docs(planning): remove private outreach strategy from public repo
This commit is contained in:
Shay
parent
dda4cddfda
commit
05133fd88b
5 changed files with 174 additions and 480 deletions
|
|
@ -1,127 +0,0 @@
|
|||
# Anthropic Authority Substrate Readiness Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Status: Active
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 1 — Proof Capture
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Final #687 post-merge verification report
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Capture:
|
||||
- merge SHA
|
||||
- CI checks
|
||||
- smoke status
|
||||
- lane SHA status
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Create proof-stack summary for:
|
||||
- #684
|
||||
- #685
|
||||
- #686
|
||||
- #687
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Freeze demo artifacts
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 2 — Demo Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Capture verified scenario
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Capture refused disagreement scenario
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Capture ASK scenario
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Capture outside-envelope refusal scenario
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Capture invalid smuggling scenario
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Save terminal outputs
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Save screenshots
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Produce evidence packet
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 3 — Documentation
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Update executive deck
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Update whitepaper
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Update security architecture
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Update partnership memo
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Create executive summary
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 4 — Research Paper
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Claim audit
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Related work expansion
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] SaaS/on-prem section
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] #687 implementation artifact section
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Future demo roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] arXiv packaging
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 5 — Outreach
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Daniela email final
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Technical reviewer email
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Follow-up sequence
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Contact package assembled
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 6 — Red Team
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Anthropic Safety review
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] MCP review
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] IPO/legal-risk review
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Skeptical academic review
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Overclaim audit
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 7 — Next Demo
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Tool Authority Demo design
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Tool Authority Demo implementation
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Tool Authority Demo review
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Tool Authority Demo evidence packet
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Exit Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
Ready when:
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Packet complete
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Demo evidence complete
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Paper complete
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Objections answered
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Outreach package assembled
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,238 +0,0 @@
|
|||
# CORE Authority Substrate Outreach Plan
|
||||
|
||||
Last Updated: 2026-06-11
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Mission
|
||||
|
||||
Prepare CORE for serious engagement with:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Anthropic
|
||||
2. xAI
|
||||
3. Tesla
|
||||
4. SpaceX-adjacent AI organizations
|
||||
5. Frontier-model safety researchers
|
||||
6. Infrastructure and agent-platform teams
|
||||
|
||||
The goal is not marketing.
|
||||
|
||||
The goal is to demonstrate that:
|
||||
|
||||
- stochastic intelligence does not require stochastic authority
|
||||
- frontier models can remain semantic engines
|
||||
- deterministic authority boundaries can govern verification, refusal, ASK, tool use, and future embodied actions
|
||||
- replayable traces provide auditable evidence of the decision path
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Core Thesis
|
||||
|
||||
CORE is not competing with frontier models.
|
||||
|
||||
CORE is a deterministic authority substrate.
|
||||
|
||||
The model proposes.
|
||||
|
||||
The substrate decides.
|
||||
|
||||
The trace proves.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Current Demonstrated State
|
||||
|
||||
## PR #684
|
||||
|
||||
Semantic-state ledger reland.
|
||||
|
||||
Proves:
|
||||
|
||||
- semantic-state representation separated from authority surfaces
|
||||
- behavior-preserving refactor
|
||||
- verifier/pool remain sole commit authority
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## PR #685
|
||||
|
||||
Candidate-source boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
Proves:
|
||||
|
||||
- ledger-to-candidate generation isolated behind a formal boundary
|
||||
- future semantic-state work can proceed without authority leakage
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## PR #686
|
||||
|
||||
Replay/provenance equivalence harness.
|
||||
|
||||
Proves:
|
||||
|
||||
- 937-problem canonical trace artifact
|
||||
- replay-faithfulness checks
|
||||
- authority-violation detection
|
||||
- durable equivalence evidence
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## PR #687
|
||||
|
||||
Claude-to-CORE Hybrid Verification Demo.
