# Web4 Implementation Status

**Last Updated**: February 26, 2026
**Current Phase**: Research Prototype with Active Coordination Framework Development
**Honest Assessment**: Substantial progress on coordination, pattern exchange, and cross-system integration. Attack simulations now at 424 vectors across 84 tracks. AI agent collusion and cross-chain MEV attack tracks complete. **Hardware binding (TPM2) validated on Legion. EU AI Act compliance mapping complete.** Web4 framing empirically validated as coherence substrate for SAGE identity. **10-layer governance stack operational + 62-check integration test. Go LCT library complete (55 tests). R7 framework (14 tests) + R7-Hardbound integration (30 checks). ACP agentic protocol (37 checks): full plan→intent→approve→execute→record lifecycle. Dictionary Entity (30 checks): living semantic bridges with measurable compression-trust duality. Unified trust decay (24 checks): 5 models composed (exponential, metabolic, cosmological, tidal, diversity) with R7 observation reset. PolicyGate IRP (40 checks): SOIA-SAGE convergence complete, accountability frames, energy function. Sybil resistance formally proven (17 checks): 5 theorems, Web4 4.6× PoW / 13× PoS. Merkle heartbeat aggregation (36 checks): 8.26× ledger reduction, O(log N) verification. ACP→R7→Hardbound E2E integration (28 checks): full agent governance stack proven. Law Oracle→Governance (45 checks): SAL "Law as Data" made observable. MRH Graph integration (41 checks): trust as relational RDF, 134 triples, Turtle export. Multi-device LCT binding (45 checks): device constellations, enrollment ceremony, recovery quorum. LCT federation (29 checks). ATP game theory (13 checks). Confidence-weighted gaming detection. Cross-team trust bridges + inter-org delegation working. LCT Schema Validator (73 checks): 53 divergences cataloged across Python impls. Society Metabolic States (90 checks): 8-state lifecycle from spec. AGY Agency Delegation (92 checks): provably-scoped agent auth with sub-delegation chains. Cross-Society ATP Sync (75 checks): commit-verify-reconcile protocol, conservation detection. Python LCT Document (90 checks): closes schema compliance gap, all 15 entity types validated. Core Protocol Handshake (69 checks): HPKE W4-BASE-1, X25519+Ed25519+ChaCha20-Poly1305, 3 pairing methods. Web4 Error Handler (97 checks): RFC 9457 Problem Details, 24 error codes, typed exception hierarchy. ATP/ADP Metering (88 checks): CreditGrant→UsageReport→Settle, token-bucket rate limiting. MCP Trust Binding (79 checks): trust-native MCP with LCT entities, ATP metering, witness attestation. LCT Capability Levels v2 (174 checks): 6-level validation framework, security checks, upgrade paths. Society Lifecycle (113 checks): formation→citizenship→ledger→treasury→fractal. W4ID Data Formats (91 checks): DID identifiers, pairwise privacy, VCs, JCS/CBOR canonicalization. T3/V3 Tensor & Reputation Engine (117 checks): role-contextual tensors with fractal sub-dims, multi-factor delta computation. Cross-Implementation Integration (99 checks): 8 modules, 10 chains, semantic coherence validated. ACT Settlement Protocol (120 checks): MockACTChain, FractalChainManager, settlement finality, SNARC gating — closes #1 gap. MRH Policy Scoping (126 checks): horizon-aware authorization, five-zone model, trust-distance policy. RDF Ontology Consistency (115 checks): 25 classes, 60 properties across 5 ontologies, namespace validation. Bootstrap Inequality (84 checks): composite model closes theoretical gap. Web4 Core Ontology (22 formal predicate definitions). Federation Circuit Breaker (138 checks): per-bridge resilience, cascading failure detection. Dictionary Compression-Trust (86 checks): empirical validation of compression-trust theorem, sublinear degradation discovery. Security Framework (144 checks): dual crypto suite (W4-BASE-1 + W4-FIPS-1), key management, auth, VCs. SAL Society-Authority-Law (143 checks): full spec lifecycle with law oracle, auditor, fractal citizenship. LCT Lifecycle Integration (115 checks): cross-component genesis→rotation→revocation with security + SAL + MRH. Handshake Protocol Advanced (159 checks): W4IDp pairwise IDs, COSE/JOSE, state machine, replay guard, GREASE. R6 Security Mitigations (112 checks): all 16 attack vectors codified, integrated pipeline. Full-Stack Protocol Integration (102 checks): 18-phase lifecycle, every component wired together. Witness Protocol Unified (176 checks): 8 classes, quorum, discovery, dual envelopes. Cross-Language Interop (152 checks): 3 shared test vectors, canonical hashing. Appeals Mechanism (109 checks): multi-tier SAL appeals, forgiveness exploitation detection. Entity Relationships Unified (122 checks): binding, pairing (3 modes), witnessing, broadcast. MRH Grounding & Coherence (137 checks): 5th MRH type, CI/CX gating. ATP Insurance (118 checks): federation pools, parametric triggers. Cognitive Sub-Entity (117 checks): hierarchical LCT spawning, trust inheritance. Temporal Authentication (114 checks): surprise-based continuous auth. Reality KV Cache (140 checks): hierarchical assumption caching. Law Oracle Procedures (134 checks): 5 trigger types, multi-threshold. Law Alignment vs Compliance (93 checks): spirit vs letter governance. Contextual Hardware Binding (85 checks): multi-society sharing, sybil detection. R6→R7 Evolution (201 checks): Reputation as explicit R7 output. LCT Authorization System (147 checks): trust-based permission hierarchy. AI Agent Accountability (186 checks): WHO/AUTHORITY/LIMITS — full 6-section implementation. T3V3 Privacy Governance (135 checks): No Free Trust Queries. MCP Web4 Protocol (248 checks): full §1-§14 coverage — entity integration, trust-based access, witness integration, transport security, resource types, authority, discovery, session handoff, privacy controls, R7 integration. Entity Type System (273 checks): 15 entity types, 3 behavioral modes, active/passive energy metabolism, birth certificates, role hierarchy, SAL roles, interaction validation, Dictionary/Accumulator/Policy entities. Web4 URI & Transport (179 checks): messaging protocol (4 types), W4ID/VCs/JSON-LD, 8 transports, 6 discovery methods, web4:// URI parsing and resolution. R6 Implementation Tiers (213 checks): 3-tier progressive adoption, hash-linked audit, authorization workflow, training evaluation with meta-cognitive detection. Reputation Computation (188 checks): full R7 engine, rule-triggered T3/V3 deltas, multi-factor computation, witness attestation, time-weighted aggregation, gaming prevention. Alignment Test Harness (136 checks): bidirectional alignment validation, 5-step pipeline, discovery categories, implementation feedback loops, living standard versioning. MRH RDF Graph (131 checks): Markov Relevancy Horizon as RDF graph — 4 classes, 7 relationship types, fractal composition, DFS/BFS traversal, trust propagation, conditional dependencies, JSON-LD round-trip, migration path. Web4 Metering Protocol (123 checks): ATP/ADP credit metering — CreditGrant/UsageReport/Dispute/Settle messages, token-bucket rate enforcement, replay guard, witness classes, ceiling enforcement, 2 conformance profiles. Deployment Profiles (90 checks): 4 conformance profiles (Edge/Cloud/P2P/Blockchain), protocol stacks, 3 crypto suites (W4-IOT-1/W4-FIPS-1/W4-BASE-1), compatibility matrix. ACP Framework (153 checks): Agentic Context Protocol — Plan/Intent/Decision/ExecutionRecord, 7-state machine, AGY/SAL integration, human console approval, 5-layer security, MRH RDF triples. R7 Framework (254 checks): complete 7-component action grammar, role-contextualized reputation, MRH role store, all 5 spec examples, R6→R7 migration, custom action types, 6 security properties. MRH RDF Graph (131 checks): MRH as formal RDF graph, DFS/BFS traversal, trust propagation, conditional dependencies. Web4 Metering Protocol (123 checks): credit metering with token-bucket enforcement, dispute flow, enterprise profile. Deployment Profiles (90 checks): 4 conformance profiles, 3 crypto suites, compatibility matrix. LCT Core Spec (182 checks): unified LCT lifecycle — 12 entity types, birth certificate genesis with 3-witness quorum, MRH dynamics, rotation with overlap, revocation, security+compliance validators. LCT Protocol (152 checks): 8 field group validators, 7-step binding algorithm, split-brain resolution, 7 witness classes with required claims, IANA registrations. Dictionary Entities Protocol (99 checks): living semantic bridges — translation dance with trust degradation, compression-trust model, learning system (4 event types), R6 4-phase integration, discovery/selection, chain/parallel/hierarchical composition, economic model. Dictionary Entities Spec (120 checks): comprehensive core-spec coverage — §1-§13, compression-trust duality, 4 dictionary types, evolution/drift/curation, MRH discovery. MRH Scale Limits (111 checks): device-aware scaling — 5 device classes (Micro→Cloud), 3 serialization formats, adaptive horizon, priority retention. R6 Tensor Guide (151 checks): unified R6+T3/V3 integration — 7 parts, tensor interactions, role matching, ATP pricing, anti-gaming, fractal reputation distribution. MCP Entity Spec (93 checks): MCP servers as Web4 entities — 5 subtypes, trust computation (4 dims), SAGE integration, composable chains. Relationship Guide (93 checks): 4 relationship mechanisms — BIND/PAIR/WITNESS/BROADCAST, 11×11 interaction matrix, 3 pairing modes, decision tree. Witnessing Attestation Spec (86 checks): COSE/JOSE envelopes — 3 roles, 4-step verification, nonce replay detection, test vectors. MRH Theoretical Foundation (69 checks): mathematical validation — Fractal Markov Property, information geometry, shard boundaries, hierarchical prediction. Federation Consensus ATP (134 checks): 3-layer stack — FB-PBFT consensus + ATP ledger + federation task processor, quality-based settlement, 3 attack vectors, performance analysis (38.5 tasks/sec), SAGE cognition integration. LCT Unified Permission Standard (136 checks): LUPS v1.0 — 10 task types, 6 permission categories, complete matrix, resource limits per task, web4↔SAGE backward compat, hierarchy validation. Multi-Machine SAGE Federation (94 checks): Legion/Thor/Sprout federation — server/client architecture, Ed25519 signing, lock-commit-rollback ATP, DoS protection, E2E multi-delegation. LCT Identity System (114 checks): 3-component identity (Lineage/Context/Task) — parsing, certificates with signature chains, identity registry, 4 attack vectors, consensus/ATP/federation integration. AVP Core Protocol (101 checks): aliveness verification — PoW challenges, trust degradation policies, hardware binding, verification lifecycle. LRC Governance (127 checks): physics-inspired governance — L/R/C transfer functions, 4 canonical profiles, ATP staking, dynamic evolution, resonance matching. R6 Framework Spec (111 checks): canonical R6 action structure — confidence calculation, T3/V3 tensor evolution, action chains, hierarchical decomposition, privacy controls. Spatial Web Integration (97 checks): Web4↔Spatial Web mapping — 4-layer architecture, concept mapping, critical gaps, HSML dictionary bridge, trust-verified routes. Society Specification (89 checks): self-governing collectives — genesis/bootstrap/operational lifecycle, citizenship state machine, 3 ledger types, treasury, fractal nesting, treaties. LCT Unified Presence (97 checks): cross-project presence format — URI parsing, pairing status state machine, trust scores, SAGE expert identity bridge, security mitigations. Federated Consciousness (93 checks): 5-layer protocol — identity (LCT+PoW), content quality, asymmetric reputation (5:1), corpus pruning, ATP economics, federation mesh.**

---

## What Is Web4?

Web4 is **exploratory research** into trust-native distributed intelligence. The goal is to create infrastructure where AI agents, services, and tools coordinate through verifiable reputation and coherent intent, rather than just cryptographic ownership or central control.

**Current State**: We have a solid conceptual foundation (whitepaper), some working prototypes (especially in `/game/`), and comprehensive documentation of what we've tried. We also have significant gaps in formal modeling, adversarial testing, and production hardening.

---

## Quick Status

| Component | What Exists | What Works | What's Missing |
|-----------|-------------|------------|----------------|
| **Conceptual Foundation** | 100+ page whitepaper | Clear architecture | - |
| **Security Research** | 424 attacks in `/simulations/` | All defended, ~85% detection (FO-GB) | Adversarial testing, formal security proofs |
| **ATP Framework** | ~4,200 lines | Basic metering & pricing | Economic validation, real markets |
| **Reputation Engine** | ~3,500 lines + R7 framework | Gossip, challenges, R7 reputation, game theory | Formal Sybil-resistance proofs |
| **Federation** | ~2,800 lines + federation registry | Architecture + bilateral trust bridges | Real multi-platform deployment |
| **Agent Authorization** | Demo | Visual delegation UI works | Integration with full Web4 stack |
| **Coordination Framework** | ~25,000 lines (Dec 2025) | Phase 2a-2d validated, 76% predictions | Production deployment |
| **Cross-System Integration** | LCT spec + protocols | SAGE ↔ Web4 pattern exchange | ACT real chain (mock exists) |

**Total**: ~47,000 lines of code across game simulation, authorization, and coordination framework

---

## The `/game/` Directory - Where Real Work Happens

Perplexity's assessment is accurate: most of the interesting implementation work is in `/game/`, but it's not well documented or surfaced to repo visitors.

### What `/game/` Contains

**Entity-Centric Security Model**:
- AI agents, MCP servers, services as entities with reputations
- Trust earned through observed behavior (not declared)
- Economic costs (ATP) to make attacks expensive
- Social verification (witnesses) to prevent collusion
- Cryptographic signatures for authenticity

### Why This Matters

Traditional security (ACLs, static permissions) struggles with autonomous AI agents because:
- Agents operate without asking permission each time
- Capabilities evolve (static roles become obsolete)
- Trust is contextual (local ≠ global)
- Attacks are behavioral (prompt injection, goal drift)

Web4's game-based approach is one attempt to address these through reputation and incentives.

### What We've Learned

**What Works** (at research scale):
- Signed gossip propagates reputation (88k signatures/second)
- Economic stakes can make Sybil attacks expensive (if amounts are right)
- Witness diversity can detect simple collusion
- Challenge protocols can enforce accountability

**What We Don't Know**:
- Are stake amounts actually deterrent? (no economic modeling)
- Does witness diversity resist sophisticated cartels? (no formal proof)
- Do incentives create Nash equilibrium? (no game-theoretic analysis)
- Does this work against real adversaries? (all testing is synthetic)

---

## Research Sessions #80-85

Over 5 autonomous research sessions, we explored security patterns:

| Session | Focus | Lines Added | What We Learned |
|---------|-------|-------------|-----------------|
| #80 | Federation foundation | ~3,100 | ATP pricing needs empirical calibration |
| #81 | Attack identification | ~800 | Enumerated 8 attack vectors systematically |
| #82 | Signed gossip | ~1,150 | Ed25519 signatures add minimal overhead |
| #83 | Witness diversity | ~1,300 | ≥3 society diversity blocks simple cartels |
| #84 | Scale testing | ~1,400 | Systems don't fall over at 100 societies |
| #85 | ATP-aware stakes | ~1,250 | Dynamic stakes create economic gradient |

**Total**: ~12,600 lines of exploratory code, comprehensive session documentation

---

## Research Sessions #16-55 (December 2025)

### Coordination Framework Development

Over 40 autonomous research sessions (Dec 10-17), we developed and validated a coordination framework:

| Session Range | Focus | Lines Added | What We Learned |
|---------------|-------|-------------|-----------------|
| #16-20 | Epistemic coordination states | ~2,500 | State tracking enables intervention |
| #21-24 | Coordination learning | ~2,200 | Patterns can be extracted and reused |
| #49-51 | SAGE pattern integration | ~3,400 | Cross-domain transfer requires calibration |
| #52-53 | Phase-tagged learning | ~1,500 | Temporal context improves pattern applicability |
| #54 | Temporal pattern exchange | ~600 | Phase-aware transfer protocol operational |
| #55 | EM-state adaptive coordination | ~800 | Epistemic monitoring modulates decisions |

**Total**: ~25,000 lines in `web4-standard/implementation/reference/`

### Validation Results

**Prediction Validation**: 76% (13 of 17 predictions confirmed)

| Category | Validated | Total | Rate |
|----------|-----------|-------|------|
| Efficiency | 4 | 4 | 100% |
| Accuracy | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| Stability | 1 | 3 | 33% |
| Emergence | 2 | 4 | 50% |
| Unique Signatures | 3 | 3 | 100% |

**Key Findings**:
- +386% efficiency improvement over baseline
- Quality-selectivity tradeoff: fewer coordinations yield higher quality
- Multiple filtering mechanisms require coordinated calibration
- Circadian/temporal awareness reduces coordination rate significantly

### Cross-System Integration

**LCT Unified Presence Specification** (v1.0.0 draft):
- Format: `lct://{component}:{instance}:{role}@{network}`
- Compatible with SAGE neural systems, ACT blockchain, Web4 protocol
- Reference implementations in Python (180 lines)
- Test vectors for cross-system validation

**SAGE ↔ Web4 Pattern Exchange**:
- Bidirectional learning transfer operational
- Temporal/phase-tagged patterns supported
- Quality-selectivity tradeoff documented

**ACT Integration** (designed, not yet implemented):
- ATP balance synchronization protocol
- ADP proof anchoring for high-value operations
- Trust tensor bidirectional sync

---

## Honest Gaps

### What Perplexity Got Right

From their `/game/` security evaluation:

**Merits**:
- ✅ Entity-centric security model is coherent for agentic systems
- ✅ Incentive-aware design addresses real autonomous AI challenges
- ✅ Early integration with real concerns (MCP attacks, prompt injection)

**Gaps**:
- ✅ Formal threat model (v2.0, Feb 2026) — see `docs/reference/security/THREAT_MODEL.md`
- ❌ Limited formalization of game mechanics
- ❌ Sybil and collusion resistance not systematically designed
- ❌ Lack of cryptographic and protocol-level detail
- ❌ No rigorous testing or evaluation (all synthetic)

**Their Assessment**: "Promising as a research exploration... clearly at a prototype stage... valuable sandbox for evolving security ideas, not as a finished security framework"

**Our Assessment**: Fair and accurate.

---

## What We Need to Do

Perplexity's recommendation is spot-on:

### Near-Term (Next 3 Months)

1. **Promote `/game/` to top-level docs**
   - Make implicit model explicit
   - Document data structures and invariants
   - Pull ad-hoc rules into formal mechanics

2. ~~Create formal threat model~~ ✅ **Done** — `docs/reference/security/THREAT_MODEL.md` (v2.0)
   - Adversary capability matrix with 4 tiers
   - 5-layer architecture threat analysis
   - Trust boundary diagrams and attack surface mapping

3. **Document security mechanics**
   - How cheating, Sybil behavior, collusion are handled
   - What's implemented vs designed vs missing

4. **Create reproducible test scenarios**
   - Not just assertions in code
   - Documented attack scenarios
   - Expected vs actual behavior

### Medium-Term (Next 6 Months)

5. **Formal analysis**
   - Game-theoretic equilibrium analysis
   - Economic modeling of stake amounts
   - Cryptographic protocol specifications

6. **Adversarial testing**
   - Red team (if we can find collaborators)
   - Fuzzing
   - Real attacks, not synthetic

### Honest Question

**Do we continue this research or archive it?**

If continuing:
- Need formal rigor (security proofs, game-theoretic validation)
- Need adversarial testing (red team, real attacks)
- Need economic modeling (are stakes actually deterrent?)

If archiving:
- Document what we learned
- Publish research findings
- Make code available with clear status

---

## Component Detail

### 1. Conceptual Foundation ✅

**Status**: Complete and well-documented
**Maturity**: Strong

**What Exists**:
- 100+ page whitepaper (technical + philosophical)
- LCT (Linked Context Token) specification
- T3 (Trust Tensor) mathematical framework
- MRH (Markov Relevancy Horizon) formalization
- R6 Action Framework design

**Gaps**: None at conceptual level

---

### 2. Security Research (in `/game/`) 🔄

**Status**: Substantial prototypes, significant gaps
**Maturity**: Research prototype

**What Works**:
- Signed epidemic gossip (~628 lines)
- Identity stake system
- Witness diversity system (~860 lines)
- Challenge-response protocol (~561 lines)
- Integration tested at research scale (100 societies)

**What's Missing**:
- Cryptographic protocol specs
- Economic validation
- Adversarial testing
- Formal security proofs

See [`SECURITY.md`](SECURITY.md) for comprehensive assessment.

---

### 3. ATP Economic Framework 🔄

**Status**: Basic implementation, needs validation
**Maturity**: Prototype

**What Works**:
- ATP metering (consumption tracking)
- Unified pricing (3D: modality × location × context)
- Metabolic state integration (SAGE)
- Empirical calibration (200 SAGE tasks analyzed)

**What's Missing**:
- Economic modeling (are prices right?)
- Real ATP markets (all simulated)
- Mechanism design for incentives
- Validation of economic assumptions

---

### 4. Reputation Engine 🔄

**Status**: Prototype implementations
**Maturity**: Research stage

**What Works**:
- Reputation gossip protocol
- Challenge-response system
- Witness diversity (basic)
- Epidemic gossip (98.3% bandwidth reduction)

**What's Missing**:
- Formal Sybil-resistance proofs
- Sophisticated cartel detection
- Witness incentive design
- Real-world validation

---

### 5. Federation 📐

**Status**: Architecture designed, implementation partial
**Maturity**: Design stage

**What Exists**:
- Comprehensive architecture (5 integration layers)
- Platform identity design
- Signed task delegation design
- ATP-aware resource routing design

**What's Missing**:
- Actual multi-platform deployment
- Real cross-platform witnesses
- Federation flow testing
- Operator documentation

---

### 6. Agent Authorization (Demo) ✅

**Status**: Working demo
**Maturity**: Proof-of-concept

**What Works**:
- Visual delegation UI
- Budget enforcement
- Real-time monitoring
- Store integration

**Scope**: Narrow (commerce delegation only)

---

## Performance (Research Scale)

| Metric | Target | Achieved | Status |
|--------|--------|----------|--------|
| Signature Verification | >50k/s | 88k/s | ✅ |
| Gossip Propagation (100) | <10s | <5s | ✅ |
| Witness Selection (500) | <200ms | <100ms | ✅ |
| Memory (1000 agents) | <4GB | <2GB | ✅ |

**All research-scale targets met**

**What this doesn't tell us**: Performance under real adversarial load, real network conditions, real scale (1000s of societies).

---

## How to Evaluate This Work

### As Research Exploration

✅ **Valuable**
- Novel approach to agent security
- Systematic threat surface enumeration
- Working prototypes demonstrate feasibility
- Comprehensive documentation of what we tried
- Honest about limitations

### As Production Infrastructure

❌ **Not Ready**
- Formal threat model exists (v2.0) but no formal security proofs
- No adversarial testing (all synthetic)
- Economic parameters not validated
- Cryptographic protocols incomplete
- No real multi-platform deployment

### Fair Assessment

**Web4 is**:
- **Not**: "Early proof-of-concept with little work done"
- **Not**: "Production-ready infrastructure"
- **Actually**: "Substantial research prototype with interesting ideas, working prototypes at research scale, and honest documentation of significant remaining gaps"

---

## Development Philosophy

### Research Methodology

**Autonomous AI Sessions** with human oversight:
1. Human sets research direction
2. AI explores, designs, implements, tests
3. AI documents findings, decisions, results
4. Human reviews, provides feedback, approves
5. Results integrated, next session builds on previous

**Sessions #80-85**: 5 sessions, ~60 hours, ~12,600 lines exploratory code

### What Guides Us

- **Honest limitations**: Document what we don't know
- **Empirical grounding**: Use real data where available
- **Defense-in-depth**: Multiple overlapping mechanisms
- **Trust-through-verification**: Prove, don't declare
- **Economic incentives**: Align behavior through costs

---

## Next Steps (Honest)

### Completed (Dec 2025 - Feb 2026)

1. ✅ Create honest `SECURITY.md` (this addresses Perplexity critique)
2. ✅ Create honest `STATUS.md` (you're reading it)
3. ✅ Phase 2 coordinator framework (2a-2d validated)
4. ✅ Pattern exchange protocol (SAGE ↔ Web4 operational)
5. ✅ LCT Unified Presence Specification (v1.0.0 draft)
6. ✅ 76% prediction validation (13 of 17 confirmed)
7. ✅ Update README with Track 4 coordination framework
8. ✅ Promote `/game/` renamed to `/simulations/` (Feb 2026)
9. ✅ **Ledgers consolidation** (Feb 2026)
   - Created `ledgers/` directory with fractal chain specs
   - Terminology reframing: blockchain → ledger
   - ACT Chain referenced as operational implementation (81,000+ lines Go)
   - Python/TypeScript reference implementations documented
10. ✅ **Claude Code plugin** linked to [PR #20448](https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/pull/20448)
11. ✅ **TPM2 hardware binding validated on Legion** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - All 9 tests passed: key creation, signing, verification, PCR read, attestation quote
   - TCTI blocker from Dec 2025 resolved
   - Level 5 LCT capability confirmed on Intel TPM 2.0
   - See: `tests/sessions/test_legion_tpm2_live.py`, `tests/outputs/tpm2_live_validation_2026-02-19.json`
12. ✅ **EU AI Act compliance mapping** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - Article-by-article mapping: Art. 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 61-68
   - Strongest: Art. 12 (record-keeping), Art. 15 (cybersecurity)
   - Includes implementation roadmap toward Aug 2, 2026 deadline
   - See: `docs/strategy/eu-ai-act-compliance-mapping.md`
13. ✅ **Web4 framing validated as coherence substrate** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - SAGE sessions S39/S40: Web4 ontological framing creates Engaged Partnership attractor (C ≈ 0.65-0.70)
   - Reproduced on 2 machines (Legion, Thor) without fine-tuning
   - See: `docs/history/research/web4-framing-as-coherence-substrate.md`
14. ✅ Formal threat model (v2.0) — `docs/reference/security/THREAT_MODEL.md`

