8e3a850a2c
Tool Authority Demo (#688) was still tagged 'draft PR / in review' but it
merged at c55f7dfb. Hybrid Verification Demo (#687) lacked the claims-authority
framing and the agreement-is-not-safety finding. Reposition both as merged
evidence, name the next public evidence target, and align epistemic-state vocab.
- #687 = authority over claims; #688 = authority over proposed tool actions.
- Removed stale 'In progress / draft PR / in review' status on #688.
- Added explicit next-target ordering: Epistemic Truth-State -> Embodied
Authority Simulation -> SaaS/On-Prem Boundary.
- No named-company, outreach, or production/robotics overclaims introduced.
146 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
146 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
# 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 (#687 — authority over claims)
|
|
|
|
Status: merged (PR #687).
|
|
|
|
Purpose: demonstrate a bounded proposer-to-substrate verification path with typed outcomes. A model-style proposer submits a claim; the substrate, not the proposer, decides the typed outcome.
|
|
|
|
Hard finding recorded by this demo: agreement between reasoning paths is not reliable safety. Multiple paths can agree and still be wrong. Authority must live at the typed boundary, not merely in multiple model outputs.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
### Tool Authority Demo (#688 — authority over proposed tool actions)
|
|
|
|
Status: merged (PR #688, merge commit `c55f7dfb`).
|
|
|
|
Purpose: demonstrate that a model-style proposer may submit a typed action proposal, while CORE alone may authorize, ask, refuse, or invalidate. The authorized output is an inert `licensed_action` artifact only; no external side effect executes and the proposer holds no execution authority.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Recommended order of next public evidence:
|
|
|
|
1. Epistemic Truth-State Demo (next target);
|
|
2. Embodied Authority Simulation Demo (simulation-only);
|
|
3. SaaS / On-Prem Boundary Demo.
|
|
|
|
Merged evidence so far establishes two authority boundaries: authority over claims (#687) and authority over proposed tool actions (#688). The next target extends the same pattern to epistemic state.
|
|
|
|
### Epistemic Truth-State Demo (next public evidence target)
|
|
|
|
Status: proposed.
|
|
|
|
Purpose: show that a model-style proposer can submit a claim, answer, or state proposal, but CORE assigns the typed epistemic state and emits deterministic, replayable evidence. The proposer controls neither the assigned state nor the trace.
|
|
|
|
Possible states (illustrative; the implementing PR fixes the closed set):
|
|
|
|
- `perceived`;
|
|
- `evidenced`;
|
|
- `verified`;
|
|
- `decoded`;
|
|
- `inferred`;
|
|
- `refused`;
|
|
- `undetermined`;
|
|
- `scope_boundary`;
|
|
- `invalid`.
|
|
|
|
Possible outputs:
|
|
|
|
- state ledger entry;
|
|
- evidence / provenance spans;
|
|
- deterministic trace hash;
|
|
- `ask` or refusal when evidence is insufficient;
|
|
- no proposer-controlled state;
|
|
- no proposer-controlled trace;
|
|
- `invalid` rejected before state evaluation.
|
|
|
|
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."
|