Minimal prototype for deterministic execution, transition verification, governance continuity, and independently falsifiable proof artifacts.
DigiEmu Proof defines a minimal, verifiable standard for reconstructing and validating AI execution paths under deterministic conditions.
It focuses on:
- deterministic state reconstruction
- canonical state hashing
- transition receipts
- chain continuity
- proof envelopes
- governance drift detection
- independently derived PASS / FAIL outcomes
same input → same reconstructed state → same hash
valid execution ≠ coherent execution
A local transition can be valid while the larger composition or governance chain still fails.
declared continuity ≠ verified continuity
A governance record can declare continuity while DigiEmu Proof independently returns FAIL if verification anchors drift without explicit override.
boundary mapping ≠ trust merger
A governance system can declare what happened, while DigiEmu Proof verifies whether the declared continuity still holds.
flowchart LR
A[Intent] --> B[Policy Evaluation]
B --> C[Deterministic Action]
C --> D[Transition Receipt]
D --> E[Canonical State]
E --> F[Hash SHA-256]
F --> G[Replay]
G --> H[Verification PASS/FAIL]
flowchart LR
S0[State₀] --> R[Receipt]
R --> S1[State₁]
S0 -->|hash| H0[prev_state_hash]
S1 -->|hash| H1[next_state_hash]
flowchart LR
S0 --> S1 --> S2 --> S3
R1[receipt₁]
R2[receipt₂]
R3[receipt₃]
S0 --> R1 --> S1
S1 --> R2 --> S2
S2 --> R3 --> S3
len(receipts) == len(states) - 1
receipt[i].prev_state_hash == hash(states[i])
receipt[i].next_state_hash == hash(states[i+1])
flowchart TB
S0[Prev State] --> R[Execution Receipt]
R --> S1[Next State]
R --> D[Decision Layer]
D --> E[Proof Envelope]
E --> H[Envelope Hash]
- execution correctness
- decision authorization
- cryptographic binding
- verification-grade evidence
flowchart TB
A[Canonical State]
B[Verification Edge]
C[Governance Authority]
D[External World]
A --> B
B --> C
C --> D
- what is reconstructable
- what is externally attested
- what is governance-authorized
- what is outside scope
flowchart LR
E0[Envelope₀] --> L1[Link]
L1 --> E1[Envelope₁]
E1 --> L2[Link]
L2 --> E2[Envelope₂]
- envelope hash continuity
- authority context continuity
- policy set continuity
- capability scope continuity
- dependency scope continuity
- temporal sequence correctness
flowchart TB
A[Envelope Chain] --> B[Sequence Validation]
B --> C[Duplicate Detection]
C --> D[Link Validation]
D --> E[Tamper Detection]
E --> F[FAIL or PASS]
- strict sequence validation
- no gaps allowed
- monotonic ordering
- duplicate envelope detection
- required link field validation
Validates that a sequence of transitions forms a deterministic, unbroken chain.
- each transition independently valid
- receipt ordering preserved
- state hash continuity enforced
- chain length invariant
receipt[i].PrevStateHash == hash(states[i])
receipt[i].NextStateHash == hash(states[i+1])
len(receipts) == len(states) - 1
- tampered intermediate states
- reordered receipts
- missing transitions
- broken continuity
Verifies that receipt references resolve inside the declared verification context.
input_refexistspolicy_refexistsoutput_refexists
missing reference → FAIL
unknown reference → FAIL
The governance cases demonstrate that valid local execution does not guarantee coherent governance composition.
- Case 001 — Policy Drift
- Case 002 — Authority Drift
- Case 003 — Declared Policy Evolution
- Case 004 — Policy Fingerprint Dependency Mutation
- undeclared drift → FAIL
- declared evolution → PASS
- hidden context mutation → FAIL
- surface-level continuity can fail under dependency mutation
Case 005 demonstrates the boundary between declared governance continuity and independently verified continuity.
AIPA-like Governance Record:
What was declared?
DigiEmu Proof:
Can the declared continuity be independently verified?
declared continuity ≠ verified continuity
A governance record may declare inherited continuity, while DigiEmu Proof can independently return FAIL when verification anchors drift without explicit override.
The AIPA mapping work shows how an AIPA-like governance declaration can remain separate from, but compatible with, DigiEmu Proof continuity verification.
This is a mapping artifact, not product integration.
AIPA says what was declared.
DigiEmu Proof says whether that declaration still holds.
- AIPA Governance Record Sample
- DigiEmu Case 005 Mapping Sample
- AIPA Governance Record to Case 005 Mapping
authority_contextis an AIPA governance declarationauthority_anchoris DigiEmu verification evidenceexported_at,source_system,approval_timestamp, andexport_formatare audit metadata by default- AIPA review / approval state remains a governance declaration
- DigiEmu PASS / FAIL remains independently derived
boundary mapping ≠ trust merger
valid execution → PASS
invalid execution → FAIL
undeclared drift → FAIL
declared override → PASS
anchor mutation under inherit → FAIL
Failure is reproducible.
- no timestamps inside deterministic hash boundaries
- no randomness
- no hidden state
- no nondeterministic outputs
inside hash → deterministic state
outside hash → environment / metadata / audit context
state → transition → state → replay → verification
Supports:
- traceability
- reproducibility
- auditability
- governance enforcement
- independently verifiable execution evidence
Deterministic Knowledge Infrastructure
- v0.1.0 — execution proof
- v0.2 — boundary model
- v0.6 — transitions
- v0.7 — chain integrity
- v0.8 — receipts
- v0.9 — decision surface
- v0.10 — proof envelope
- v0.11 — external dependency boundary
- v0.12 — composition integrity
- v0.12.1 — composition hardening
- v0.13 — continuity boundary
- v0.14 — reference integrity
- v0.15 — governance cases: policy + authority
- v0.16 — policy fingerprint dependency mutation
- v0.17.0 — governance record boundary implementation
- v0.17.1 — case 005 documentation and sample artifact
- v0.18.0 — AIPA governance record mapping
- v0.18.1 — boundary semantics cleanup
Bruno Baumgartner
DigiEmu
Gregory Whited
Please attribute:
DigiEmu / Bruno Baumgartner