
  • SnarkPack aggregation
  • Logarithmic verification
  • Batch supervisory verify

M3.5. Verification-key management

description: Supervisor-facing VK registry with provenance, rotation SLA, revocation and binding to OSCAL proof extensions.
controls
  • VK registry + provenance
  • Rotation SLA <=90d
  • Revocation + OSCAL binding

M4 — OSCAL Proof Extensions, Merkle Commitments & Deterministic Audit Replay

OSCAL proof extensions that bind succinct cryptographic proofs to OSCAL assessment-results, anchored by Merkle evidence commitments and verified by deterministic audit replay — extending the OSCAL mapping (WP-064/065/066) with proof-carrying, replayable evidence.

M4.1. OSCAL proof extension schema

description: An OSCAL extension (props/links + embedded proof object) carrying proof bytes, VK reference, circuit hash and GC-IR provenance inside assessment-results.
controls
  • Proof object in OSCAL
  • VK + circuit-hash references
  • GC-IR provenance

M4.2. Merkle evidence commitments

description: Evidence (OPA/Rego logs, GAI-SOC telemetry, Sentinel events, TPM attestations, WORM logs) is committed in a Merkle tree whose root is the public input to the proof.
controls
  • Merkle commitment of evidence
  • Root as public input
  • Inclusion proofs on demand

M4.3. Deterministic audit replay

description: A replay engine deterministically reconstructs evidence and re-derives the Merkle root byte-identically, proving the attested state was real and untampered.
controls
  • Deterministic replay engine
  • Byte-identical root re-derivation
  • Tamper-evidence

M4.4. TPM attestation binding

description: TPM-rooted hardware attestations of the prover/runtime are bound into the evidence commitment so supervisors trust the execution environment.
controls
  • TPM attestation
  • Runtime measurement binding
  • Hardware root-of-trust

M5 — Federated zk Compliance for EU AI Act Financial Supervision

Cross-institution and cross-jurisdiction proof federation that lets G-SIFIs and supervisors verify compliance (EU AI Act high-risk/GPAI-systemic financial supervision) without disclosing raw data or proprietary model internals.

M5.1. Federated proof topology

description: Each institution emits local zk attestations; a federation aggregator (SnarkPack/recursive) produces sector-level attested posture for supervisors.
controls
  • Local attestation
  • Federation aggregator
  • Sector-level posture

M5.2. Zero-disclosure guarantees

description: Only proof validity and public commitments cross the boundary; raw data, weights and per-institution witnesses never leave the institution.
controls
  • Zero raw-data disclosure
  • Public-commitment-only sharing
  • Witness confinement

M5.3. Jurisdiction resolution

description: Federation honors strictest-applicable obligations across jurisdictions (reusing WP-065 jurisdiction resolver) before aggregating proofs.
controls
  • Strictest-applicable resolution
  • Jurisdiction tagging
  • Pre-aggregation policy check

M5.4. Supervisory verification portal

description: Regulators verify aggregate proofs and drill into per-institution inclusion proofs under authorization, with WCAG 2.1 AA accessible dashboards (reusing WP-066 patterns).
controls
  • Aggregate verify portal
  • Authorized inclusion drill-down
  • WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility

M6 — DevSecOps, CI/CD & Regulatory-Sandbox Validation of the Proof Stack

DevSecOps, CI/CD and regulatory-sandbox strategies that validate the GC-IR compiler, recursive prover, SystemicRiskAggregator, OSCAL proof extensions and federated stack as blocking gates and sandbox exercises.

M6.1. Proof-stack CI gates

description: Every merge runs GC-IR semantic-preservation checks, circuit reproducible-build verification, MPC-transcript validation and proof/VK verification as blocking gates.
controls
  • Semantic-preservation gate
  • Reproducible-build gate
  • MPC-transcript + proof verify gate

M6.2. Recursion & aggregation soundness tests

description: Property tests and adversarial harnesses validate folding/recursion soundness and SnarkPack aggregation correctness before promotion.
controls
  • Folding soundness tests
  • Aggregation correctness tests
  • Adversarial proof harness

M6.3. Regulatory sandbox exercises

description: EU/US regulatory-sandbox runs co-verify federated proofs, VK rotation and deterministic audit replay with signed evidence packs.
controls
  • Sandbox co-verification
  • VK-rotation exercise
  • Signed evidence packs

M7 — Research Synthesis — Epistemic Universality/Singularity, Resonance Calculi, Recoverability & Continuity-Survivability

Research-level synthesis connecting federated zk AI compliance to resonance-based cosmologies, recoverability science and constitutional governance — framing epistemic universality, epistemic singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability governance and continuity-survivability architectures for civilizational-scale AI safety.

M7.1. Epistemic universality & epistemic singularity

description: Formalize epistemic universality (a governance system's capacity to represent and verify any compliance claim within its calculus) and epistemic singularity (the point at which verification capability is overtaken by capability growth) as design constraints on the proof stack.
controls
  • Universality bound on the calculus
  • Singularity early-warning indicators
  • Verification-ahead-of-capability invariant

M7.2. Resonance calculi

description: A calculus of cognitive-resonance stability that treats safe operation as a resonance-stable regime, with monitors that detect resonance drift toward instability and tie back to Cognitive Resonance monitoring.
controls
  • Resonance-stability regime
  • Resonance-drift monitors
  • Stability-consistency >=0.99

M7.3. Recoverability science

description: Recoverability as a first-class governed property: the ability to provably return to a safe, attested state after perturbation, with recoverability proofs and drills feeding G-SRI.
controls
  • Recoverability proofs
  • Safe-state attestation
  • Recoverability drills

M7.4. Continuity-survivability architectures

description: Architectures that preserve continuity of governance and survivability of containment/kill-switch guarantees under civilizational-scale stress, including degraded-mode and post-quantum survivability.
controls
  • Continuity-of-governance design
  • Survivable kill-switch liveness
  • Degraded-mode + PQC survivability

M8 — Regulator-Ready Report Sections

Board- and regulator-facing narrative sections rendered with <title>/<abstract>/<content> for direct inclusion in supervisory dossiers.

M8.1. Report section index

description: Six sections covering GC-IR, recursive proof-carrying compliance, SystemicRiskAggregator/MPC/aggregation, OSCAL proof extensions + audit replay, federated zk compliance, and the research-apex synthesis.
controls
  • Sections versioned
  • Board-reviewed
  • Regulator-ready
+

TLA+ Invariants -> zk Circuits (M1) (7)

TLA-01 · Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers · liveness
kind: liveness
tla: []<>(KillSignal => <>Halted)
gcir: windowed-liveness predicate (bounded-horizon unroll + fairness)
criticality: SEV1
TLA-02 · Safety_NoUnmediatedEgress · safety
kind: safety
tla: [](Egress => Mediated)
gcir: R1CS membership constraint
criticality: SEV1
TLA-03 · Safety_ContainmentMonotone · safety
kind: safety
tla: [](TierDemotion => []ContainmentLevel >= prev)
gcir: monotonicity constraint over state trace
criticality: SEV1
TLA-04 · Safety_EvidenceCommitted · safety
kind: safety
tla: [](AttestedState => MerkleRootCommitted)
gcir: Merkle-root public-input binding
criticality: SEV2
TLA-05 · Liveness_EscalationBounded · liveness
kind: liveness
tla: [](SEV1 => <>(EscalatedWithin60s))
gcir: bounded-time liveness predicate
criticality: SEV2
TLA-06 · Safety_VKProvenanceValid · safety
kind: safety
tla: [](RecursiveVerify => VKProvenanceValid)
gcir: VK-provenance membership constraint
criticality: SEV2
TLA-07 · Safety_RecoverableToSafeState · safety
kind: safety
tla: [](Perturbed => <>AttestedSafeState)
gcir: recoverability reachability predicate
criticality: SEV1

GC-IR Bridge Stages (M1) (5)

GB-01 · Ingest
from: TLA+ invariant (safety/liveness)
to: GC-IR typed AST
guarantee: well-typed faithful representation
GB-02 · Lower-SNARK
from: GC-IR typed AST
to: R1CS constraint system
guarantee: witness-generation contract
GB-03 · Lower-STARK
from: GC-IR typed AST
to: AIR constraint system
guarantee: transition+boundary constraints
GB-04 · Prove-Equivalence
from: circuit accepting relation
to: TLA+ invariant truth
guarantee: Coq/Lean equivalence proof (CI-gated)
GB-05 · Emit-Evidence
from: succinct proof
to: OSCAL proof extension
guarantee: Merkle-bound, VK-referenced, replayable

zk Circuits (M2/M3) (6)

ZC-01 · SystemicRiskAggregator · Groth16
system: Circom
proof: Groth16
publicInputs
  • merkleRoot
  • tierGate
privateWitness
  • per-system G-SRI sub-indices
purpose: Attest composite systemic risk without revealing per-system inputs
ZC-02 · KillSwitchLiveness · zk-STARK
system: STARK (AIR)
proof: zk-STARK
publicInputs
  • windowId
  • killSignalCommit
privateWitness
  • halt-trace
purpose: Attest Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers over a 5-minute window
ZC-03 · EgressMediation · Groth16
system: Circom
proof: Groth16
publicInputs
  • policyHash
privateWitness
  • egress-decision trace
purpose: Attest no unmediated egress
ZC-04 · RecursiveFoldVerifier · Groth16 (recursive)
system: Circom
proof: Groth16 (recursive)
publicInputs
  • accumulatorCommit
privateWitness
  • prior proof
purpose: Verify prior window proofs inside a new proof (IVC/folding)
ZC-05 · MerkleEvidenceInclusion · Groth16
system: Circom
proof: Groth16
publicInputs
  • merkleRoot
  • leafCommit
privateWitness
  • inclusion path
purpose: Prove evidence inclusion for deterministic audit replay
ZC-06 · FederatedPostureAggregate · aggregated Groth16
system: SnarkPack
proof: aggregated Groth16
publicInputs
  • sectorCommit
privateWitness
  • institution proofs
purpose: Aggregate institution proofs into sector-level supervisory posture

Recursive Proof Pipelines (M2/M3) (6)

PP-01 · Window Prove
tool: GC-IR prover (Groth16/STARK)
cadence: rolling 5-minute
output: per-window base proof + Merkle root
sla: prove <=120s/window
PP-02 · Fold/Accumulate
tool: Nova-style folding
cadence: per window
output: updated accumulator instance
sla: fold <=2s/window
PP-03 · Recursive Compress
tool: recursive SNARK verifier
cadence: hourly
output: constant-size succinct history proof
sla: compress <=60s
PP-04 · Aggregate
tool: SnarkPack
cadence: supervisory batch
output: aggregate proof (log verify)
sla: verify <=250ms
PP-05 · Bind OSCAL
tool: OSCAL proof-extension emitter
cadence: per attestation
output: assessment-results + proof object
sla: bind <=5s
PP-06 · VK Manage
tool: VK registry
cadence: <=90 days
output: rotated/revoked VK with provenance
sla: rotation drill quarterly

OSCAL Proof Extensions (M4) (5)

OPX-01 · proof-object
boundTo: assessment-results.result
fields
  • proofBytes
  • scheme
  • vkRef
  • circuitHash
  • gcirProvenance
validation: schema-valid + verifier-checked
OPX-02 · merkle-commitment
boundTo: assessment-results.result.props
fields
  • merkleRoot
  • treeAlgo
  • leafCount
validation: root = replay-derived root
OPX-03 · tpm-attestation
boundTo: assessment-results.result.props
fields
  • pcrQuote
  • akCertRef
  • runtimeMeasure
validation: TPM quote verified vs golden measures
OPX-04 · recursion-state
boundTo: assessment-results.result.links
fields
  • accumulatorCommit
  • foldDepth
  • historyHash
validation: accumulator consistent with prior
OPX-05 · federation-posture
boundTo: assessment-results.result.props
fields
  • sectorCommit
  • institutionCount
  • jurisdictionSet
validation: aggregate proof verified; zero-disclosure

Evidence Ingestion Pipelines (M4) (6)

EP-01 · OPA/Rego decision logs
normalize: OSCAL observation
commit: Merkle leaf
replay: deterministic re-derivation
EP-02 · GAI-SOC telemetry
normalize: OSCAL observation
commit: Merkle leaf
replay: deterministic re-derivation
EP-03 · WorkflowAI Pro traces
normalize: OSCAL observation
commit: Merkle leaf
replay: deterministic re-derivation
EP-04 · Sentinel Core events
normalize: OSCAL observation
commit: Merkle leaf
replay: deterministic re-derivation
EP-05 · TPM attestation quotes
normalize: OSCAL observation
commit: Merkle leaf
replay: TPM-quote re-verification
EP-06 · PQC WORM audit logs
normalize: OSCAL observation + assessment-results
commit: Merkle root (public input)
replay: byte-identical WORM replay

Research Apex Syntheses (M7) (6)

RSY-01 · Epistemic Universality
thesis: A governance calculus is epistemically universal if it can represent and verify any compliance claim it is asked to adjudicate.
operationalization: GC-IR completeness bound + verification-ahead-of-capability invariant
implication: Bounds what the proof stack can ever attest; flags un-expressible obligations early.
RSY-02 · Epistemic Singularity
thesis: The point at which capability growth outpaces verification capability, breaking governance closure.
operationalization: Singularity early-warning indicators tied to G-SRI capability-overhang
implication: Demands containment + recoverability before the boundary is crossed.
RSY-03 · Resonance Calculi
thesis: Safe operation is a resonance-stable regime; instability manifests as resonance drift.
operationalization: Resonance-stability monitors + drift detection (Cognitive Resonance)
implication: Provides a continuous early-warning safety signal complementary to discrete proofs.
RSY-04 · Recoverability Science
thesis: Recoverability — provable return to an attested safe state after perturbation — is a first-class governed property.
operationalization: Recoverability proofs (TLA-07) + drills feeding G-SRI
implication: Turns resilience from aspiration into a verifiable, drilled guarantee.
RSY-05 · Continuity-Survivability
thesis: Governance continuity and containment/kill-switch survivability must hold under civilizational-scale stress.
operationalization: Degraded-mode + PQC-survivable kill-switch liveness architectures
implication: Ensures the most safety-critical guarantees outlast crises and crypto-breaks.
RSY-06 · Constitutional Governance
thesis: Federated zk compliance + recoverability compose into a constitutional governance frame binding capability under verifiable, recoverable rule-of-law.
operationalization: Federated proofs + OSCAL constitution + recoverability doctrine
implication: A civilizational-scale, jurisdiction-spanning, cryptographically-enforced governance order.

2026-2035 Roadmap Phases (6)

RM-2026 · 2026
milestone: GC-IR compiler v1: TLA+ -> R1CS/AIR for core safety invariants; semantic-preservation obligations in CI
horizon: 2026-2030
RM-2027 · 2027
milestone: Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers compiled + proven; window prover live; SystemicRiskAggregator Circom + Groth16 + MPC ceremony
horizon: 2026-2030
RM-2028 · 2028
milestone: Recursive folding + SnarkPack aggregation in production; rolling 5-minute proofs feeding G-SRI; OSCAL proof extensions emitted
horizon: 2026-2030
RM-2029 · 2029
milestone: Federated zk compliance pilot with EU AI Act supervisors; deterministic audit replay + TPM binding accepted
horizon: 2026-2030
RM-2030 · 2030
milestone: Full proof-carrying containment for T3 systems; research-apex doctrine (recoverability/continuity-survivability) board-ratified
horizon: 2026-2030
RM-2031-2035 · 2030-2035
milestone: Operationalized recoverability & continuity-survivability; crypto-agility (PQC + STARK transparency); epistemic-singularity early-warning sustained
horizon: 2030-2035
+

Whitepaper Sections — <title> / <abstract> / <content>

RS-01 · GC-IR — A Formal Bridge from TLA+ Invariants to zk Circuits
abstract: The Governed-Compliance Intermediate Representation compiles TLA+ safety and liveness invariants — including Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers — into zk-SNARK/zk-STARK circuits with proven semantic preservation.
content: Prior work in this corpus asserts TLA+ invariants (WP-064/065) and zk-SNARK proofs (WP-064/065/066) as separate pillars, but never the formal bridge between them. GC-IR closes that gap. It ingests TLA+ safety ([]Inv) and liveness (<>P, []<>P) obligations into a typed AST in which Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers is a first-class liveness obligation, then lowers that IR to R1CS (for Groth16 SNARKs) and AIR (for STARKs) with explicit witness-generation contracts. Crucially, every lowering carries a semantic-preservation proof obligation — that the circuit's accepting relation is equivalent to the source invariant's truth — discharged in Coq/Lean and enforced as a blocking CI gate. Liveness and temporal obligations are compiled via bounded-horizon unrolling plus fairness encodings so that kill-switch liveness becomes a checkable circuit predicate over a defined attestation window. GC-IR is the connective tissue that makes the platform's formal claims cryptographically attestable end to end.
RS-02 · Recursive, Proof-Carrying Compliance with Rolling 5-Minute Windows
abstract: Incrementally-verifiable computation and recursive SNARK composition compress a continuous stream of per-window attestations into a single succinct verifiable state feeding G-SRI.
content: Compliance is not a point-in-time event but a continuous obligation, so WP-067 attests it continuously. Each rolling 5-minute window produces a base proof over GC-IR circuits attesting in-window invariant satisfaction, including kill-switch liveness. Nova-style folding accumulates these per-window proofs into one running instance, and a recursive verifier circuit verifies prior proofs inside each new proof, yielding a constant-size succinct attestation of the entire operating history. Window outcomes — pass/fail and freshness — feed the G-SRI composite from WP-066 as cryptographically-attested evidence under a strict freshness SLA, so that systemic-risk scoring is grounded in proofs rather than self-reported telemetry. The result is proof-carrying compliance: at any instant a supervisor can verify, in constant time, that the institution has continuously satisfied its safety and liveness obligations.
RS-03 · SystemicRiskAggregator, Trusted-Setup MPC, SnarkPack & VK Management
abstract: A Circom SystemicRiskAggregator circuit, Groth16 pipeline, trusted-setup MPC ceremony, SnarkPack aggregation and verification-key lifecycle controls operationalize Sentinel v2.4 cryptographic systemic-risk controls.
content: The SystemicRiskAggregator is a Circom circuit that aggregates per-system risk witnesses — the G-SRI sub-indices from WP-066 — into a single attested systemic-risk commitment without revealing any per-system input. Its Groth16 pipeline (circom -> r1cs -> setup -> prove -> verify) is built reproducibly with signed artifacts, and its structured reference string is produced by a multi-party trusted-setup ceremony — powers-of-tau plus a circuit-specific phase 2 — with a public transcript and a one-honest-participant soundness assumption. SnarkPack aggregates many Groth16 proofs into one with logarithmic verification cost, enabling supervisor-scale batch verification, while a verification-key registry manages VK provenance, a <=90-day rotation SLA, revocation and binding to OSCAL proof extensions. Together these close the ceremony, aggregation and key-lifecycle gaps that the corpus's prior Groth16/Circom usage left open.
RS-04 · OSCAL Proof Extensions, Merkle Commitments & Deterministic Audit Replay
abstract: Succinct proofs are bound to OSCAL assessment-results via proof extensions, anchored by Merkle evidence commitments and verified by deterministic, byte-identical audit replay.
content: To make proofs first-class supervisory evidence, WP-067 defines OSCAL proof extensions that embed a proof object — proof bytes, scheme, verification-key reference, circuit hash and GC-IR provenance — inside assessment-results. The evidence those proofs attest (OPA/Rego decision logs, GAI-SOC telemetry, WorkflowAI Pro traces, Sentinel Core events, TPM attestations and PQC WORM logs) is committed in a Merkle tree whose root is the proof's public input. A deterministic audit-replay engine reconstructs the evidence and re-derives the Merkle root byte-identically, proving the attested state was real and untampered; TPM-rooted hardware attestations of the prover runtime are bound into the commitment so supervisors can trust the execution environment itself. This yields proof-carrying, replayable, hardware-anchored OSCAL evidence.
RS-05 · Federated zk Compliance for EU AI Act Financial Supervision
abstract: Cross-institution, cross-jurisdiction proof federation lets supervisors verify sector-level compliance without any raw-data or model disclosure.
content: EU AI Act financial supervision spans many institutions and jurisdictions, yet raw data and proprietary model internals cannot be pooled. Federated zk compliance resolves the tension: each institution emits local zk attestations, and a federation aggregator — SnarkPack or recursive composition — produces a sector-level attested posture for supervisors. Only proof validity and public commitments cross the institutional boundary; raw data, weights and per-institution witnesses never leave. The federation honors strictest-applicable obligations across jurisdictions using the WP-065 jurisdiction resolver before aggregating, and regulators verify aggregate proofs and drill into per-institution inclusion proofs under authorization through WCAG 2.1 AA accessible dashboards. The outcome is verifiable, privacy-preserving, jurisdiction-aware sector supervision at G-SIFI scale.
RS-06 · Research Apex — Epistemic Universality/Singularity, Resonance Calculi, Recoverability & Continuity-Survivability
abstract: A research-level synthesis frames the proof stack within epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability science and continuity-survivability architectures for civilizational-scale AI safety.
content: WP-067 closes with the research apex that gives the engineering its meaning. Epistemic universality asks whether the governance calculus can represent and verify any compliance claim it must adjudicate, bounding what the proof stack can ever attest and flagging un-expressible obligations early; epistemic singularity names the boundary at which capability growth outpaces verification capability, demanding containment and recoverability before it is crossed. Resonance calculi treat safe operation as a resonance-stable regime, with drift monitors providing a continuous early-warning signal complementary to discrete proofs. Recoverability science elevates provable return to an attested safe state (invariant TLA-07) into a first-class, drilled guarantee feeding G-SRI, and continuity-survivability architectures ensure governance continuity and kill-switch survivability — including degraded-mode and post-quantum survivability — under civilizational-scale stress. Composed, federated zk compliance and recoverability form a constitutional governance order that binds capability under verifiable, recoverable rule-of-law.
+

Schemas (8)

schemafields
TlaInvarianttiid, invariant, kind, tla, gcir, circuit, criticality
GcirBridgegbid, stage, from, to, guarantee
ZkCircuitzcid, circuit, system, proof, publicInputs[], privateWitness[], purpose
ProofPipelineppid, stage, tool, cadence, output, sla
OscalProofExtensionopid, extension, boundTo, fields[], validation
EvidencePipelineepid, source, normalize, commit, replay
ResearchSynthesisrsyid, theme, thesis, operationalization, implication
RoadmapPhaserpid, window, milestone, horizon

Code & Artifacts (TLA+ / Circom / Groth16 / SnarkPack / Rego / OSCAL / OpenAPI)

tla_snippets
  • ---- MODULE KillSwitchLiveness ----
+VARIABLES killSignal, halted
+Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers == [](killSignal => <>halted)
+THEOREM Spec => Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers
+====
  • ---- MODULE Recoverability ----
+VARIABLES state
+Safe(s) == s \in AttestedSafeStates
+Recoverable == [](\E s : ~Safe(state) => <>Safe(state))
+THEOREM Spec => Recoverable
+====
circom_snippets
  • pragma circom 2.1.6;
+// SystemicRiskAggregator: attest composite risk without revealing sub-indices
+template SystemicRiskAggregator(n) {
+  signal input subIndices[n];   // private witness (per-system G-SRI)
+  signal input tierGate;        // public input
+  signal output composite;      // attested composite
+  var acc = 0;
+  for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) { acc += subIndices[i]; }
+  composite <== acc;
+  // constraint: composite <= tierGate enforced by range gadget (omitted)
+}
+component main { public [tierGate] } = SystemicRiskAggregator(8);
  • pragma circom 2.1.6;
+// MerkleEvidenceInclusion: prove an evidence leaf is committed in the root
+template MerkleInclusion(depth) {
+  signal input leaf;
+  signal input root;        // public input
+  signal input path[depth];
+  signal input idx[depth];
+  // hash up the path and assert == root (poseidon gadget omitted)
+}
+component main { public [root] } = MerkleInclusion(20);
groth16_snippets
  • # Groth16 pipeline (deterministic, reproducible)
+circom SystemicRiskAggregator.circom --r1cs --wasm --sym
+snarkjs groth16 setup SystemicRiskAggregator.r1cs pot_final.ptau circ_0000.zkey
+snarkjs zkey contribute circ_0000.zkey circ_final.zkey -e="mpc-phase2"
+snarkjs zkey export verificationkey circ_final.zkey vk.json
+snarkjs groth16 prove circ_final.zkey witness.wtns proof.json public.json
+snarkjs groth16 verify vk.json public.json proof.json
snarkpack_snippets
  • // SnarkPack aggregation (supervisor-scale batch verify)
+let agg = snarkpack::aggregate_proofs(&srs, &transcript, &proofs)?;
+let ok  = snarkpack::verify_aggregate(&vk, &agg, &public_inputs)?; // log verify cost
rego_examples
  • package gcir.proofgate
+# Deny emitting an attestation unless GC-IR semantic preservation is proven
+default emit = false
+emit {
+  input.semanticPreservation == "proven"
+  input.mpcTranscriptValid == true
+  input.vkProvenanceValid == true
+  input.auditReplayDeterministic == true
+}
oscal_snippets
  • {
+  "assessment-results": {
+    "metadata": {"title": "WP-067 zk Proof Extension", "oscal-version": "1.1.2"},
+    "results": [{
+      "title": "Rolling-window compliance proof",
+      "props": [
+        {"name": "proof-scheme", "value": "groth16"},
+        {"name": "merkle-root", "value": "0x..."},
+        {"name": "vk-ref", "value": "vk://registry/v12"},
+        {"name": "gcir-provenance", "value": "TLA-01:Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers"}
+      ]
+    }]
+  }
+}
openapi_snippets
  • paths:
+  /api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/zk-circuits:
+    get: { summary: List zk circuits, responses: { '200': { description: OK } } }
+  /api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/tla-invariants/{id}:
+    get: { summary: Get TLA+ invariant by id, responses: { '200': { description: OK }, '404': { description: Not found } } }

KPIs / Indices (14)

indextarget/cadence
GCIR-SemanticPreservation1.0 (per compiled circuit)
GCIR-InvariantCoverage>=0.95 by 2028
Recursive-FoldDepth>=10000 (running accumulator)
Recursive-WindowCadencerolling 5-minute
Recursive-VerifyLatency<=250ms (aggregate)
Aggregation-Compression>=100x (SnarkPack)
MPC-HonestParticipant>=1 (ceremony assumption)
VK-RotationSLA<=90 days
OSCALProof-BindingValidity1.0 (per extension)
AuditReplay-Determinism1.0 (byte-identical)
FederatedZK-DisclosureLeakage0 (zero raw-data)
GSRI-ProofFreshness>=0.98 (continuous)
Recoverability-DrillPass>=0.95 (quarterly)
ResonanceCalculus-Consistency>=0.99 (continuous)

Risk Control Matrix (10)

riskcontrolownerevidence
Circuit not equivalent to TLA+ invariantGC-IR semantic-preservation proof obligation (Coq/Lean, CI-gated)Head of Formal MethodsEquivalence proofs + CI gate results
Kill-switch liveness unattestedLiveness_KillSwitchTriggers compiled to windowed-liveness circuit; per-window proofCISO / Safety LeadWindow proofs (KillSwitchLiveness)
Recursion/fold soundness breakVK-provenance constraint + folding soundness testsHead of CryptographySoundness test reports + recursive verifier logs
Compromised trusted setupMPC ceremony with >=1 honest participant + public transcriptHead of CryptographyMPC transcript + participant attestations
Verification-key compromise/staleVK registry + <=90d rotation + revocationCISOVK rotation/revocation logs
Tampered or fabricated evidenceMerkle commitment + deterministic audit replay + TPM bindingInternal AuditReplay reports + TPM quotes
Disclosure leakage in federationZero-disclosure federation (public commitments only)CCOFederation disclosure audit (leakage = 0)
G-SRI fed by stale/unattested dataRolling-window proof freshness SLA into G-SRICROProof-freshness reports
Verification overtaken by capability (singularity)Epistemic-singularity early-warning + verification-ahead invariantChief AI Safety OfficerSingularity indicator dashboards
Irrecoverable state after crisisRecoverability proofs (TLA-07) + continuity-survivability drillsGEA / BoardRecoverability drill after-action reports

Traceability (7)

fromtovia
GC-IR (M1)WP-064/065 TLA+ invariants & zk-SNARKTLA+ -> typed IR -> R1CS/AIR with equivalence proofs
Recursive compliance (M2)WP-066 G-SRI risk scoringRolling 5-minute window proofs -> attested G-SRI inputs
SystemicRiskAggregator (M3)WP-066 G-SRI sub-indicesCircom aggregation of per-system witnesses
OSCAL proof extensions (M4)WP-064/065/066 OSCAL mapping & evidenceProof object + Merkle commitment + replay
Federated zk (M5)WP-065 jurisdiction resolver / EU AI ActStrictest-applicable resolution + aggregate proofs
CI/CD validation (M6)WP-066 SIP v2.4 CI gatesProof-stack gates added to GitOps promotion
Research apex (M7)WP-062 civilizational synthesis / ICGCRecoverability + continuity-survivability doctrine

Data Flows (6)

flow
TLA+ invariant -> GC-IR typed AST -> R1CS/AIR -> equivalence proof (Coq/Lean) -> CI gate
5-minute window -> GC-IR prover -> base proof + Merkle root -> fold (IVC) -> recursive compress -> succinct proof
Per-system G-SRI witnesses -> SystemicRiskAggregator (Circom/Groth16) -> SnarkPack aggregate -> supervisor verify
Evidence (OPA/GAI-SOC/Sentinel/TPM/WORM) -> Merkle commit -> public input -> proof -> OSCAL proof extension
Institution local proofs -> jurisdiction resolution -> federation aggregator -> sector posture -> regulator portal
Window proof outcome + freshness -> G-SRI composite (WP-066) -> tier gate + supervisory dashboard

Regulators (10)

namescope
EU AI OfficeEU AI Act 2024/1689, Annex IV, GPAI systemic risk; federated zk financial supervision
ESAs (EBA/ESMA/EIOPA)DORA oversight; cryptographic assurance of ICT resilience
ECB / SSMPrudential supervision; attested systemic-risk aggregation (G-SRI)
Federal Reserve / OCCSR 11-7 / SR 26-2 model risk; proof-carrying validation evidence
NISTAI RMF 1.0, AI 600-1; measurable, verifiable assurance
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42ISO/IEC 42001; auditable AI management evidence
FCA / PRASMCR, Consumer Duty; accessible (WCAG) supervisory verification
MASFEAT; verifiable fairness/accountability attestations
HKMAFEAT / Fintech 2030; APAC federated supervision
NIST PQC / StandardsPost-quantum crypto-agility; STARK transparency; continuity-survivability

90-Day Rollout (6)

daytask
0-15Stand up GC-IR compiler skeleton; ingest first TLA+ safety invariants into typed AST.
15-30Lower a safety invariant to R1CS; prove first semantic-preservation obligation in Coq/Lean; wire CI gate.
30-45Compile Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers to a windowed-liveness STARK circuit; produce first window proof.
45-60Build SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuit + Groth16 pipeline; run a 3-party trusted-setup MPC ceremony.
60-75Add Nova-style folding + SnarkPack aggregation; verify an aggregate proof under 250ms.
75-90Emit first OSCAL proof extension with Merkle commitment + deterministic audit replay; demo to a sandbox regulator.

Regulator Evidence Pack (10)