|
||||
|
||||
Proves:
|
||||
|
||||
- model proposal can be separated from authority
|
||||
- verified / refused / ask / invalid outcomes
|
||||
- deterministic artifact validation
|
||||
- tamper-sensitive behavior
|
||||
- no proposer execution authority
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Outreach Tracks
|
||||
|
||||
## Track A — Anthropic
|
||||
|
||||
Focus:
|
||||
|
||||
- safety
|
||||
- trust
|
||||
- MCP
|
||||
- agent reliability
|
||||
- authority boundaries
|
||||
- auditable traces
|
||||
|
||||
Deliverables:
|
||||
|
||||
- executive summary
|
||||
- updated deck
|
||||
- hybrid verification demo packet
|
||||
- research paper
|
||||
- objections and responses
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Track B — xAI
|
||||
|
||||
Focus:
|
||||
|
||||
- truth-seeking AI
|
||||
- epistemic states
|
||||
- deterministic verification
|
||||
- local authority boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
Deliverables:
|
||||
|
||||
- xAI one-pager
|
||||
- truth-seeking framing memo
|
||||
- epistemic-state demo roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Track C — Tesla / Embodied Systems
|
||||
|
||||
Focus:
|
||||
|
||||
- embodied authority
|
||||
- local execution authority
|
||||
- deterministic action gating
|
||||
- replayable transitions
|
||||
|
||||
Deliverables:
|
||||
|
||||
- embodied-authority research memo
|
||||
- simulation-only authority demo
|
||||
- transition-admission model
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Demo Roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
Completed:
|
||||
|
||||
- Hybrid Verification Demo (#687)
|
||||
|
||||
Planned:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Tool Authority Demo
|
||||
2. Embodied Authority Simulation Demo
|
||||
3. SaaS-Control / On-Prem-Authority Demo
|
||||
4. Domain Admission Demo
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Research Roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
1. Authority substrates
|
||||
2. Tool authority
|
||||
3. Epistemic-state systems
|
||||
4. Embodied authority
|
||||
5. Distributed authority boundaries
|
||||
6. Human-in-the-loop authority transitions
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Documentation Roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
1. Executive summary
|
||||
2. Research paper v0.2
|
||||
3. Demo evidence packet
|
||||
4. Security architecture update
|
||||
5. Anthropic packet
|
||||
6. xAI packet
|
||||
7. Embodied authority memo
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Model Allocation Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
Fable:
|
||||
|
||||
- architecture
|
||||
- red-team review
|
||||
- multimodal planning
|
||||
- embodied authority design
|
||||
|
||||
Sonnet:
|
||||
|
||||
- implementation
|
||||
- documentation
|
||||
- reviews
|
||||
- verification
|
||||
|
||||
Opus:
|
||||
|
||||
- audits
|
||||
- deep reviews
|
||||
- merge recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
ChatGPT:
|
||||
|
||||
- strategy
|
||||
- packet shaping
|
||||
- outreach framing
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
Anthropic:
|
||||
|
||||
- technical review conversation
|
||||
- partnership exploration
|
||||
- research discussion
|
||||
|
||||
xAI:
|
||||
|
||||
- technical review
|
||||
- truth-seeking discussion
|
||||
- embodied-authority interest
|
||||
|
||||
Research:
|
||||
|
||||
- arXiv-quality paper
|
||||
- reproducible demos
|
||||
- auditable artifacts
|
||||
47
docs/planning/DEMO-PACKAGING-CHECKLIST.md
Normal file
47
docs/planning/DEMO-PACKAGING-CHECKLIST.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
|
|||
# Public Demo Packaging Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
This checklist applies to public CORE demos.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Demo purpose is stated narrowly.
|
||||
- [ ] Demo status is clear: merged, draft PR, proposed, or not yet implemented.
|
||||
- [ ] README includes "what this proves."
|
||||
- [ ] README includes "what this does not prove."
|
||||
- [ ] README avoids named-company outreach strategy.
|
||||
- [ ] README avoids funding, sponsorship, runway, or executive-packet language.
|
||||
|
||||
## Safety boundary
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] No real external side effects.
|
||||
- [ ] No network dependency.
|
||||
- [ ] No model API dependency.
|
||||
- [ ] No shell execution unless the demo explicitly exists to test shell-denial behavior.
|
||||
- [ ] No production MCP claim.
|
||||
- [ ] MCP-shaped interfaces are described as MCP-shaped, not production MCP.
|
||||
- [ ] Simulation-only demos are labeled simulation-only.
|
||||
- [ ] Proposed demos are not described as implemented.
|
||||
|
||||
## Determinism
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Runner output is deterministic.
|
||||
- [ ] Expected artifacts are pinned.
|
||||
- [ ] Double-run behavior is byte-identical where applicable.
|
||||
- [ ] Trace hashes are deterministic.
|
||||
- [ ] No timestamp, random, host-path, or environment-dependent output appears in expected artifacts.
|
||||
|
||||
## Authority boundary
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Proposer input cannot set final authority status.
|
||||
- [ ] Proposer input cannot smuggle final action artifacts.
|
||||
- [ ] Invalid payloads fail closed.
|
||||
- [ ] Refusal and ask outcomes are first-class successes.
|
||||
- [ ] Authorized outputs, if present, are inert artifacts unless a later production system explicitly implements execution.
|
||||
|
||||
## Public hygiene
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] No named-person outreach planning.
|
||||
- [ ] No named-company approach strategy.
|
||||
- [ ] No private red-team personas.
|
||||
- [ ] No speculative current-facts dossiers.
|
||||
- [ ] No claims of robotics, vehicle, aerospace, defense, or safety-certified deployment unless directly implemented and independently verified.
|
||||
127
docs/planning/PUBLIC-DEMO-ROADMAP.md
Normal file
127
docs/planning/PUBLIC-DEMO-ROADMAP.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
|
|||
# Public Demo Roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
This document tracks public, evidence-oriented CORE demos. It intentionally excludes private outreach strategy, named-company planning, fundraising material, and executive packet work.
|
||||
|
||||
## Public boundary
|
||||
|
||||
Public repository docs may describe:
|
||||
|
||||
- implemented demos;
|
||||
- proposed demos;
|
||||
- deterministic test requirements;
|
||||
- trace artifacts;
|
||||
- honesty ledgers;
|
||||
- public-safe architecture boundaries.