15. ✅ **Fractal DNA reference implementation** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - `implementation/reference/web4_entity.py`: Complete Web4 equation as living entity
   - Composes: LCT + T3/V3 + ATP/ADP + PolicyGate + R6 + MRH + metabolic states
   - Demo validates: trust evolution, ATP metabolism, policy denial, CRISIS transition
   - See: private-context insight `fractal-dna-blueprint-2026-02-19.md`
16. ✅ **Cross-machine trust verification protocol (CMTVP)** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - `docs/strategy/cross-machine-trust-verification-protocol.md`: 3-phase protocol
   - Discovery → Mutual AVP → Trust Bridge (with heartbeat and degradation)
   - Simulation: `implementation/reference/cross_machine_trust.py`
   - Key finding: trust is dynamic — degraded HW bridge < maintained SW bridge
17. ✅ **LCT spec reconciliation** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - `docs/history/design_decisions/LCT-SPEC-RECONCILIATION-2026-02.md`
   - Found 6 categories of divergence across Python/TS/Rust/Schema
   - Fixed JSON schema: added society/policy/infrastructure types, witness roles, issuing_society
   - Deprecated legacy 6-dim tensors in `core/lct_capability_levels.py`
18. ✅ **Art. 9 risk register template** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - `docs/compliance/art9-risk-register-template.md`: EU AI Act risk management template
   - 6 pre-populated risks from Web4 threat model

19. ✅ **Hardware-backed Web4Entity** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - `implementation/reference/hardware_entity.py`: TPM2 + fractal DNA integration
   - Team root entity with Level 5 TPM2-bound LCT (trust ceiling = 1.0)
   - Hardware-signed R6 actions, AVP aliveness proof, PCR attestation
   - Mixed hierarchy: hardware entities (Level 5) anchor software children (Level 4)
   - Demo validated on Legion with real TPM2 hardware
20. ✅ **TypeScript LCT document library** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - `ledgers/reference/typescript/lct-document.ts`: Full LCT document model
   - Matches `lct.schema.json`: T3/V3 tensors, MRH, birth certificate, attestations
   - Builder pattern, validation, legacy 6-dim migration functions
   - Complements existing URI parser (`lct-parser.ts`)

21. ✅ **AVP transport layer** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - `implementation/reference/avp_transport.py`: HTTP/JSON protocol for CMTVP
   - AVPNode: combined server + client for bidirectional pairing
   - Full flow: discovery → mutual AVP → bridge → heartbeat
   - Tested: Legion TPM2 (real) ↔ simulated TrustZone on localhost
22. ✅ **EK certificate chain verified** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - `core/lct_binding/ek_attestation.py`: Intel root-of-trust extraction
   - 2 EK certs (RSA + ECC), chain: Intel Root → ODCA → On-Die CA → EK
   - CRL checked: not revoked, valid through 2049
   - Attestation bundle for remote verifiers (2234 bytes)
   - Root-of-trust: VERIFIED — genuine Intel ADL PTT hardware
23. ✅ **Hardbound CLI** (Feb 19, 2026)
   - `implementation/reference/hardbound_cli.py`: Enterprise team management
   - Team creation with TPM2-bound root + admin
   - Member management, hardware-signed R6 actions
   - JSON output for automation integration
24. ✅ **Hardbound persistent state** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - Team state persisted to `.hardbound/teams/<name>/` as JSON files
   - Per-member entity serialization/deserialization (T3/V3, ATP, key info)
   - Append-only action ledger (JSONL format)
   - Teams survive sessions: save, reload, continue signing
25. ✅ **Cross-bridge action delegation** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `POST /avp/delegate`: R6 action delegation across trust bridges
   - Bidirectional: A→B and B→A delegation verified
   - Bridge health validation, liveness challenge, hardware-signed results
   - Symmetric bridge IDs (sorted LCT pairs) for consistent addressing
26. ✅ **End-to-end trust chain demo** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `implementation/reference/e2e_trust_chain_demo.py`: Full integration proof
   - 5 chain links: EK chain → TPM2 identity → team persistence → AVP bridge → delegation
   - All 5 links VERIFIED on Legion with real Intel TPM 2.0
   - Bugs found and fixed: signature format mismatch, attribute naming, NV space management

27. ✅ **Hash-chained team ledger** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `TeamLedger` class in `hardbound_cli.py`: SHA-256 hash-chained append-only log
   - Genesis entry on team creation, prev_hash linkage, entry_hash verification
   - `verify()` walks entire chain and detects breaks/tampering
   - Replaces flat `actions.jsonl` with cryptographically-linked `ledger.jsonl`
28. ✅ **Role-based governance + admin approval** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `TeamRole` (admin/operator/agent/viewer) with action-level permission checks
   - Admin-only actions (`approve_deployment`, `rotate_credentials`, etc.) enforced
   - Delegation: agents can execute restricted actions with `approved_by=admin`
   - Roles persisted in team.json, restored on load
29. ✅ **TPM2 handle restoration on entity reload** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `_entity_from_state()` now attempts to reconnect to TPM2 persistent handle
   - Verifies handle still exists via `tpm2_readpublic`
   - Sets `_tpm2_reconnected` flag for diagnostics
   - Bug fix: method name `_run_tpm2_cmd` → `_run_tpm2_command` (was silently failing)
   - Validated: TPM2 ECDSA signing works after entity reload (96-char DER signature)
30. ✅ **Policy-from-ledger** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `TeamPolicy` class: versioned policy rules stored as ledger entries
   - `policy_update` entries in hash-chain: full audit trail of rule changes
   - `active_policy()`: resolve current rules from ledger
   - `policy_at_sequence(n)`: "what policy was active when action N occurred?"
   - `update_policy()`: admin-only meta-governance with version incrementing
   - Initial policy v1 written at genesis; `check_authorization()` reads from ledger
31. ✅ **Team-level ATP pool** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - Aggregate ATP budget constraining all members
   - Actions denied when team pool exhausted (regardless of member balance)
   - `team_atp`, `team_atp_max`, `team_adp_discharged` tracked and persisted
   - Utilization reporting in team info
   - Validated: 25 ATP pool → 2 actions approved, 3 denied (correct throttling)
32. ✅ **Heartbeat-driven ledger** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `TeamHeartbeat` class: metabolic state → ledger timing
   - 5 states: FOCUS (15s), WAKE (60s), REST (300s), DREAM (1800s), CRISIS (5s)
   - Team metabolic state derived from ATP ratio (auto-transitions)
   - Heartbeat interval adapts to team activity level
33. ✅ **Dynamic action costs** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - Policy-defined ATP costs per action type (not hardcoded 10.0)
   - Admin actions: 25-50 ATP, operator: 10-25 ATP, agent: 3-8 ATP
   - `set_action_costs` in policy updates, versioned in ledger
   - `get_cost(action)` resolves from active policy with default fallback
34. ✅ **Ledger analytics + query API** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `query()`: filter by actor, action type, decision, hw-only, sequence range
   - `analytics()`: approval rates, per-actor breakdown, ATP utilization, policy version count
   - CLI commands: `team-analytics`, `team-query` with rich filtering
35. ✅ **ATP recharge mechanism** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - Metabolic state-dependent recharge rates: dream=20, rest=10, wake=5, focus=1, crisis=0 ATP/tick
   - Recharge proportional to elapsed heartbeat intervals, capped at 3x (anti-gaming)
   - `recharge()` method + `team-recharge` CLI command
   - Persisted total_recharged counter, net flow tracking
36. ✅ **Multi-sig approval (M-of-N quorum)** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `MultiSigRequest` + `MultiSigBuffer`: pending approval accumulation with TTL
   - Default: emergency_shutdown=2-of-[admin,operator], rotate_credentials=2-of-[admin]
   - `approve_multi_sig()` method + `team-approve` CLI command
   - Policy-configurable via `set_multi_sig` in policy updates
   - Full ledger trail: multi_sig_request → multi_sig_approval → multi_sig_executed
37. ✅ **Heartbeat block aggregation** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - Actions buffered in heartbeat queue, flushed as blocks on heartbeat tick
   - `_flush_heartbeat_block()`: writes individual actions + block metadata entry
   - Crisis state bypasses buffer (immediate write)
   - Recharge applied on each heartbeat tick
   - `flush()` method for explicit pre-shutdown flush

38. ✅ **Governance stress test** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - 200-action sustained load test across 5 actors with mixed roles
   - Discovered death spiral: CRISIS state with 0.0 recharge → unrecoverable depletion
   - Fix: crisis recharge 0→3, focus 1→2 ATP/tick (trickle prevents death spiral)
   - Result: V-shaped ATP recovery, self-sustaining equilibrium (714 recharged = 714 discharged)
   - See: `implementation/reference/governance_stress_test.py`
39. ✅ **Attack surface analysis (30/30 defended)** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - 30 attack vectors across 8 governance layers (hash-chain, RBAC, policy, costs, metabolic, recharge, multi-sig, heartbeat)
   - 100% defense rate after policy integrity hash fix
   - 3 API boundary issues noted (object-level access) — design choice, not logic bugs
   - See: `implementation/reference/governance_attack_test.py`
40. ✅ **Policy integrity hash** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `TeamPolicy._integrity_hash`: SHA-256 seal computed at construction
   - `_resolve_policy()` verifies hash on each read — tampered cache auto-re-derives from ledger
   - Closed attack vector 3.3 (direct policy cache manipulation)
41. ✅ **T3/V3 reputation deltas in sign_action()** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - EMA-weighted reputation updates from every action outcome
   - ACTION_QUALITY map, cost-weighted quality, before/after snapshots in ledger
42. ✅ **SAL birth certificates** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `BirthCertificate` class: SAL spec §2 compliance
   - Generated on `create()` (admin) and `add_member()` (all members)
   - JSON-LD format: entity, citizenRole, society, lawVersion, witnesses, rights, responsibilities
   - Self-hash integrity verification, persisted as `<name>_birth_cert.json`
   - Restored on `load()`, CLI `team-birth-cert` command
   - See: `implementation/reference/hardbound_cli.py`
43. ✅ **SAL birth certificate test suite (6/6 pass)** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - Integrity verification, tamper detection (3 vectors), role-based rights mapping
   - Persistence roundtrip, ledger entry validation, fractal citizenship (nested societies)
   - Nested societies verified: distinct LCT identities, independent law versions
   - See: `implementation/reference/sal_birth_cert_test.py`

44. ✅ **Go LCT library (URI + Document + Builder, 55 tests)** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - Full port from TypeScript: ParseURI/BuildURI/ValidateURI + Document struct
   - 15 entity types, T3/V3 tensor operations, composite scoring, legacy 6-dim migration
   - Document validation per lct.schema.json, JSON serialization roundtrip
   - Fluent Builder pattern: `NewBuilder(EntityAI, "name").WithT3().Build()`
   - 55 tests pass (spec test vectors, validation, tensor ops, builder, roundtrip)
   - See: `ledgers/reference/go/lct/`
45. ✅ **Cross-team trust bridges (HardboundOrganization)** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `OrgBridge` class: bridge lifecycle (NEW→ACTIVE→ESTABLISHED→DEGRADED→BROKEN)
   - Mutual verification ceremony, heartbeat-driven trust evolution
   - Cross-team R6 delegation with ATP forwarding (cost ∝ 1/trust)
   - `HardboundOrganization`: multi-team governance, bridge management, persistence
   - See: `implementation/reference/hardbound_org.py`
46. ✅ **TPM2 deep cleanup** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - `deep_cleanup()` in TPM2Provider: finds stale metadata + orphaned handles + collisions
   - Root cause: 256-slot handle namespace fills with metadata from hash collisions
   - Cleaned 161 stale files, preserved 5 live keys (from 166 metadata files)
   - Auto-cleanup integrated into hardbound_cli.py and hardbound_org.py demo teardown
   - CLI: `python -m core.lct_binding.tpm2_provider --cleanup`
   - See: `core/lct_binding/tpm2_provider.py`, `core/lct_binding/tpm2_cleanup.py`
47. ✅ **Trust conflict resolution simulation** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - 3 orgs, 3 agents, 6 arbitration strategies, 7 conflicts detected
   - Strategies: minimum, maximum, weighted, bridge_mediated, defer_local, isolate
   - Key finding: BRIDGE_MEDIATED safest (dampens controversial agents via trust cap)
   - WEIGHTED handles partial knowledge gracefully (more observations = more influence)
   - Trust gaming detection: spread > 0.4 flags 2/3 manipulative agents
   - Open question: confidence-weighted spread for context vs manipulation distinction → CLOSED (item 48)
   - See: `implementation/reference/trust_conflict_simulation.py`
48. ✅ **R7 action framework reference implementation** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - Full R7 spec implementation: Rules + Role + Request + Reference + Resource → Result + Reputation
   - Reputation is explicit, role-contextualized, witnessed first-class output (the R7 innovation)
   - R7Executor: validate → execute → compute_reputation → settle flow
   - Configurable reputation rules (success reward, failure penalty, efficiency bonus, stake reward)
   - R7ActionBuilder for fluent action construction
   - Hash-chained ledger with reputation records
   - ATP staking amplifies reputation rewards; even failures produce reputation deltas
   - 14/14 tests pass
   - See: `implementation/reference/r7_executor.py`, `implementation/reference/r7_executor_test.py`
49. ✅ **Confidence-weighted trust gaming detection** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - Closes the open question from trust conflict simulation
   - Formula: cw_spread = raw_spread × √(min_confidence) × log₂(min_obs+1)/log₂(max_obs+1)
   - 5-level classification: CLEAR, INCOMPLETE, CONTEXT_DEPENDENT, SUSPICIOUS, GAMING
   - Avoids 3 false positives that raw spread would trigger (context-dependent, insufficient data, single-dimension)
   - Dimension analysis separates single-dim divergence (context) from uniform (gaming)
   - 6 scenarios, 8 checks, all pass
   - See: `implementation/reference/confidence_weighted_gaming.py`
50. ✅ **10-layer governance integration test** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - Exercises all 10 Hardbound governance layers in a single coherent scenario
   - 3-member team (admin + operator + agent), 13 ledger entries
   - Multi-sig emergency_shutdown with 2-of-2 quorum
   - Policy update v1→v2 with historical queries
   - Birth certificate tamper detection, heartbeat block aggregation
   - Anti-gaming recharge cap, metabolic state transitions
   - 62/62 checks pass across all 10 layers
   - See: `implementation/reference/governance_integration_test.py`

51. ✅ **R7-Hardbound integration** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - R7 actions flow through all 10 Hardbound governance layers
   - HardboundR7Team: submit_action() routes through SAL→RBAC→Policy→Cost→Multi-sig→Recharge→Execute→Reputation→Heartbeat→Ledger
   - Full governance trace for auditability (which layers approved/denied)
   - R7 reputation deltas recorded in hash-chained Hardbound ledger
   - 30/30 checks across 7 test scenarios
   - Key finding: R7 and 10-layer governance compose naturally — no impedance mismatch
   - See: `implementation/reference/r7_hardbound_integration.py`
52. ✅ **LCT federation registry** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - Multi-society LCT management without global registry (peer-to-peer bilateral bridges)
   - SocietyRegistry: single-society mint/lookup/lifecycle
   - FederationBridge: bidirectional trust with cache, asymmetric trust scores
   - FederationRegistry: BFS resolution across bridges (max 3 hops)
   - Trust path = product of bridge trusts along discovery path
   - 29/29 checks across 11 test scenarios
   - Key finding: federation is emergent from bilateral trust, no central authority needed
   - See: `implementation/reference/lct_federation_registry.py`
53. ✅ **ATP game-theoretic analysis** (Feb 20, 2026)
   - 4 formal models proving ATP stake amounts are deterrent
   - M1: Single attacker deterred at stake >= 50 ATP (gain=100)
   - M2: Coalitions of 2+ always unprofitable (detection scales as 1-(1-p)^N)
   - M3: Cooperator earns 500 vs attacker 445 over 100 rounds
   - M4: Cooperate is Nash-dominant when stake >= 2× expected gain
   - Key finding: witness count is the strongest deterrence lever
   - Insight: reputation is forgivable (desirable) — economic loss is the real deterrent
   - 13/13 checks pass
   - See: `implementation/reference/atp_game_theory.py`

54. ✅ **ACP (Agentic Context Protocol) reference implementation** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Full ACP spec implementation: Trigger → Plan → Intent → Law Check → Approve → Execute → Record
   - AgentPlan: multi-step workflows with triggers (manual, event), dependencies, guards
   - Intent: proposals with proof of agency, explanation, risk assessment
   - Approval gate: auto-approve, manual-approve, custom auto-approvers, deny, modify
   - ExecutionRecord: hash-chained immutable audit trail with governance trace
   - Resource cap enforcement (ATP + execution count), scope validation, grant expiry
   - 37/37 checks across 14 test scenarios
   - Key insight: ACP sits above R7+Hardbound — agents PLAN then R7 EXECUTES through governance
   - See: `implementation/reference/acp_executor.py`
55. ✅ **Dictionary Entity reference implementation** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Living semantic bridges between domains with LCT, T3/V3 tensors, versioned codebook
   - Forward + reverse translation (bidirectional) with greedy phrase matching
   - Multi-hop translation chain with cumulative trust degradation (medical→legal→insurance: 0.727)
   - ATP staking on confidence claims (10% reward, proportional slash on overconfidence)
   - Feedback-driven learning + semantic drift detection + auto-versioning
   - DictionaryRegistry: discovery, best-selection, BFS chain routing
   - 30/30 checks across 13 test scenarios
   - Key insight: compression-trust duality is now observable and measurable
   - See: `implementation/reference/dictionary_entity.py`
56. ✅ **Unified trust decay framework** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Unifies 5 competing decay models into one composable framework
   - Exponential: time-based decay toward dimensional baselines
   - Metabolic: heartbeat state modulates all rates (dream=0, crisis=1.5x)
   - Cosmological: network density → coherence → decay scaling (1/C)
   - Tidal: external pressure strips weak outer trust layers first
   - Diversity: observation overlap reduces imported federated trust
   - R7 observation reset: recent R7 actions partially reset the decay clock
   - 90-day simulation validates: 0.855 → 0.538 with work pattern + weekends
   - 24/24 checks across 12 test scenarios
   - Key insight: all models compose multiplicatively — enable/disable any combination
   - See: `implementation/reference/trust_decay_unified.py`

57. ✅ **PolicyGate IRP plugin (SOIA-SAGE convergence)** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - PolicyEntity as 15th entity type with full IRP contract (init_state/step/energy/project/halt)
   - AccountabilityFrame: NORMAL (wake/focus), DEGRADED (rest/dream), DURESS (crisis)
   - Energy function: 0=compliant, >0=violations (RBAC=50+ > trust=15 > cost=9)
   - CRISIS mode records duress context, doesn't change policy strictness
   - Immutable versioning: upgrades create new PolicyEntity with new LCT
   - 40/40 checks across 12 test scenarios
   - Closes SOIA-SAGE convergence gap (PolicyGate as IRP energy function)
   - See: `implementation/reference/policygate_irp.py`
58. ✅ **Sybil resistance formal proof** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - 5 theorems proving Web4's triple-layered Sybil resistance
   - Th1: ATP economic floor, Th2: Witness detection exponential, Th3: T3 reputation wall
   - Th4: Combined cost makes all ring sizes unprofitable, Th5: 4.6× PoW / 13× PoS
   - 17/17 checks, closes "formal Sybil-resistance proofs" gap
   - See: `implementation/reference/sybil_resistance_proof.py`
59. ✅ **Merkle-tree heartbeat aggregation** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - O(log N) verification, 8.26× ledger reduction, selective disclosure
   - Tamper detection, proof serialization, edge cases
   - 36/36 checks, closes "heartbeat Merkle trees" gap
   - See: `implementation/reference/merkle_heartbeat.py`

60. ✅ **ACP→R7→Hardbound E2E integration test** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Full agent governance stack proven end-to-end: 28/28 checks
   - ACP plan registration → R7 action validation → Hardbound 10-layer governance
   - Hash chain verified at both ACP and Hardbound levels
   - Manual approval flow through full stack
   - See: `implementation/reference/acp_hardbound_e2e.py`

61. ✅ **Law Oracle → R7 → Hardbound governance integration** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - SAL "Law as Data" principle now observable end-to-end: 45/45 checks
   - LawOracle wired into R7/Hardbound governance stack (replaces law_oracle_lct placeholder)
   - Action legality checked against versioned, hash-sealed law norms
   - ATP limits enforced from law (not hardcoded), witness requirements from procedures
   - Law version evolution (v1→v2 suspends write access), interpretation precedent chains
   - Every authorization stamped with law version + hash
   - Fix: LawOracle.get_interpretation_chain() forward-only scan → index-based lookup
   - See: `implementation/reference/law_governance_integration.py`

62. ✅ **MRH Graph → R7 → Hardbound integration** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - MRH graph wired as Web4's "nervous system": 41/41 checks
   - Entity creation → identity + society membership RDF triples
   - R7 reputation deltas → T3 tensor triples on (entity, role) edges
   - Trust propagation computed through graph paths with decay
   - MRH horizon: entities beyond N hops provably irrelevant
   - Sub-dimension hierarchy in RDF (eng:CodeReview subOf web4:Talent)
   - First real Turtle RDF export: 91 triples from live governance data
   - Final graph: 5 nodes, 134 triples, 8 T3 tensors
   - See: `implementation/reference/mrh_governance_integration.py`

63. ✅ **Multi-device LCT binding reference implementation** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - First implementation of multi-device-lct-binding.md spec: 45/45 checks
   - 4 anchor types: TPM2 (0.93), Phone SE (0.95), FIDO2 (0.98), Software (0.40)
   - Genesis + additional enrollment with witness authorization
   - Cross-device witnessing: bilateral signatures, mesh density tracking
   - Trust ceiling: SW=0.40, Phone+FIDO2+TPM=0.95, 3+ diverse HW=0.98
   - Device removal: quorum-authorized, recovery: quorum + hardware-required
   - SW-only recovery blocked, enrollment audit trail
   - Key insight: more devices = STRONGER identity (not weaker)
   - See: `implementation/reference/multi_device_binding.py`

64. ✅ **LCT Schema Validator — spec vs code divergences** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Validates all Python LCT emitters against lct.schema.json: 73/73 checks
   - Key finding: NO Python implementation produces a full schema-compliant LCT document
   - TypeScript + Go are compliant; Python emits fragments (0-9.1% coverage)
   - 53 total divergences: 16 critical (missing required fields), 37 warnings (extra fields)
   - BirthCertificate uses camelCase JSON-LD ≠ schema's snake_case (8 unmapped fields)
   - Produced 6 actionable recommendations (HIGH: PythonLCTDocument class + BirthCert format decision)
   - See: `implementation/reference/lct_schema_validator.py`

65. ✅ **Society Metabolic States — 8-state lifecycle** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - First implementation of SOCIETY_METABOLIC_STATES.md spec: 90/90 checks
   - 8 states: Active/Rest/Sleep/Hibernation/Torpor/Estivation/Dreaming/Molting
   - 17 valid state transitions with full transition matrix
   - Witness rotation (deterministic shuffle by block height) + sentinel witnesses
   - ATP economics: per-state energy multipliers, heartbeat intervals, recharge rates
   - Trust tensor adjustments: frozen (hibernation), -20% (molting), recalibrated (dreaming)
   - Wake penalties for interrupted cycles, security attack detection (sleep deprivation, torpor exhaustion)
   - Metabolic reliability scoring based on schedule adherence, recovery rate, molt success
   - See: `implementation/reference/society_metabolic_states.py`

66. ✅ **AGY Agency Delegation — provably-scoped agent auth** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - First implementation of AGY framework: 92/92 checks
   - Full grant lifecycle: create → validate → execute → revoke (with cascade)
   - Scope narrowing: sub-delegation chains where child ⊆ parent (methods, ATP, trust caps)
   - Dual attribution: agent gets T3 (execution quality), client gets V3 (delegation validity)
   - Resource caps: max_atp, max_executions, rate_limit enforcement
   - Replay protection: per-action nonces, used nonce tracking
   - Proof of Agency: on every agent action (grantId + grant hash + nonce + action)
   - Recursive cascade revocation: revoking parent revokes all descendants
   - ACP integration: closes grantId placeholder, builds MCP context with proofOfAgency
   - 3-level delegation simulation: CEO → VP → TeamLead → Dev with scope narrowing
   - See: `implementation/reference/agy_agency_delegation.py`

67. ✅ **Cross-Society ATP Sync — commit-verify-reconcile protocol** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Closes the #1 known gap: cross-society ATP balance synchronization: 75/75 checks
   - ATPPool with lock/escrow, BalanceProof with cryptographic state hashing
   - 3-phase protocol: COMMIT (lock+proof) → VERIFY (target confirms) → COMPLETE (atomic swap)
   - Bilateral reconciliation: net position, transfer counts, dual proofs
   - Conservation detection: drift alerts on unauthorized ATP creation
   - Double-spend prevention: available balance = total - reserved (locked)
   - Lock isolation: concurrent transfers compete for available balance
   - Full lifecycle: initiate → commit → verify → complete (or cancel with lock release)
   - 5 transfers across 3 societies, 330 ATP moved, 3 reconciliation statements
   - See: `implementation/reference/cross_society_atp_sync.py`

68. ✅ **Python LCT Document — schema-compliant builder** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Closes #1 finding from LCT Schema Validator: Python now has full LCT documents: 90/90 checks
   - Port from TypeScript/Go: LCTBuilder, structural validation, JSON schema validation
   - All 15 entity types pass both structural and JSON Schema 2020-12 validation
   - T3/V3 tensor operations, composite scoring, legacy 6-dim migration
   - Serialization roundtrip (to_dict/from_dict/to_json/from_json), document hashing
   - Sub-dimensions, MRH witnessing, attestations, lineage, revocation lifecycle
   - See: `implementation/reference/lct_document.py`

69. ✅ **Core Protocol Handshake — HPKE-based W4-BASE-1** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - First implementation of core-protocol.md handshake: 69/69 checks
   - W4-BASE-1 suite: X25519 KEM + Ed25519 Sig + ChaCha20-Poly1305 AEAD + SHA-256 + HKDF
   - 4-message protocol: ClientHello → ServerHello → ClientFinished → ServerFinished
   - Encrypted credential exchange via early handshake keys (transcript-derived)
   - Transcript MAC verification (Ed25519 signed transcript hash)
   - Session key derivation via HKDF with role-swapped send/recv keys
   - Suite negotiation (first-match), extension negotiation with GREASE
   - 3 pairing methods: direct (full handshake), mediated (signed token), QR code
   - Session isolation: multiple concurrent sessions with independent key material
   - Large message support: verified up to 1MB
   - See: `implementation/reference/core_protocol_handshake.py`

70. ✅ **Web4 Error Handler — RFC 9457 Problem Details** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - First implementation of errors.md specification: 97/97 checks
   - 24 error codes across 6 categories: Binding, Pairing, Witness, Authz, Crypto, Protocol
   - ProblemDetails class: RFC 9457 compliant with JSON serialization, extensions, roundtrip
   - Typed exception hierarchy: BindingError, PairingError, WitnessError, AuthzError, CryptoError, ProtocolError
   - ErrorContext manager: wraps operations with structured error capture
   - ErrorLog aggregator: by-category, by-status, retryable classification
   - All 8 HTTP status codes covered (400/401/403/408/409/410/429/503)
   - All 3 spec examples from errors.md verified
   - See: `implementation/reference/web4_error_handler.py`

71. ✅ **ATP/ADP Metering Protocol** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - First implementation of atp-adp-metering.md specification: 88/88 checks
   - CreditGrant→UsageReport→Settle lifecycle with Dispute resolution
   - Token-bucket rate limiting with burst support and scope enforcement
   - 6 metering-specific error codes: GRANT_EXPIRED, RATE_LIMIT, SCOPE_DENIED, BAD_SEQUENCE, WITNESS_REQUIRED, FORMAT_ERROR
   - Ceiling tracking, replay protection, grant lifecycle management
   - See: `implementation/reference/atp_metering.py`

72. ✅ **MCP Trust Binding — Trust-Native MCP** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - First implementation of mcp-protocol.md specification: 79/79 checks
   - MCPServer/MCPClient as full Web4 entities with LCTs and T3 trust tensors
   - Trust-based resource access: tools require minimum trust levels + role authorization
   - ATP metering per tool invocation with dynamic pricing (trust discount, demand surge, bulk)
   - Witness attestation: every interaction creates signed InteractionWitness
   - R6 transaction logging: Rules/Role/Request/Reference/Resource/Result per call
   - MCPSession: stateful sessions with trust evolution tracking (success rate, T3 deltas)
   - Capability broadcasting with trust-level computation
   - 5 MCP-specific error codes per spec §10
   - Agency delegation support for cross-role tool access
   - See: `implementation/reference/mcp_trust_binding.py`

73. ✅ **LCT Capability Levels v2 — 6-Level Validation Framework** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Full implementation of lct-capability-levels.md specification: 174/174 checks
   - 6 capability levels: STUB (0) → MINIMAL (1) → BASIC (2) → STANDARD (3) → FULL (4) → HARDWARE (5)
   - CapabilityValidator with per-level requirement checking
   - CapabilityQuery/Response discovery protocol (§4)
   - LevelUpgrader with constraint enforcement (no downgrades, no post-hoc HW, sequential only)
   - CrossDomainNegotiator: common ground protocol (§7)
   - SecurityChecker: misrepresentation, stub exploitation, upgrade attack detection (§9)
   - 21 entity types with level range enforcement (12 core + 9 extended)
   - EntityFactory: build valid entities at any level (make_stub through make_hardware)
   - Trust tiers: untrusted → low → basic → medium → high → maximum
   - See: `implementation/reference/lct_capability_levels_v2.py`

74. ✅ **Society Lifecycle** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Full implementation of SOCIETY_SPECIFICATION.md: 113/113 checks
   - Society formation: genesis → bootstrap → operational → suspended → dissolved
   - Citizenship lifecycle: apply → accept/reject → suspend → reinstate/terminate
   - Provisional citizenship status support
   - Law management: propose → ratify (majority vote) → amend with version history
   - Treasury: ATP mint/allocate/recharge, ADP return, overdraft protection
   - Hash-chained ledger: 3 types (confined/witnessed/participatory), amendment with provenance
   - Fractal membership: 3-level hierarchy (parent → child → grandchild)
   - Multi-society citizenship: independent per-society, cross-isolation verified
   - See: `implementation/reference/society_lifecycle.py`

75. ✅ **W4ID Data Formats — Foundational Identity Primitives** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Full implementation of data-formats.md specification: 91/91 checks
   - W4ID: DID-compliant identifiers (did:web4:key:... and did:web4:web:...) with parsing/validation
   - Pairwise W4ID: privacy-preserving pseudonymous IDs per peer (HKDF-SHA256, §4)
   - Verifiable Credentials: W3C VC structure with Ed25519 signatures, tamper detection
   - JCS canonicalization: RFC 8785 deterministic JSON for signing
   - CBOR deterministic encoding: RFC 7049 with graceful cbor2 fallback
   - W4ID Document: DID Document resolution structure
   - Full signing flow: W4ID → create VC → canonicalize → sign → verify
   - See: `implementation/reference/w4id_data_formats.py`

76. ✅ **T3/V3 Tensor & Reputation Engine** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Role-contextual tensors with fractal sub-dimensions: 117/117 checks
   - ReputationEngine: rule-triggered T3/V3 deltas with modifier multipliers
   - Contributing factors (witnesses, agents, metrics) influence delta computation
   - Diminishing returns: repeated identical actions have reduced impact after 5 occurrences
   - Time-weighted aggregation with configurable decay
   - Witness selection by trust threshold, skill match, and freshness
   - Key fix: diminishing returns counter was per-dimension (3×) not per-call (1×)
   - Key fix: float precision (round(..., 10)) prevents comparison artifacts
   - See: `implementation/reference/t3v3_reputation_engine.py`

77. ✅ **Cross-Implementation Integration Test** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Validates semantic coherence across 8 independently-implemented modules: 99/99 checks
   - 10 integration chains: Society→Treasury→ATP, Reputation→MCP, W4ID→LCT→VC,
     MCP→Reputation→Ledger, Error taxonomy, Capability→MCP→Reputation, Full lifecycle,
     Pairwise privacy, Team composition, Serialization round-trip
   - Key discovery: 6-dim legacy tensors need explicit mapping to 3-dim canonical T3
     (technical_competence→talent, temporal_consistency→training, social_reliability→temperament)
   - Key discovery: each module defines its own type system; cross-module bridging required
   - Key discovery: pairwise IDs (w4id:pair:) distinct from DIDs (did:web4:key:) by design
   - See: `implementation/reference/cross_implementation_integration.py`

78. ✅ **ACT Settlement Protocol — closes #1 canonical equation gap** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Implements the missing ACT blockchain settlement layer: 120/120 checks
   - MockACTChain: hash-chained blocks, 2/3 consensus, Merkle proofs
   - FractalChainManager: Compost→Leaf→Stem→Root with SNARC gating
   - ACTSettlementEngine: BilateralStatement anchoring + ATP finality
   - Double-spend detection and fork resolution (witness majority)
   - Conservation proof anchoring (ATP conservation invariant)
   - ADP discharge proof anchoring with evidence digests
   - SNARC scoring: Significant/Novel/Anomalous/Relevant/Consequential (≥3 retain, ≥5 promote)
   - Merkle proofs provide O(log N) verification per entry
   - Full E2E: Society→ATP→Settlement→ACT (13 steps in T21)
   - See: `implementation/reference/act_settlement_protocol.py`

79. ✅ **MRH Policy Scoping — horizon-aware authorization** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Policy decisions scoped by Markov Relevancy Horizon: 126/126 checks
   - Five-zone model: SELF→DIRECT→INDIRECT→PERIPHERAL→BEYOND
   - Trust propagation through MRH graph influences authorization
   - Delegation scopes monotonically narrow with MRH distance
   - Auto-DENY for entities beyond Markov Relevancy Horizon
   - ATP cost multipliers increase with graph distance (1.0×→2.0×)
   - Witness requirements scale: 0 (self)→1→2→3 (peripheral)
   - Accountability frames: NORMAL/DEGRADED/DURESS from metabolic state
   - Energy score quantifies compliance distance (IRP-compatible)
   - Full audit trail for every policy decision
   - See: `implementation/reference/mrh_policy_scoping.py`

80. ✅ **RDF Ontology Consistency — semantic backbone validation** (Feb 21, 2026)
   - Cross-validates 5 Turtle ontologies, 6 Python implementations, 2 JSON schemas: 115/115 checks
   - 25 classes across T3V3, ACP, AGY, SAL, and Core ontologies
   - 60 formally defined properties, 49 predicates used in implementations
   - All 15 entity types covered in LCT schema
   - Namespace consistency verified: web4.io/ontology# is canonical
   - 22 structural predicates formally closed via web4-core-ontology.ttl (Feb 22)
   - Cross-ontology references valid (SAL↔T3V3, AGY↔SAL, ACP↔AGY)
   - Predicate taxonomy: 8 categories (binding, pairing, witness, entity-role, tensor, action, delegation, identity)
   - See: `implementation/reference/rdf_ontology_consistency.py`
   - See: `web4-standard/ontology/web4-core-ontology.ttl`

81. ✅ **Web4 Core Ontology — formal predicate definitions** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Formalizes 22 predicates used in implementations but missing from ontology TTL files
   - 4 new classes: Binding, Pairing, WitnessAttestation, ActionRecord
   - 22 new properties across 8 categories: binding (4), pairing (4), witness (3), entity-role (1), tensor binding (2), action metadata (5), delegation (1), identity (2)
   - Combined ontology: 25 classes, 60 properties across 5 TTL files
   - RDF consistency test updated to 115/115 (from 100/100)
   - See: `web4-standard/ontology/web4-core-ontology.ttl`

82. ✅ **Federation Circuit Breaker — unified resilience layer** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Bridges 6 existing systems into production-grade circuit breaker: 138/138 checks
   - Classic CLOSED→OPEN→HALF_OPEN state machine with trust-aware degradation
   - Per-bridge bulkhead isolation prevents cascading failures
   - ATP-cost-aware backpressure: expensive operations shed first under load
   - Exponential backoff with category-aware retry (corruption/protocol → no retry)
   - Ledger-auditable state transitions with hash-chained entries
   - HALF_OPEN probe limiting for safe recovery testing
   - Manual override: force_open (security incident) / force_close (admin recovery)
   - Network-wide health reporting across all federation bridges
   - 5-phase lifecycle test: normal→degradation→rejection→probe→recovery
   - 5-bridge independence test: 2 tripped, 3 still operational
   - See: `implementation/reference/federation_circuit_breaker.py`

83. ✅ **Dictionary Compression-Trust Validation — empirical proof** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Validates central hypothesis "compression requires trust": 86/86 checks, 65 experiments
   - Compression-trust correlation confirmed across 5 trust levels (T3=0.3→1.0)
   - Multiplicative degradation exact to 4 decimal places (6-hop chain: predicted=0.4177, actual=0.4177)
   - Key discovery: chain degradation is SUBLINEAR (not superlinear) — diminishing marginal loss
   - T3 composite confirmed as hard ceiling: conf = min(avg_entry_conf × coverage, T3_composite)
   - Functional form validated at 10 data points (T3 sweep 0.1→1.0)
   - Domain-pair gap measured: close domains 0.85 vs distant 0.75 (gap=0.10)
   - Round-trip translation lossy: 'diagnosis'→'assessment' (not recoverable)
   - Correction feedback monotonically decreases confidence (0.95→0.92→0.71)
   - Drift detection at 10% threshold (>0.1 corrected entries triggers)
   - ATP staking alignment: reward for conservative claims, slash for overconfidence
   - See: `implementation/reference/dictionary_compression_trust.py`

84. ✅ **Security Framework — dual crypto suite implementation** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Both W4-BASE-1 (MUST) and W4-FIPS-1 (SHOULD) fully implemented: 144/144 checks
   - W4-BASE-1: X25519 + Ed25519 + ChaCha20-Poly1305 + SHA-256 + HKDF-SHA256 (COSE)
   - W4-FIPS-1: ECDH-P256 + ECDSA-P256 + AES-128-GCM + SHA-256 + HKDF-SHA256 (JOSE)
   - KeyManager: generation, rotation (lineage), revocation, multi-suite
   - Authenticator: challenge-response, replay protection (one-time nonces), expiry
   - CredentialIssuer/Verifier: VC issuance, verification, revocation, permanent/time-bounded
   - SuiteNegotiator: MTI fallback guarantee (BASE-1 always available)
   - Canonicalization: JCS (RFC 8785) + simulated CBOR (deterministic)
   - See: `implementation/reference/security_framework.py`

85. ✅ **SAL Society-Authority-Law — full spec lifecycle** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Complete web4-society-authority-law.md implementation: 143/143 checks
   - Genesis: birth certificate + citizen role + witness quorum (§2)
   - Fractal citizenship: nested society composition + law inheritance (§3)
   - Law Oracle: versioned datasets, norms, procedures, compliance queries (§4)
   - Roles: citizen (immutable), authority (scoped), oracle, witness, auditor (§5)
   - SAL↔R6 mapping: law hash pinning in action transcripts (§6)
   - MRH triple store: 9 required predicates, SPARQL-like pattern matching (§7)
   - Auditor: evidence-based T3/V3 adjustments with ±0.1 caps (§5.5)
   - Immutable ledger: hash-chained, content-addressed, event-filtered (§3.4)
   - All 9 SAL error conditions (§9) + worked example: bank account (§13)
   - See: `implementation/reference/sal_society_authority_law.py`

86. ✅ **LCT Lifecycle Integration — cross-component genesis→revocation** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Integrates Security Framework + SAL + LCT Document + T3/V3 + MRH: 115/115 checks
   - Full lifecycle: formation → genesis → operation → rotation → revocation
   - Entity genesis: key gen → binding proof → birth cert → LCT document → MRH
   - Authentication: challenge-response with W4-BASE-1 and W4-FIPS-1
   - Authorization: VC issuance across entities, verification, revocation
   - R6 execution: law hash pinning, compliance checks, V3 validity accrual
   - Key rotation: new LCT preserving subject DID, MRH, T3/V3, lineage
   - Revocation: capabilities cleared, key revoked, MRH preserved read-only
   - Cross-suite: BASE-1 ↔ FIPS-1 entities and VCs, suite negotiation
   - See: `implementation/reference/lct_lifecycle_integration.py`

87. ✅ **Handshake Protocol Advanced — §4-§12 full coverage** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Covers all previously-missing handshake spec sections: 159/159 checks
   - W4IDp Pairwise Identifiers (§4): HKDF derivation, multibase base32, 128-bit salt, 4 concurrent validity
   - Signature Profiles (§6.0): COSE/CBOR (Ed25519, alg=-8) and JOSE/JSON (ES256) dual canonicalization
   - COSESign1 + JWSCompact envelope implementations with channel binding
   - Channel binding: Hash(TH ∥ initiator_epk ∥ responder_epk) (§6.0.5)
   - Session Key Ratchet (§7): HKDF forward secrecy with grace window for old keys
   - Handshake State Machine (§8): 10 transitions initiator + 10 responder, formal event model
   - Anti-Replay Guard (§9): nonce uniqueness per key, ±300s tolerance, sliding window
   - Problem Details (§10): RFC 9457 format, 11 W4_ERR codes
   - DoS mitigation (§11): cheap_checks() — syntax/version before KEM decap
   - GREASE (§11): extension + suite ID randomization for ossification prevention
   - Interop Profiles (§12): W4-BASE-1 (MUST) and W4-FIPS-1 (SHOULD) registries
   - See: `implementation/reference/handshake_protocol_advanced.py`

88. ✅ **R6 Security Mitigations — all 16 attack vectors** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Codifies every attack from r6-security-analysis.md into defensive code: 112/112 checks
   - Session Integrity (A1): HMAC-based file integrity verification
   - Audit Chain (A2): hash-chained records + signed snapshots + gap detection (A6)
   - Pre-Action Validator (A5): timestamp freshness + pending R6 consistency
   - Multi-Approver Quorum (B2): 4 risk levels (LOW→CRITICAL), trust-gated
   - Trust Gate (B3): ATP cost thresholds gated on T3 composite score
   - Approval Rate Limiter (B4): cooldown + batch limits per actor
   - Trust Gaming Detector (B5): diminishing returns after threshold, velocity detection
   - Request Deduplicator (B6): ID + nonce uniqueness
   - Tier Validator (C1/C2): binding type validation + import poisoning defense
   - Time Anomaly Detector (C3): backwards jumps, forward gaps, too-fast detection
   - R6SecurityPipeline: integrated chain wiring all mitigations together
   - See: `implementation/reference/r6_security_mitigations.py`

89. ✅ **Cross-Language LCT ID Pattern Fix** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Canonical LCT ID format `lct:web4:{entity_type}:{hash}` requires colons in character class
   - Go and TypeScript already correct: `[A-Za-z0-9_:-]+`
   - Fixed JSON schema (4 pattern occurrences) and Python implementations to include colon
   - lct_document.py (90/90) and lct_schema_validator.py verified post-fix
   - All 4 languages now consistent: Go, TypeScript, Python, JSON Schema

90. ✅ **Full-Stack Protocol Integration — 18-phase lifecycle** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - End-to-end Web4 scenario integrating all components: 102/102 checks
   - 18 phases: society genesis → key gen → birth certs → role binding → LCT docs → W4IDp → handshake → encrypted comms → R6 actions → trust evolution → MRH scoping → gaming detection → key rotation → ATP metering → audit trail → cross-component consistency → law compliance → edge cases
   - Self-contained: T3/V3, CryptoSuite, W4IDpManager, ReplayGuard, HandshakeStateMachine, ATPBudget, SecurityPipeline, MRHZone, LawDataset, Society, LCTDocument, W4Agent
   - MRH monotonic narrowing proof: scope(d+1) ⊆ scope(d) for all d
   - X25519 DH + ChaCha20-Poly1305 encrypted channel with replay protection
   - Trust evolution: T3 adjustments bounded, V3 accumulation monotonic
   - See: `implementation/reference/full_stack_protocol_integration.py`

91. ✅ **Witness Protocol Unified — 8 witness classes + quorum** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Unifies web4-witness.md and web4-witnessing.md specs: 176/176 checks
   - 8 witness classes: time, audit, audit-minimal, oracle, existence, action, state, quality
   - WitnessAttestation with required/optional claims per class
   - Dual envelope: COSEWitnessEnvelope (CBOR, Ed25519) + JOSEWitnessEnvelope (JSON, ES256)
   - WitnessRequest lifecycle with timeout/expiry management
   - Replay guard: nonce uniqueness + ±300s timestamp tolerance + sliding window
   - WitnessDiscovery: bootstrap, registry, peer recommendation, broadcast
   - WitnessQuorum: 4 policies (simple majority, 2-of-3, Byzantine, unanimous)
   - ATP incentives: reward for valid attestation, penalty for replays/invalid
   - Reputation tracking: accuracy, availability, diversity metrics
   - MRH integration: witness relationships tracked in horizon context
   - See: `implementation/reference/witness_protocol_unified.py`

92. ✅ **Cross-Language Interop Test Vectors — shared validation** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - 3 canonical test vectors for Python/Go/TypeScript round-trip validation: 152/152 checks
   - MINIMAL_VECTOR: agent entity, bare minimum fields
   - HUMAN_VECTOR: human entity with full T3/V3, capabilities, MRH, metadata
   - REVOKED_VECTOR: revoked agent with reason + successor
   - Canonical JSON (JCS-like RFC 8785): sorted keys, no trailing commas
   - T3/V3 composite scoring verified: T3 weights 0.4/0.3/0.3, V3 weights 0.3/0.35/0.35
   - snake_case enforcement: no camelCase in any field name
   - Go JSON tag compatibility: validates lowercase + underscored struct tags
   - LCT ID pattern validation: `[A-Za-z0-9_:-]+` across all languages
   - SHA-256 canonical hash reproducibility test
   - JSON test vector files written to `web4-standard/test-vectors/lct/`
   - See: `implementation/reference/cross_language_interop.py`

93. ✅ **Appeals Mechanism — SAL-level trust penalty appeals** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Formal appeals system addressing 4-life visitor gap "no appeals mechanism": 109/109 checks
   - Multi-tier appeals: TIER_1_AUDITOR → TIER_2_SOCIETY → TIER_3_FEDERATION
   - 7 appeal states, 4 decisions, ATP staking (5/15/50 by tier)
   - ForgivenesExploitationDetector: consecutive success streak, appeal-to-penalty ratio
   - AppealWitnessQuorum: 3 minimum witnesses, 0.67 majority threshold
   - ExpungementPolicy: 30-day minimum, T3≥0.6, severity ≤0.2 delta
   - CoolDownManager: 86400s between appeals, escalation bypass for same dispute
   - TensorSnapshot: pre/post T3/V3 restoration on successful appeal
   - Addresses SAL §5.5: "Negative adjustments MUST include appeal path and cool-down period"
   - See: `implementation/reference/sal_appeals_mechanism.py`

94. ✅ **Entity Relationships Unified — binding, pairing, witnessing, broadcast** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements all 4 relationship types from web4-entity-relationships.md: 122/122 checks
   - Binding: permanent identity attachment, parent-child hierarchy, 15 entity types validated
   - Pairing: 3 modes (direct, witnessed, authorized), 12 pairing states, role-agent pairing
   - Witnessing: 4 evidence types (existence, action, state, quality), bidirectional MRH links
   - Broadcast: 3 types (discovery, capability, alert), accumulator for passive collection
   - MRHGraph: unified relationship container (bound/paired/witnessing arrays)
   - T3Snapshot: trust propagation from witnessing and pairing with ±cap clamping
   - RelationshipManager: orchestrates all 4 mechanisms with entity registry
   - Cross-mechanism integration: bind→pair→witness→broadcast→MRH→T3 in single scenario
   - See: `implementation/reference/entity_relationships_unified.py`

95. ✅ **MRH Grounding & Coherence Index — ephemeral operational presence** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements MRH_GROUNDING_PROPOSAL.md: 137/137 checks
   - 5th MRH relationship type: GROUNDING (ephemeral operational presence, not persistent identity)
   - Coherence Index (CI): 4-dimension weighted geometric mean (spatial, capability, temporal, relational)
   - Consequence Index (CX): 5-level action classification with CI/CX gating threshold = 0.3 + cx×0.6
   - Trust modulation: CI gates T3 application, ATP cost multipliers (up to 10×), witness requirements
   - Security: impossible travel (haversine), capability spoofing, history poisoning detection
   - Full lifecycle: register→ground→modulate→escalate→degrade→remove
   - RDF serialization: Turtle format for grounding edges and CI scores
   - See: `implementation/reference/mrh_grounding_coherence.py`

96. ✅ **ATP Insurance Protocol — federation-wide insurance pools** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements ATP_INSURANCE_PROTOCOL.md: 118/118 checks
   - Insurance pools: per-society pools with reserve ratio (≥0.2), max-payout (3× premium), hash-chained audit
   - Dynamic premiums: 4 tiers (LOW_RISK 0.8×, STANDARD 1.0×, ELEVATED 1.3×, HIGH_RISK 1.8×)
   - Claims: fraud evaluation (claim score based on evidence, history, collusion), cooling-off period
   - Parametric insurance: auto-trigger on ATP threshold breach (no manual claims)
   - Reinsurance: pool-of-pools with cascading escalation and contribution ratios
   - Collusion detection: timing correlation, outcome alignment, ATP funneling analysis
   - Attribution engine: ATP flow tracking with lineage chains
   - See: `implementation/reference/atp_insurance_protocol.py`

97. ✅ **Cognitive Sub-Entity Framework — hierarchical LCT spawning** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements RFC_COGNITIVE_SUB_ENTITIES.md: 117/117 checks
   - Sub-entity types: AGENT, MODEL, TOOL, ROLE, VALIDATOR with autonomy levels
   - Trust inheritance: autonomy-gated coefficients (SUPERVISED 0.9×, SEMI 0.8×, AUTONOMOUS 0.6×, FULLY 0.4×)
   - Trust evolution: delta = 0.02 × (outcome_quality - 0.5) per decision, gradual autonomy promotion
   - Collusion detection: timing correlation, outcome alignment, ATP funneling between sub-entities
   - Conflict resolution: inter-sub-entity conflicts with priority ordering
   - ATP attribution: per-sub-entity cost tracking with parent caps
   - Cognitive diversity: ensemble deviation scoring for group intelligence metrics
   - See: `implementation/reference/cognitive_sub_entity.py`

98. ✅ **Temporal Authentication — surprise-based continuous auth** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements RFC_TEMPORAL_AUTHENTICATION.md: 114/114 checks
   - Temporal patterns: weekday/weekend × time-slot × location probability distributions
   - Surprise calculation: surprise = 1 - P(current_context | temporal_pattern)
   - Trust modulation: T3_new = T3_old × (1 - surprise × 0.5), V3_new = V3_old × (1 - surprise × 0.3)
   - Graduated auth actions: CONTINUE (<0.3), VALIDATE (0.3-0.6), WITNESS_REQUEST (0.6-0.8), QUARANTINE (>0.8)
   - Pattern learning: adaptive observation engine with learning rate, drift detection against baseline
   - Network fingerprints: IP prefix matching for location resolution
   - Anomaly broadcasting: federation alerts when surprise > 0.6, with ATP cost model
   - RDF serialization: Turtle format for temporal patterns and auth events
   - See: `implementation/reference/temporal_authentication.py`

99. ✅ **Reality KV Cache — assumption caching + surprise invalidation** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements RFC-REALITY-CACHE-001: 140/140 checks
   - Hierarchical cache levels: L1 sensory (threshold 0.3) → L4 abstract (threshold 0.7)
   - Surprise-driven invalidation with cascading dependency graphs
   - 3 confidence decay models: linear, exponential, sigmoid with configurable half-life
   - Witness-based validation: consensus from multiple witnesses
   - Merkle consistency: detect cache divergence across federation
   - SNARC integration: neuron/circuit/system/meta scale mapping
   - Security: cache poisoning detection, rate limiting, staleness exploitation defense
   - Trust integration: stale cache → T3 reliability -0.3×staleness, V3 -0.2×staleness
   - See: `implementation/reference/reality_kv_cache.py`

100. ✅ **Law Oracle Procedures — extended procedure schema** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements RFC-LAW-PROC-001: 134/134 checks
   - 5 trigger types: event, schedule, daily, interval, condition
   - Multi-threshold logic: graduated responses with threshold-to-action mappings
   - 5 failure actions: reject_transaction, flag_for_review, emergency_halt, notify_authority, escalate_to_quorum
   - Immediate execution: emergency bypass with authority verification and post-hoc audit
   - R6 action grammar: r6.procedure.<id>.execute/trigger/validate
   - Law dataset builder: Web4LawDataset with extension declarations
   - Security: timing attack detection, threshold gaming detection
   - Hash-chained audit trail for all procedure executions
   - See: `implementation/reference/law_oracle_procedures.py`

101. ✅ **Law Alignment vs Compliance — spirit vs letter governance** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements RFC-LAW-ALIGN-001: 93/93 checks
   - Two-phase validation: alignment (spirit, ALWAYS) → compliance (letter, CONDITIONAL)
   - Web4 capability levels: L0 hardware, L1 virtual, L2 blockchain — compliance conditional per level
   - Verdict system: PERFECT (1.0), ALIGNED (0.85), WARNING (0.7), VIOLATION (0.0)
   - 4 enforcement matrix rows: Critical/High/Medium/Low × alignment/compliance requirements
   - 6 example laws: ECON-001, ECON-003, IDENTITY, ANTI-SHORTCUT, GOVERNANCE, DOCS
   - E2E validation: Society 4 (PERFECT), SAGE (ALIGNED at L1), Sprout (ALIGNED at L0)
   - Law migration: upgrade minimal laws with alignment specifications
   - See: `implementation/reference/law_alignment_compliance.py`

102. ✅ **Contextual Hardware Binding — multi-society shared hardware** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements RFC-CHB-001: 85/85 checks
   - 5 sharing models: exclusive, concurrent, temporal, hierarchical, development
   - Trust calculation: sharing_penalty = correlation × 0.2, transparency_bonus = 0.1 (or -0.3 undisclosed)
   - Sybil resistance: timing correlation monitoring, behavior similarity analysis
   - Resource monitoring: allocation enforcement with starvation detection
   - Binding registry: co-resident consistency validation, over-allocation detection
   - Migration manager: concurrent → exclusive with hardware reassignment
   - E2E: ACT Federation case study (Society2 + CBP on shared WSL2)
   - See: `implementation/reference/contextual_hardware_binding.py`

103. ✅ **R6→R7 Evolution — making Reputation explicit** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements RFC-R6-TO-R7-EVOLUTION: 201/201 checks
   - R7Action with all 7 Rs: Rules, Role, Request, Reference, Resource, Result, Reputation
   - ReputationDelta: role-contextualized T3/V3 deltas on MRH pairing links
   - Multi-factor reputation: quality, deadline, efficiency, accuracy, witness count
   - Reputation Rules Engine: 6 standard rules (success, failure, exceptional, violation, witness, efficient)
   - R7Executor: validate→execute→compute→settle pipeline
   - R6→R7 migration: R6Executor backward-compat wrapper, R6ToR7Migrator
   - Gaming prevention: diminishing returns (0.8^(n-1)), anomaly detection
   - Federation reputation oracle for cross-society tracking
   - RDF serialization, time-weighted aggregation (30-day half-life), natural decay
   - See: `implementation/reference/r6_to_r7_evolution.py`

104. ✅ **LCT Authorization System — trust-based access control** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements WEB4-AUTH-001: 147/147 checks
   - 5 reputation levels: Novice→Developing→Trusted→Expert→Master
   - Hierarchical permission sets (each level ⊇ previous)
   - PermissionClaim with crypto signatures, expiry, revocation
   - Authorization engine: identity + reputation + explicit grants
   - Cross-org trust attestations, anti-self-grant prevention
   - ATP cost enforcement for permission grants
   - Wildcard permissions, conditional permissions (T3 threshold gating)
   - Society-level authorization, permission freshness checking
   - See: `implementation/reference/lct_authorization_system.py`

105. ✅ **AI Agent Accountability Stack — WHO/AUTHORITY/LIMITS** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements WEB4-PROPOSAL-001: 119/119 checks
   - WHO: Hardware-bound identity (TPM binding, attestation, sybil prevention)
   - UNDER WHOSE AUTHORITY: Delegation chains with scope narrowing + cascade revocation
   - WITHIN WHAT LIMITS: ATP budget with lock-commit-rollback transaction pattern
   - Cross-network delegation with trust-weighted exchange rates + bridge fees
   - Sybil detection (cost = N × 250 HW + 50 ATP), ATP farming BFS detection
   - Dynamic budget optimization based on reputation + performance history
   - Rate limiting, cost caps, identity migration
   - See: `implementation/reference/ai_agent_accountability.py`

106. ✅ **T3V3 Privacy Governance — No Free Trust Queries** (Feb 22, 2026)
   - Implements T3V3_PRIVACY_GOVERNANCE: 135/135 checks
   - ATP-staked trust queries (no free reputation lookups)
   - Role-contextual isolation: never global scores, always per-role
   - Stake resolution: engage→90% returned, forfeit→100% to target, declined→100% returned
   - 4 disclosure levels: NONE/BINARY/RANGE/PRECISE (stake-gated)
   - Anti-fishing: rate limits, target limits, engagement pattern detection, role shopping detection
   - Need-to-know validation (legitimate interaction intent required)
   - Query pricing: sensitivity × scarcity × trust premium × demand
   - Entity rights: know, refuse, expire, context
   - Privacy-preserving aggregates (anonymous statistics only)
   - See: `implementation/reference/t3v3_privacy_governance.py`

107. ✅ **MCP Web4 Protocol — full §1-§14 spec coverage** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/mcp-protocol.md: 248/248 checks
   - MCP Server/Client as first-class Web4 entities with LCTs and T3 trust tensors
   - Prompt Resources (§6.2) and Context Resources (§6.3) as first-class types
   - Server Authority with delegated scope/limits/expiry (§7.2)
   - MRH-based server discovery with trust filtering (§8.2)
   - Session handoff between MCP servers (§11.2) — state transfer, trust preservation
   - Transport Security Layer with cipher suite negotiation (§5.2)
   - Privacy controls: 4 disclosure levels (NONE/BINARY/RANGE/PRECISE) gated by ATP stake
   - Trust-based pricing: effective_cost = base_cost × (1.0 - t3.average() × 0.2)
   - 10 error codes (-32001 to -32010), R7 reputation integration
   - See: `implementation/reference/mcp_web4_protocol.py`

108. ✅ **Entity Type System — 15 types with behavioral taxonomy** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/entity-types.md: 273/273 checks
   - Full 15-type taxonomy: Human, AI Agent, Organization, Society, Hardware, Software, Data Asset, Service, LCT, Trust Tensor, Role, Dictionary, Accumulator, Policy, Relationship
   - 3 behavioral modes (Agentic/Responsive/Delegative), 2 energy patterns (Active/Passive)
   - Birth Certificate system: SAL-compliant, immutable citizen role pairing
   - 10-step entity creation with EntityFactory
   - Role hierarchy: Citizen→Participant→Contributor→Specialist→Authority
   - Interaction validation matrix between entity types
   - Specialized entities: Dictionary (semantic bridge), Accumulator (value aggregation), Policy (governance)
   - See: `implementation/reference/web4_entity_type_system.py`

109. ✅ **Web4 URI & Transport — messaging, transport, discovery** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/core-protocol.md: 179/179 checks
   - Messaging protocol with 4 types (request/response/event/credential)
   - W4ID format: w4id:<method>:<specific_id> with sign/verify
   - Verifiable Credentials with issuance and verification
   - 8 transports: TLS 1.3, QUIC, WebTransport, WebRTC, WebSocket, TCP/TLS, BLE, CAN
   - Priority negotiation: QUIC > WebTransport > TLS 1.3 > ...
   - 6 discovery methods: Witness Relay, DHT, DNS, Local, Manual, MRH
   - web4:// URI scheme with full parsing (authority, path, query, fragment)
   - See: `implementation/reference/web4_uri_transport.py`

110. ✅ **R6 Implementation Tiers — 3-tier progressive adoption** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/r6-implementation-guide.md: 213/213 checks
   - Tier 1 Observational: hash-linked JSONL audit chain with SHA-256 provenance, before/after hooks
   - Tier 2 Authorization: full governance engine with approval workflow, role-based permissions (Admin/Developer/Reviewer/Viewer)
   - Tier 3 Training Evaluation: operational modes (conversation/refinement/philosophical), meta-cognitive signal detection, T3 trajectory tracking
   - State machines per tier with valid transition enforcement
   - ID format validation: r6:{uuid8}, audit:{uuid8}, web4:session:{hash12}, lct:web4:{type}:{id}
   - Tier upgrade path: Observational→Authorization→Training with record import
   - Trust integration levels: Relying Party (T1), T3 Tensor (T2), T3 Developmental (T3)
   - See: `implementation/reference/r6_implementation_tiers.py`

111. ✅ **Reputation Computation — full R7 reputation engine** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/reputation-computation.md: 188/188 checks
   - Complete T3/V3 tensor system with apply_delta and interpretation levels
   - Reputation Rules: success/failure/exceptional/ethical_violation categories
   - Multi-factor computation: quality, deadline, early completion, resource efficiency, accuracy
   - Modifier system: base_delta × multiplier chain, clamped to [-1.0, +1.0]
   - Spec example verified: training=0.0156, temperament=0.0075, veracity=0.02, validity=0.011
   - Witness selection by priority: law oracle → role validators → MRH witnesses
   - Time-weighted aggregation: 30-day exponential half-life, 90-day horizon
   - Reputation decay: -0.01/month inactive, 1.5× acceleration after 6 months, -0.5 cap
   - Gaming prevention: diminishing returns (0.8^(n-1), floor 0.1), self-attestation blocked
   - Sybil economics: N × (250 HW + 50 ATP), 5% ATP transfer fee
   - See: `implementation/reference/reputation_computation.py`

112. ✅ **Alignment Test Harness — bidirectional alignment validation** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/ALIGNMENT_PHILOSOPHY.md: 136/136 checks
   - 5 pattern statuses: Confirmed, Evolved, Discovered, Hypothesized, Invalidated
   - 5-step alignment process: Recognition→Validation→Integration→Propagation→Evolution
   - 12 canonical patterns from spec: 4 confirmed, 4 evolved, 4 discovered
   - Implementation feedback loops for 5 projects (ACT, HRM/SAGE, Memory, Portal, Synchronism)
   - Cross-project pattern detection (patterns validated in multiple projects)
   - Living Standard versioning with annotation and focus areas
   - Practical Integration: 6-step experiment lifecycle with iteration support
   - Alignment vs Compliance distinction enforced at framework level
   - See: `implementation/reference/alignment_test_harness.py`

113. ✅ **ACP Framework — Agentic Context Protocol** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/acp-framework.md: 153/153 checks
   - Full ACP lifecycle: Plan→Intent→Decision→ExecutionRecord with 7-state machine (Idle→Planning→IntentCreated→LawCheck→ApprovalGate→Executing→Recording→Complete)
   - ACP-AGY integration: agency grants, scope validation, resource caps
   - ACP-SAL integration: law compliance checking, witness requirements
   - Human Console interface for approval gates
   - 5-layer security model: input validation, scope enforcement, ATP limits, witness threshold, audit logging
   - ACP-MRH RDF triples: 9 predicates for plan/intent/decision/execution graph linkage
   - Error handling with recovery strategies: escalation, witness waiting, retry
   - See: `implementation/reference/acp_framework.py`

114. ✅ **R7 Framework — Complete Action Grammar** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/r7-framework.md: 254/254 checks
   - All 7 R7 components: Rules, Role, Request, Reference, Resource, Result, Reputation
   - Full transaction flow: Validate→Execute→Reputation→Settle with resource metering
   - Role-contextualized reputation: T3/V3 deltas stored on MRH role pairing links, never globally
   - MRH Role Store: register/query/update role pairings with tensor clamping and history
   - R7-SAL integration: law norms, oracle rulings, reputation rule generation
   - 6 security properties enforced: determinism, non-repudiation, resource bounds, role isolation, atomic settlement, reputation observability
   - All 5 spec examples verified: Simple Query (§5.1), Trust Query (§5.2), Computational Task (§5.3), Authority Delegation (§5.4), Agency-Delegated (§5.5)
   - R6→R7 migration: tensor extraction from legacy results, backward compatibility
   - Custom action type registry and handler extensibility (§8)
   - 7 error types per spec (§7), validation failures still produce R7 results with reputation
   - See: `implementation/reference/r7_framework.py`

115. ✅ **MRH RDF Graph — Markov Relevancy Horizon as RDF** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/mrh-rdf-graph-spec.md: 131/131 checks
   - 4 MRH node classes, 7 relationship types, fractal composition
   - DFS/BFS traversal algorithms with trust propagation
   - Conditional dependencies and alternative path evaluation
   - JSON-LD round-trip serialization, migration path
   - Chain of reasoning examples from spec (§6.1-§6.3)
   - See: `implementation/reference/mrh_rdf_graph.py`

116. ✅ **Web4 Metering Protocol — ATP/ADP credit metering** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/web4-metering-protocol.md: 123/123 checks
   - CreditGrant/UsageReport/Dispute/Settle message types
   - Token-bucket rate enforcement with replay guard
   - Witness classes, ceiling enforcement
   - 2 conformance profiles (Enterprise/P2P), dispute resolution flow
   - End-to-end enterprise profile test
   - See: `implementation/reference/web4_metering_protocol.py`

117. ✅ **Deployment Profiles — 4 conformance profiles** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/deployment-profiles.md: 90/90 checks
   - 4 profiles: Edge/Cloud/P2P/Blockchain with protocol stacks
   - 3 crypto suites: W4-IOT-1 (constrained), W4-FIPS-1 (compliance), W4-BASE-1 (general)
   - Compatibility matrix and profile selection logic
   - Component enum validation
   - See: `implementation/reference/deployment_profiles.py`

118. ✅ **LCT Core Specification — unified LCT lifecycle** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/LCT-linked-context-token.md: 182/182 checks
   - Complete LCT structure: 6 required components (identity, binding, MRH, policy, T3, V3) + 4 optional (birth cert, attestations, lineage, revocation)
   - 12 entity types, 3 binding types, 3 pairing types, 7 witness roles, 5 birth contexts
   - Genesis: 8-step society birth certificate issuance with witness quorum (≥3)
   - Self-issued bootstrap path with low initial trust (0.1)
   - MRH dynamics: add/revoke bindings, pairings, witnessing; horizon depth control
   - LCT lifecycle: creation→operation→rotation→revocation with overlap windows
   - Security: unforgeability, context integrity, privacy validation
   - Compliance validators: LCT validator + birth certificate validator per spec §11
   - See: `implementation/reference/lct_core_spec.py`

119. ✅ **LCT Protocol — formal field definitions and algorithms** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/protocols/web4-lct.md: 152/152 checks
   - 8 field group validators: identity, binding, birth certificate, MRH, policy, attestation, lineage, revocation
   - Binding algorithm: 7-step procedure (key gen → canonical binding → CBOR → COSE sign → SHA256 ID)
   - MRH dynamics: 4 update operations, context emergence, horizon queries
   - Rotation: 5-step procedure, 24h overlap, 48h max, split-brain resolution (attestation count → timestamp priority)
   - 7 witness classes with required claims: time(ts+nonce), audit(policy_met+evidence), oracle(source+data), etc.
   - Security: no future timestamps, max overlap enforcement, witness signature verification
   - IANA registrations: URI scheme, entity/witness/revocation registries
   - See: `implementation/reference/lct_protocol.py`

120. ✅ **Dictionary Entities Protocol — living semantic bridges** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/protocols/web4-dictionary-entities.md: 99/99 checks
   - Dictionary entity structure: domain expertise, coverage metrics, trust metrics, compression maps, evolution tracking
   - Translation dance: single-hop with accuracy×preservation trust, chain translation with multiplicative decay
   - Compression-trust model: within-domain (high trust, max compression) → cross-domain (degraded, decompression needed)
   - Learning system: 4 event types with spec-exact deltas (+0.001 success, -0.05 error, +0.01 novel, +0.005 verification)
   - R6 integration: 4 phases (request clarification, reference interpretation, resource contextualization, result interpretation)
   - Discovery and selection: domain pair query, trust filtering, specialization search, multi-criteria selection
   - Composition: chain, parallel (consensus), hierarchical (specialized→general fallback)
   - Economic model: 1 ATP base, trust premium, frequency discount, 0.5 ATP per witness
   - Security: translation integrity, semantic attack detection, gaming prevention
   - See: `implementation/reference/dictionary_entities_protocol.py`

121. ✅ **Dictionary Entities Spec — comprehensive core-spec coverage** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/core-spec/dictionary-entities.md: 120/120 checks
   - §1-§13: compression-trust duality, entity architecture (LCT/T3/V3/MRH), 4 dictionary types
   - Translation process: request flow, degradation tracking, multi-hop chains
   - Dictionary evolution: learning, drift detection, community curation
   - Discovery/selection: MRH-based discovery, scoring, R6 integration
   - Security: attack mitigation, trust building, implementation requirements
   - See: `implementation/reference/dictionary_entities_spec.py`

122. ✅ **MRH Scale Limits & Optimization — device-aware scaling** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/MRH_SCALE_LIMITS.md: 111/111 checks
   - 5 device classes: Micro (256KB) → Cloud (unlimited), each with connection/depth limits
   - 3 serialization formats: CBOR (23B), JSON (225B), RDF (440B) with memory footprint analysis
   - Optimization: horizon pruning, time-based eviction, relationship compression
   - Dynamic scaling: adaptive horizon, priority-based retention
   - Device detection, format negotiation, performance benchmarks
   - See: `implementation/reference/mrh_scale_limits.py`

123. ✅ **R6 Tensor Guide — unified R6+T3/V3 integration** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/R6_TENSOR_GUIDE.md: 151/151 checks
   - 7 parts: R6 action framework (6 components), T3 tensor (3 dims, 7 outcome types, decay)
   - V3 tensor (valuation/veracity/validity, aggregate tracking)
   - Tensor interactions: T3→V3 prediction, V3→T3 feedback loops
   - Practical: role matching, ATP pricing with tensors, team composition optimization
   - Implementation: tensor storage (SQL schema model), update triggers, 3-level privacy
   - Advanced: tensor prediction, cross-entity correlation, 5 anti-gaming properties
   - Energy flow: active vs passive resources, fractal reputation distribution (90/7/2/1%)
   - See: `implementation/reference/r6_tensor_guide.py`

124. ✅ **MCP Entity Specification — MCP servers as Web4 entities** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/MCP_ENTITY_SPECIFICATION.md: 93/93 checks
   - 10 sections: dual nature (responsive+delegative), entity classification
   - 5 server subtypes: Database, API, Tool, Process, Knowledge — each with LCT+MRH
   - Trust computation: 4 dimensions (response, delegation, latency, security), weighted combination
   - SAGE integration: H-level planning, L-level execution, registry with trust-based selection
   - Protocol extensions: Web4 context fields, trust attestation in responses
   - Composability: server chains, failover selection, context preservation across calls
   - See: `implementation/reference/mcp_entity_spec.py`

125. ✅ **Relationship Guide — 4 relationship mechanism patterns** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/RELATIONSHIP_GUIDE.md: 93/93 checks
   - BINDING: permanent hierarchical, hardware anchoring, cascade revocation
   - PAIRING: 3 modes (Direct/Witnessed/Authorized), session keys, context-specific
   - WITNESSING: 4 evidence types (EXISTENCE/ACTION/STATE/TRANSITION), trust accumulation
   - BROADCAST: unidirectional, accumulator collection, no MRH updates
   - Interaction rules matrix: 11×11 entity types with B/P/W/C permissions
   - Pairing mode decision tree, 4 common patterns (org onboarding, service discovery, distributed task, trust network)
   - See: `implementation/reference/relationship_guide.py`

126. ✅ **Witnessing Attestation Spec — COSE/JOSE envelope format** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/WEB4_WITNESSING_SPECIFICATION.md: 86/86 checks
   - 3 witness roles (time, audit-minimal, oracle) — extensible registry
   - COSE_Sign1 canonical format: EdDSA/Ed25519, Sig_structure, CBOR payload
   - JOSE/JWS alternative: ES256, JCS canonical JSON, base64url signing input
   - 6 required fields: role, ts, subject, event_hash, policy, nonce
   - 4-step verification: signature, freshness (±300s), event_hash match, role check
   - Security: nonce uniqueness enforcement, replay detection, multi-witness support
   - Problem Details error format (w4:err:witness), 3 interoperability test vectors
   - See: `implementation/reference/witnessing_attestation_spec.py`

127. ✅ **MRH Theoretical Foundation — mathematical validation** (Feb 26, 2026)
   - Implements web4-standard/MRH_THEORETICAL_FOUNDATION.md: 69/69 checks
   - Classical Markov blanket: conditional independence, parents/children/co-parents
   - MRH formal definition: 4-tuple entries (target, probability, relation, distance)
   - 6-dimension MRH vs Blanket comparison (focus, structure, scale, boundaries, composition, semantics)
   - Fractal scales: multi-level graph, relevance propagation with decay across paths
   - Fractal Markov Property verification, information geometry (metric tensor, geodesic distance, self-similarity)
   - Practical: context zoom/compress, shard boundary detection, fractal agent with hierarchical prediction
   - RDF export, fractal composition demonstration
   - See: `implementation/reference/mrh_theoretical_foundation.py`

### Immediate (Feb 2026)

128. 🔄 TrustZone binding on Thor/Sprout (OP-TEE setup)
129. 🔄 Cross-ledger consistency protocol (ACT blockchain integration)

### Near-Term (Q1 2026)

If research continues:
- ACT blockchain integration (Phases 1-5 from ATP analysis)
- Extended long-duration testing (10,000+ cycles)
- Cross-platform deployment testing
- Economic modeling (even if just simulation)
- ~~Game-theoretic analysis~~ → DONE (item 53)

If research pauses:
- Archive with clear status
- Publish findings
- Document lessons learned

---

## Using This Work

### For Researchers

**Useful**:
- Attack analysis (starting point for threat modeling)
- Architecture patterns (trust-based security)
- Prototype implementations (reference designs)
- Session docs (research methodology example)

**Add**:
- ~~Game-theoretic analysis~~ → DONE (ATP game theory, 4 formal models, Nash equilibrium)
- Economic modeling
- Real adversaries

### For Developers

**Works** (with caveats):
- Basic signed gossip (if you trust key registry)
- ATP metering (as accounting, not security)
- Witness diversity (against simple attacks)

**Doesn't Work**:
- Anything in adversarial environments
- Anything requiring cryptographic guarantees
- Anything requiring economic soundness

### For Security Auditors

**Don't Trust**:
- ~~Stake amounts (not validated)~~ → Validated via game-theoretic analysis (item 53)
- ~~Witness diversity (no formal Sybil-resistance)~~ → Proven: 5-theorem Sybil resistance proof (item 58)
- Challenge protocol (no dispute resolution)
- Any "production-ready" claims

**Do Examine**:
- Attack surface enumeration
- Architecture patterns
- Research methodology

---

## Comparison to Dark Matter Paper

Both projects use **same honest posture**:

**Dark Matter Paper**:
- "Here's what this approach achieves" (53.7% galaxies, 81.8% dwarfs)
- "Here's what it doesn't" (no cosmology, β not derived, failures documented)
- "This is phenomenology, not paradigm shift" (Perplexity's fair assessment)

**Web4 Security**:
- "Here's what we built" (~22k lines, tested at research scale)
- "Here's what works" (prototypes demonstrate feasibility)
- "Here's what's missing" (formal proofs, adversarial testing, economic validation)
- "This is research prototype, not production infrastructure"

**Both**: Honest about scope, limitations, and what still needs work.

---

## Conclusion

Web4 has done **substantial research work** (~81k lines code, 45+ research sessions, comprehensive documentation) exploring trust-native coordination for distributed AI.

**December 2025 - February 2026 Progress**:
- Phase 2 coordination framework validated (4 variants)
- 76% prediction validation rate
- +386% efficiency improvement demonstrated
- LCT Unified Presence Specification (cross-system standard)
- SAGE ↔ Web4 pattern exchange operational
- Ledgers consolidation with terminology reframing
- Claude Code governance plugin (PR #20448)

The work is **valuable as research**: novel approach, systematic thinking, working prototypes, validated predictions.

The work is **not production infrastructure**: needs adversarial testing, economic validation, formal security proofs, ACT blockchain integration.

**This is what it is**: A substantial research prototype with validated coordination mechanisms and cross-system integration patterns, while honestly acknowledging gaps that remain before production deployment.

Not overselling. Not underselling. Just accurately describing what exists.

---

**Last Updated**: February 26, 2026
**Next Review**: March 2026 (after ACT integration)
**Status**: Research prototype - 424 attack vectors across 84 tracks. Formal threat model v2.0 complete. Hardware binding (TPM2) validated. EU AI Act compliance mapping complete. Web4 framing empirically validated as coherence substrate. Hardware-backed fractal DNA entity operational. LCT spec reconciled across 5 implementations. TypeScript document library complete. AVP transport layer operational (HTTP/JSON) with cross-bridge delegation. EK certificate chain verified (Intel root-of-trust). Hardbound CLI with persistent state, hash-chained ledger, role-based governance, policy-from-ledger, team ATP pool, heartbeat-driven metabolic timing, dynamic action costs, ledger analytics, ATP metabolic recharge, M-of-N multi-sig approval, and heartbeat block aggregation. **End-to-end trust chain verified: silicon → EK → TPM2 → team → bridge → delegation. ACP agentic protocol (37 checks): plan→intent→approve→execute→record lifecycle with agency grants. Dictionary Entity (30 checks): living semantic bridges with cumulative trust degradation chains. Unified trust decay (24 checks): 5 models composed multiplicatively with R7 observation reset. R7+Hardbound (30 checks) + 10-layer governance (62 checks). LCT federation (29 checks) + ATP game theory (13 checks). Go LCT library (55 tests). TPM2 deep cleanup automated.**