  • GC-IR compiler outputs + semantic-preservation equivalence proofs (Coq/Lean) + CI gate results
  • Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers windowed-liveness circuit + per-window proofs
  • SystemicRiskAggregator Circom circuit + Groth16 artifacts (reproducible, signed)
  • Trusted-setup MPC ceremony public transcript + participant attestations
  • SnarkPack aggregate proofs + verification logs (log-time verify)
  • Verification-key registry: provenance, rotation (<=90d) and revocation records
  • OSCAL proof extensions (proof object + Merkle commitment + TPM attestation)
  • Deterministic audit-replay reports (byte-identical Merkle-root re-derivation)
  • Federated zk compliance posture proofs + zero-disclosure audit (leakage = 0)
  • Recoverability proofs + continuity-survivability drill after-action reports (2026-2035)
+
+
+ diff --git a/rag-agentic-dashboard/server.js b/rag-agentic-dashboard/server.js index 5e29145..e89b852 100644 --- a/rag-agentic-dashboard/server.js +++ b/rag-agentic-dashboard/server.js @@ -12694,13 +12694,14 @@ app.get('/api/governance-index', (_, res) => res.json({ { id: 'P9', name: '2026-2035 Strategic Synthesis, Formal Assurance & Implementation (G-SIFI)', - description: 'Unified 2026-2035 AGI/ASI technical governance, safety, containment and civilizational-security blueprint for G-SIFIs: the comprehensive master synthesis (regulatory mapping, reference architectures, AGI/ASI safety, the 15 ICGC mechanisms, financial-services MRM, roadmap and /<abstract>/<content> report sections); the formal-assurance layer (BBOM, Unified Meta-Invariant Framework with TLA+/Coq/Q#, AGI Containment Labs with CAS-SPP + Bayesian Belief Networks, ARRE + zk-SNARK zero-knowledge compliance, Kafka WORM / Kubernetes / OPA audit architecture); the Sentinel AI v2.4 & G-Stack civilizational-assurance architecture (OPA guardrails, GIEN telemetry, Sovereign API Gateway, hardware kill switch, zero-trust Kubernetes/Kafka/OPA backbone, PQC WORM telemetry; the 10-layer G-Stack — GAIRDS, GRI, CEE, NSNs, CESE, GROP, GHP, GSRM, GEA, Meta-Endgame; formal verification via TLA+/Coq/Rego/zk-SNARK CAS-SPP; failure-surface compendia, stress-test & simulation frameworks, lifecycle-integrity & perpetual-assurance protocols; jurisdiction-aware anticipatory compliance for a multipolar world); and the 2026-2035 implementation roadmap & master reference (SIP v2.4 Sentinel Implementation Protocol with gated GitOps, G-SRI Basel-style AI stress testing, the Red Dawn AGI-crisis chaos-engineering programme, Autonomous Supervisory Agents & fiduciary controls, article-level regulatory mapping for EU AI Act Articles 48/71/72 + SR 26-2 + HKMA Fintech 2030 with OSCAL annexes, CI/CD OPA/TLA+/zk proof harnesses, and a 2026-2030 roadmap extended through 2035).', + description: 'Unified 2026-2035 AGI/ASI technical governance, safety, containment and civilizational-security blueprint for G-SIFIs: the comprehensive master synthesis (regulatory mapping, reference architectures, AGI/ASI safety, the 15 ICGC mechanisms, financial-services MRM, roadmap and <title>/<abstract>/<content> report sections); the formal-assurance layer (BBOM, Unified Meta-Invariant Framework with TLA+/Coq/Q#, AGI Containment Labs with CAS-SPP + Bayesian Belief Networks, ARRE + zk-SNARK zero-knowledge compliance, Kafka WORM / Kubernetes / OPA audit architecture); the Sentinel AI v2.4 & G-Stack civilizational-assurance architecture (OPA guardrails, GIEN telemetry, Sovereign API Gateway, hardware kill switch, zero-trust Kubernetes/Kafka/OPA backbone, PQC WORM telemetry; the 10-layer G-Stack — GAIRDS, GRI, CEE, NSNs, CESE, GROP, GHP, GSRM, GEA, Meta-Endgame; formal verification via TLA+/Coq/Rego/zk-SNARK CAS-SPP; failure-surface compendia, stress-test & simulation frameworks, lifecycle-integrity & perpetual-assurance protocols; jurisdiction-aware anticipatory compliance for a multipolar world); and the 2026-2035 implementation roadmap & master reference (SIP v2.4 Sentinel Implementation Protocol with gated GitOps, G-SRI Basel-style AI stress testing, the Red Dawn AGI-crisis chaos-engineering programme, Autonomous Supervisory Agents & fiduciary controls, article-level regulatory mapping for EU AI Act Articles 48/71/72 + SR 26-2 + HKMA Fintech 2030 with OSCAL annexes, CI/CD OPA/TLA+/zk proof harnesses, and a 2026-2030 roadmap extended through 2035); and the formal cryptographic-bridge & research apex (GC-IR compiling TLA+ safety/liveness invariants — including Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers — into zk-SNARK/zk-STARK circuits with proven semantic preservation, recursive / proof-carrying compliance via IVC/folding with rolling 5-minute proof windows feeding G-SRI, the SystemicRiskAggregator Circom/Groth16 pipeline with trusted-setup MPC and SnarkPack aggregation and verification-key management, OSCAL proof extensions bound by Merkle evidence commitments with deterministic audit replay and TPM attestation, federated zk compliance for EU AI Act financial supervision, and the research-level synthesis of epistemic universality, epistemic singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability science and continuity-survivability architectures).', modules: [ { name: 'Civilizational AGI/ASI Master Synthesis 2026-2030', api: '/api/civ-agi-master-synthesis-2030', dashboard: '/civ-agi-master-synthesis-2030.html', docRef: 'CIV-AGI-MASTER-SYNTHESIS-2030-WP-062', endpoints: 60 }, { name: 'WRE + Sentinel Implementation & G-SIB Executive Evaluation', api: '/api/wre-sentinel-impl-gsib-eval', dashboard: '/wre-sentinel-impl-gsib-eval.html', docRef: 'WRE-SENTINEL-IMPL-GSIB-EVAL-WP-063', endpoints: 26 }, { name: 'G-SIFI AGI/ASI Formal Governance (BBOM/UMIF/CAS-SPP+BBN/ARRE+zk-SNARK)', api: '/api/gsifi-agi-formal-gov-2030', dashboard: '/gsifi-agi-formal-gov-2030.html', docRef: 'GSIFI-AGI-FORMAL-GOV-2030-WP-064', endpoints: 25 }, { name: 'Sentinel v2.4 & G-Stack Civilizational-Assurance (GAIRDS/GRI/CEE/NSNs/CESE/GROP/GHP/GSRM/GEA/Meta-Endgame)', api: '/api/sentinel-gstack-gsifi-2030', dashboard: '/sentinel-gstack-gsifi-2030.html', docRef: 'SENTINEL-GSTACK-GSIFI-2030-WP-065', endpoints: 24 }, - { name: 'Enterprise AGI/ASI Implementation Roadmap 2026-2035 (SIP v2.4, G-SRI, Red Dawn, Autonomous Supervisory Agents, OSCAL annexes)', api: '/api/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035', dashboard: '/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035.html', docRef: 'SIP-GSRI-REDDAWN-2035-WP-066', endpoints: 24 } + { name: 'Enterprise AGI/ASI Implementation Roadmap 2026-2035 (SIP v2.4, G-SRI, Red Dawn, Autonomous Supervisory Agents, OSCAL annexes)', api: '/api/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035', dashboard: '/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035.html', docRef: 'SIP-GSRI-REDDAWN-2035-WP-066', endpoints: 24 }, + { name: 'GC-IR Formal Cryptographic Bridge, Recursive zk-Proof Attestation & Recoverability Synthesis 2026-2035 (TLA+->zk-SNARK/zk-STARK, Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers, SystemicRiskAggregator/Groth16/MPC/SnarkPack, OSCAL proof extensions, federated zk, epistemic universality/singularity)', api: '/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035', dashboard: '/gcir-zk-recursive-2035.html', docRef: 'GCIR-ZK-RECURSIVE-2035-WP-067', endpoints: 27 } ], keyEndpoints: [ '/api/civ-agi-master-synthesis-2030/regimes', @@ -12723,10 +12724,17 @@ app.get('/api/governance-index', (_, res) => res.json({ '/api/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035/red-dawn-scenarios', '/api/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035/supervisory-agents', '/api/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035/reg-article-mappings', - '/api/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035/roadmap-phases' + '/api/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035/roadmap-phases', + '/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/tla-invariants', + '/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/gcir-bridges', + '/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/zk-circuits', + '/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/proof-pipelines', + '/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/oscal-proof-extensions', + '/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/research-syntheses', + '/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/report-sections' ], - formalAssurance: ['BBOM (Behavioral Bill of Materials)', 'UMIF — TLA+ / Coq / Q# meta-invariants', 'CAS-SPP staged containment promotion', 'Bayesian Belief Network systemic-risk gating', 'ARRE Annex-IV reporting', 'zk-SNARK zero-knowledge compliance proofs', 'Kafka WORM / Kubernetes / OPA audit architecture', 'Sentinel v2.4 OPA/GIEN/Sovereign-Gateway/kill-switch stack', 'G-Stack 10-layer perpetual civilizational assurance (GAIRDS/GRI/CEE/NSNs/CESE/GROP/GHP/GSRM/GEA/Meta-Endgame)', 'TLA+/Coq/Rego + zk-SNARK CAS-SPP formal verification', 'Failure-surface compendia, stress-test & simulation frameworks', 'Lifecycle-integrity & perpetual-assurance protocols', 'Jurisdiction-aware anticipatory compliance (multipolar)', 'SIP v2.4 gated GitOps spec<->production conformance', 'G-SRI Basel-style AI stress testing (BBOM/BBN-fed)', 'Red Dawn AGI-crisis chaos-engineering programme', 'Autonomous Supervisory Agents within OPA envelope', 'Article-level OSCAL annexes (EU AI Act Art 48/71/72, SR 26-2, HKMA Fintech 2030)'], - regulatoryRefs: ['EU AI Act 2024/1689 (Annex IV; Articles 48/61/71/72)', 'NIST AI RMF 1.0', 'NIST AI 600-1', 'ISO/IEC 42001', 'OECD AI Principles', 'GDPR Art. 22', 'FCRA/ECOA', 'Basel III/IV', 'SR 11-7', 'SR 26-2', 'DORA', 'NIS2', 'FCA SMCR/Consumer Duty', 'MAS FEAT', 'HKMA FEAT/Fintech 2030'], + formalAssurance: ['BBOM (Behavioral Bill of Materials)', 'UMIF — TLA+ / Coq / Q# meta-invariants', 'CAS-SPP staged containment promotion', 'Bayesian Belief Network systemic-risk gating', 'ARRE Annex-IV reporting', 'zk-SNARK zero-knowledge compliance proofs', 'Kafka WORM / Kubernetes / OPA audit architecture', 'Sentinel v2.4 OPA/GIEN/Sovereign-Gateway/kill-switch stack', 'G-Stack 10-layer perpetual civilizational assurance (GAIRDS/GRI/CEE/NSNs/CESE/GROP/GHP/GSRM/GEA/Meta-Endgame)', 'TLA+/Coq/Rego + zk-SNARK CAS-SPP formal verification', 'Failure-surface compendia, stress-test & simulation frameworks', 'Lifecycle-integrity & perpetual-assurance protocols', 'Jurisdiction-aware anticipatory compliance (multipolar)', 'SIP v2.4 gated GitOps spec<->production conformance', 'G-SRI Basel-style AI stress testing (BBOM/BBN-fed)', 'Red Dawn AGI-crisis chaos-engineering programme', 'Autonomous Supervisory Agents within OPA envelope', 'Article-level OSCAL annexes (EU AI Act Art 48/71/72, SR 26-2, HKMA Fintech 2030)', 'GC-IR formal bridge (TLA+ -> zk-SNARK/zk-STARK with semantic-preservation proofs, incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers)', 'Recursive / proof-carrying compliance (IVC/folding) with rolling 5-minute proof windows feeding G-SRI', 'SystemicRiskAggregator Circom/Groth16 + trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack aggregation + VK management', 'OSCAL proof extensions + Merkle evidence commitments + deterministic audit replay + TPM attestation binding', 'Federated zk compliance for EU AI Act financial supervision (zero raw-data disclosure)', 'Research apex: epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability & continuity-survivability'], + regulatoryRefs: ['EU AI Act 2024/1689 (Annex IV; Articles 48/61/71/72)', 'NIST AI RMF 1.0', 'NIST AI 600-1', 'ISO/IEC 42001', 'OECD AI Principles', 'GDPR Art. 22', 'FCRA/ECOA', 'Basel III/IV', 'SR 11-7', 'SR 26-2', 'DORA', 'NIS2', 'FCA SMCR/Consumer Duty', 'MAS FEAT', 'HKMA FEAT/Fintech 2030', 'NIST PQC standards (crypto-agility / STARK transparency / continuity-survivability)'], horizon: '2026-2035' } ], @@ -12753,14 +12761,15 @@ app.get('/api/governance-index', (_, res) => res.json({ { ref: 'WRE-SENTINEL-IMPL-GSIB-EVAL-WP-063', title: 'WRE + Sentinel Implementation & G-SIB Executive Evaluation', path: '/wre-sentinel-impl-gsib-eval.html' }, { ref: 'GSIFI-AGI-FORMAL-GOV-2030-WP-064', title: 'G-SIFI AGI/ASI Formal Governance (BBOM/UMIF/CAS-SPP+BBN/ARRE+zk-SNARK) 2026-2030', path: '/gsifi-agi-formal-gov-2030.html' }, { ref: 'SENTINEL-GSTACK-GSIFI-2030-WP-065', title: 'Sentinel AI v2.4 & G-Stack Civilizational-Assurance Architecture for AGI/ASI Governance in G-SIFIs 2026-2030', path: '/sentinel-gstack-gsifi-2030.html' }, - { ref: 'SIP-GSRI-REDDAWN-2035-WP-066', title: 'Enterprise AGI/ASI Governance Implementation Roadmap & Master Reference 2026-2035 (SIP v2.4, G-SRI, Red Dawn, Autonomous Supervisory Agents, OSCAL annexes)', path: '/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035.html' } + { ref: 'SIP-GSRI-REDDAWN-2035-WP-066', title: 'Enterprise AGI/ASI Governance Implementation Roadmap & Master Reference 2026-2035 (SIP v2.4, G-SRI, Red Dawn, Autonomous Supervisory Agents, OSCAL annexes)', path: '/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035.html' }, + { ref: 'GCIR-ZK-RECURSIVE-2035-WP-067', title: 'GC-IR Formal Cryptographic Bridge, Recursive zk-Proof Attestation & Civilizational Recoverability Synthesis 2026-2035 (TLA+->zk-SNARK/zk-STARK, SystemicRiskAggregator, federated zk, research apex)', path: '/gcir-zk-recursive-2035.html' } ], dashboards: { - count: 41, + count: 42, governance: ['/governance-index.html', '/practitioner-master-reference.html', '/agi-governance-master-blueprint.html', '/kafka-acl-governance.html', '/governance-architectures-frameworks.html', '/gsifi-governance.html', '/gsifi-practitioner-guide.html', '/six-layer-governance.html'], strategy: ['/enterprise-ai-strategy-g2k.html', '/master-reference.html', '/unified-master-reference.html', '/ai-strategy-report.html'], safety: ['/agi-governance.html', '/asi-preparedness.html', '/agi-governance-unified.html'], - strategicSynthesis2030: ['/civ-agi-master-synthesis-2030.html', '/wre-sentinel-impl-gsib-eval.html', '/gsifi-agi-formal-gov-2030.html', '/sentinel-gstack-gsifi-2030.html', '/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035.html'], + strategicSynthesis2030: ['/civ-agi-master-synthesis-2030.html', '/wre-sentinel-impl-gsib-eval.html', '/gsifi-agi-formal-gov-2030.html', '/sentinel-gstack-gsifi-2030.html', '/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035.html', '/gcir-zk-recursive-2035.html'], platform: ['/index.html', '/eaip-specification.html', '/ciso-roadmap.html', '/ciso-report.html'], indexUrl: '/' }, @@ -12772,11 +12781,11 @@ app.get('/api/governance-index', (_, res) => res.json({ templates: { count: 4, formats: ['Terraform JSON', 'GitHub Actions YAML', 'Python CLI', 'Drift Config JSON'], path: '/artifacts/templates/' } }, platformStats: { - totalEndpoints: 748, - totalDataObjects: 27, - totalReports: 24, - totalDashboards: 39, - totalArtifacts: 32, + totalEndpoints: 775, + totalDataObjects: 28, + totalReports: 25, + totalDashboards: 40, + totalArtifacts: 33, totalOpaRules: 280, totalSentinelRules: 952, dailyPolicyEvaluations: '1.4M', @@ -12803,7 +12812,7 @@ app.get('/api/governance-index/pillars', (_, res) => { { id: 'P6', name: 'Frontier AGI Safety & Trust-by-Design', primaryApi: '/api/agi-governance-master-blueprint/agi-safety' }, { id: 'P7', name: 'AGI Governance Master Blueprint', primaryApi: '/api/agi-governance-master-blueprint' }, { id: 'P8', name: 'Kafka ACL Governance & Continuous Compliance Engine', primaryApi: '/api/kafka-acl-governance' }, - { id: 'P9', name: '2026-2035 Strategic Synthesis, Formal Assurance & Implementation (G-SIFI)', primaryApi: '/api/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035' } + { id: 'P9', name: '2026-2035 Strategic Synthesis, Formal Assurance & Implementation (G-SIFI)', primaryApi: '/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035' } ] }); }); @@ -25670,6 +25679,133 @@ app.get('/api/sip-gsri-reddawn-2035/evidence-pack', (_req, res) => res.json(SIP6 // ===================== END WP-066 ===================== +// ===================== WP-067: GC-IR Formal Cryptographic Bridge, Recursive zk-Proof Attestation & Civilizational Recoverability Synthesis 2026-2035 — GC-IR (TLA+ -> zk-SNARK/zk-STARK with semantic preservation, incl. Liveness_KillSwitchTriggers), recursive/proof-carrying compliance with rolling 5-minute windows feeding G-SRI, SystemicRiskAggregator Circom/Groth16 + trusted-setup MPC + SnarkPack aggregation + verification-key management, OSCAL proof extensions + Merkle commitments + deterministic audit replay + TPM attestation binding, federated zk compliance for EU AI Act financial supervision, and the research apex (epistemic universality/singularity, resonance calculi, recoverability, continuity-survivability) ===================== +const GCIR67 = require('./data/gcir-zk-recursive-2035.json'); + +// Page route +app.get('/gcir-zk-recursive-2035', (req, res) => { + res.sendFile(path.join(__dirname, 'public', 'gcir-zk-recursive-2035.html')); +}); + +// Summary + meta endpoints +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/summary', (req, res) => res.json({ + docRef: GCIR67.docRef, + version: GCIR67.version, + title: GCIR67.title, + horizon: GCIR67.horizon, + apiPrefix: GCIR67.apiPrefix, + buildsOn: GCIR67.buildsOn, + status: GCIR67.status, + classification: GCIR67.classification, + counts: GCIR67.counts, +})); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/directive', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.directive)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/audiences', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.audiences)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/indices', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.indices)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/tiers', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.tiers)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/severities', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.severities)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/investment', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.investment)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/counts', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.counts)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/executive-summary', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.executiveSummary)); + +// Modules +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/modules', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.modules)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/modules/:id', (req, res) => { + const m = GCIR67.modules.find(x => x.mid === req.params.id); + if (!m) return res.status(404).json({ error: 'module not found', id: req.params.id }); + res.json(m); +}); + +// TLA+ invariants -> zk circuits (M1) +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/tla-invariants', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.tlaInvariants)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/tla-invariants/:id', (req, res) => { + const t = GCIR67.tlaInvariants.find(x => x.tiid === req.params.id); + if (!t) return res.status(404).json({ error: 'tla invariant not found', id: req.params.id }); + res.json(t); +}); + +// GC-IR bridge stages (M1) +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/gcir-bridges', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.gcirBridges)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/gcir-bridges/:id', (req, res) => { + const b = GCIR67.gcirBridges.find(x => x.gbid === req.params.id); + if (!b) return res.status(404).json({ error: 'gcir bridge not found', id: req.params.id }); + res.json(b); +}); + +// zk circuits (M2/M3) +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/zk-circuits', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.zkCircuits)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/zk-circuits/:id', (req, res) => { + const c = GCIR67.zkCircuits.find(x => x.zcid === req.params.id); + if (!c) return res.status(404).json({ error: 'zk circuit not found', id: req.params.id }); + res.json(c); +}); + +// Recursive proof pipelines (M2/M3) +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/proof-pipelines', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.proofPipelines)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/proof-pipelines/:id', (req, res) => { + const p = GCIR67.proofPipelines.find(x => x.ppid === req.params.id); + if (!p) return res.status(404).json({ error: 'proof pipeline not found', id: req.params.id }); + res.json(p); +}); + +// OSCAL proof extensions (M4) +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/oscal-proof-extensions', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.oscalProofExtensions)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/oscal-proof-extensions/:id', (req, res) => { + const o = GCIR67.oscalProofExtensions.find(x => x.opid === req.params.id); + if (!o) return res.status(404).json({ error: 'oscal proof extension not found', id: req.params.id }); + res.json(o); +}); + +// Evidence ingestion pipelines (M4) +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/evidence-pipelines', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.evidencePipelines)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/evidence-pipelines/:id', (req, res) => { + const ep = GCIR67.evidencePipelines.find(x => x.epid === req.params.id); + if (!ep) return res.status(404).json({ error: 'evidence pipeline not found', id: req.params.id }); + res.json(ep); +}); + +// Research apex syntheses (M7) +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/research-syntheses', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.researchSyntheses)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/research-syntheses/:id', (req, res) => { + const r = GCIR67.researchSyntheses.find(x => x.rsyid === req.params.id); + if (!r) return res.status(404).json({ error: 'research synthesis not found', id: req.params.id }); + res.json(r); +}); + +// Roadmap phases 2026-2035 +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/roadmap-phases', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.roadmapPhases)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/roadmap-phases/:id', (req, res) => { + const r = GCIR67.roadmapPhases.find(x => x.rpid === req.params.id); + if (!r) return res.status(404).json({ error: 'roadmap phase not found', id: req.params.id }); + res.json(r); +}); + +// Report sections (M8) — <title>/<abstract>/<content> +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/report-sections', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.reportSections)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/report-sections/:id', (req, res) => { + const rs = GCIR67.reportSections.find(x => x.rsid === req.params.id); + if (!rs) return res.status(404).json({ error: 'report section not found', id: req.params.id }); + res.json(rs); +}); + +// Standard artifact endpoints +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/schemas', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.schemas)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/code', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.code)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/kpis', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.kpis)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/risk-control-matrix', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.riskControlMatrix)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/traceability', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.traceability)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/data-flows', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.dataFlows)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/regulators', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.regulators)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/regulators/:name', (req, res) => { + const r = GCIR67.regulators.find(x => x.name.toLowerCase() === decodeURIComponent(req.params.name).toLowerCase()); + if (!r) return res.status(404).json({ error: 'regulator not found', name: req.params.name }); + res.json(r); +}); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/rollout-90', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.rollout90)); +app.get('/api/gcir-zk-recursive-2035/evidence-pack', (req, res) => res.json(GCIR67.evidencePack)); + +// ===================== END WP-067 ===================== + // SECTION 10: START SERVER // ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════