|
||||
|
||||
Public repository docs must not include:
|
||||
|
||||
- named-company outreach strategy;
|
||||
- named-person contact plans;
|
||||
- sponsorship or runway asks;
|
||||
- private packet planning;
|
||||
- company-specific red-team personas;
|
||||
- current-facts dossiers for outreach.
|
||||
|
||||
## Demonstrated
|
||||
|
||||
### Hybrid Verification Demo
|
||||
|
||||
Status: merged.
|
||||
|
||||
Purpose: demonstrate a bounded proposer-to-substrate verification path with typed outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
Public outcome vocabulary:
|
||||
|
||||
- `verified`
|
||||
- `refused`
|
||||
- `ask`
|
||||
- `invalid`
|
||||
|
||||
Public safety boundary:
|
||||
|
||||
- no model API;
|
||||
- no network;
|
||||
- no external side effects;
|
||||
- deterministic trace artifacts;
|
||||
- honesty ledger included.
|
||||
|
||||
## In progress
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool Authority Demo
|
||||
|
||||
Status: draft PR / in review.
|
||||
|
||||
Purpose: demonstrate that a model-style proposer may submit a typed action proposal, while CORE alone may authorize, ask, refuse, or invalidate.
|
||||
|
||||
Public outcome vocabulary:
|
||||
|
||||
- `authorized`
|
||||
- `ask`
|
||||
- `refused`
|
||||
- `invalid`
|
||||
|
||||
Public safety boundary:
|
||||
|
||||
- no real tool execution;
|
||||
- no real email sending;
|
||||
- no shell execution;
|
||||
- no network;
|
||||
- inert `licensed_action` artifact only;
|
||||
- MCP-shaped, not production MCP.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed
|
||||
|
||||
### Epistemic Truth-State Demo
|
||||
|
||||
Status: proposed.
|
||||
|
||||
Purpose: make epistemic state transitions visible and replayable in a public-safe demo.
|
||||
|
||||
Possible states include:
|
||||
|
||||
- perceived;
|
||||
- evidenced;
|
||||
- verified;
|
||||
- inferred;
|
||||
- contradicted;
|
||||
- undetermined;
|
||||
- refused;
|
||||
- ask.
|
||||
|
||||
No claim is made here that the full demo is implemented until a PR lands.
|
||||
|
||||
### Embodied Authority Simulation Demo
|
||||
|
||||
Status: proposed, simulation-only.
|
||||
|
||||
Purpose: demonstrate an authority-boundary pattern for model-proposed simulated transitions.
|
||||
|
||||
Public safety boundary:
|
||||
|
||||
- no real robot;
|
||||
- no real actuator;
|
||||
- no vehicle-control claim;
|
||||
- no production robotics claim;
|
||||
- no certified functional-safety claim;
|
||||
- simulation-only fixtures.
|
||||
|
||||
### SaaS / On-Prem Boundary Demo
|
||||
|
||||
Status: proposed.
|
||||
|
||||
Purpose: demonstrate a public-safe split between coordination metadata and local authority decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
No claim is made here that a production SaaS or on-prem deployment exists.
|
||||
|
||||
## Packaging rule
|
||||
|
||||
Each public demo should include:
|
||||
|
||||
- README;
|
||||
- fixtures;
|
||||
- expected outputs;
|
||||
- deterministic runner;
|
||||
- tests;
|
||||
- honesty ledger;
|
||||
- "what this proves";
|
||||
- "what this does not prove."
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,115 +0,0 @@
|
|||
# xAI / Tesla Embodied Authority Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Status: Active
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Mission
|
||||
|
||||
Prepare a second outreach lane focused on:
|
||||
|
||||
- truth-seeking AI
|
||||
- epistemic authority
|
||||
- tool authority
|
||||
- embodied authority
|
||||
- local execution authority
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 1 — Positioning
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Create xAI one-pager
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Create truth-seeking memo
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Create local-authority memo
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Create embodied-authority memo
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 2 — Research
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Formalize embodied authority definition
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Formalize transition admission model
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Define authorized / ask / refused / safe-stop states
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Define replayable transition traces
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Define local authority boundary
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 3 — Demo Design
|
||||
|
||||
Simulation only.
|
||||
|
||||
No robotics controller claims.
|
||||
|
||||
No deployment claims.
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Design embodied-authority demo
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Define scene-state schema
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Define proposed-action schema
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Define authority outcomes
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Define trace artifact format
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Define tamper-evidence checks
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 4 — Demo Scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Authorized low-risk transition
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Confirmation-required transition
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Unsafe transition refusal
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] State-conflict refusal
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Invalid authority smuggling
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 5 — Documentation
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] xAI packet
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Tesla packet
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Research memo
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Demo evidence packet
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Phase 6 — Outreach
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] xAI outreach draft
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Technical reviewer draft
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Objection handling
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] FAQ
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Exit Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
Ready when:
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Research complete
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Demo complete
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Evidence packet complete
|
||||
|
||||
[ ] Outreach package complete
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue