Design and specify Unified AI Supervisory Control Plane (SCP) and G-SIFI 2028 Blueprint

docs/regulator-engagement/DEMO_REHEARSAL_PLAN.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# 90-Minute Regulator Demo Rehearsal Plan
+
+## 1. Demo Structure (90 Minutes)
+- **00-10:** Executive Vision & Decadal Roadmap (ASO).
+- **10-30:** SCP Architecture & GSM Walkthrough (Technical Lead).
+- **30-50:** Live Verifier Node CLI & ZK Proof Verification (Verification Lead).
+- **50-70:** TLA+ Toolbox: Formal Verification of SIP v3.0 (Technical Lead).
+- **70-85:** Q&A and Regulator Role-play.
+- **85-90:** Ceremonial Hand-off of Regulator Takeaway Packet.
+
+## 2. Rehearsal Checklist
+- [ ] Verifier Node CLI environment initialized.
+- [ ] TLA+ Toolbox pre-loaded with SIP v3.0 spec.
+- [ ] Sample ZK proof bundle ready for verification.
+- [ ] Fallback recording of the live demo segments available.
+- [ ] Speaker notes printed and timed.
+
+## 3. Fallback Tactics
+- **Network Failure:** Switch to pre-recorded video segments.
+- **Tool Crash:** Immediate transition to the next speaker while the technical lead restarts the environment.
+- **Regulator Question (Out of Scope):** "That is a critical area we are exploring in Phase 2; let's capture that for our follow-up package."

docs/regulator-engagement/PHASE1_ENGAGEMENT_FRAMEWORK.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+# Phase 1 Supervisory Sandbox Engagement Framework (2026–2028)
+
+## 1. Objective
+To establish a transparent, high-frequency engagement model between the institution and the regulator during the Supervisory Control Plane (SCP) Phase 1 sandbox.
+
+## 2. Roles and Contact Points
+- **Institution Lead:** Chief AI Safety Officer (ASO).
+- **Technical Lead:** SCP Platform Architect.
+- **Regulator Lead:** Supervisory Sandbox Office Manager.
+- **Verification Lead:** Regulator Technical Auditor (Verifier Node Operator).
+
+## 3. Reporting Cadence
+- **Daily DevSecOps Reports:** Automated summaries of G-SRI, attestation health, and proof pipeline status.
+- **Weekly Summaries:** Human-in-the-loop review of the week's transitions and any policy exceptions.
+- **Monthly Metrics:** Deep dive into systemic resilience, control effectiveness, and roadmap progress.
+- **Quarterly Roadmap Reviews:** Strategic alignment on sandbox exit criteria and upcoming feature rollout.
+
+## 4. Regulator Query Triage and Escalation
+- **Level 1 (Standard):** Technical queries regarding specific logs or proofs. Response time: 24 hours.
+- **Level 2 (Urgent):** Queries regarding G-SRI threshold breaches or containment events. Response time: 4 hours.
+- **Level 3 (Crisis):** Escalation to ASO and Board Risk Committee. Linked to GSM "QUARANTINE" state. Response time: 1 hour.
+
+## 5. Observation Windows and Drills
+Regulators are invited to observe "Red Dawn" chaos engineering drills and "Rogue-Yield" simulations.
+- **Schedule:** Monthly scheduled drills; quarterly unannounced "Surprise Drills".
+- **Evidence:** Signed drill reports and replayable incident timelines.

docs/regulator-engagement/monthly_metrics_report_template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+# Monthly Supervisory Metrics Report: [Month, Year]
+
+## 1. Proof Pipeline Health
+- **Total Proofs Generated:** [Count]
+- **Verification Success Rate:** [%]
+- **Average Proof Latency:** [ms]
+
+## 2. STH and Merkle Anchoring
+- **STH Cadence:** [e.g., 24-hour intervals]
+- **Merkle Tree Depth:** [Depth]
+- **PQC Signature Validity:** [Status]
+
+## 3. Attestation and G-SRI
+- **Daily Attestation Heartbeats:** [Success/Fail]
+- **G-SRI Peak Value:** [Score]
+- **Threshold Breaches:** [Count/None]
+
+## 4. Incident and Containment Register
+- **Level 1 Alerts:** [Count]
+- **Containment Events (GSM QUARANTINE):** [Count/Details]
+- **Mean Time to Contain (MTTC):** [ms]
+
+## 5. Roadmap and Engagement
+- **Milestones Achieved:** [List]
+- **Regulator Queries Resolved:** [Count]
+- **Next Rehearsal/Drill Date:** [Date]

docs/regulator-engagement/regulator_takeaway_packet.md

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+# Regulator Takeaway Packet: Supervisory Control Plane Sandbox
+
+## 1. Lifecycle Architecture Map
+A high-level visual guide to the SCP Core, GSM, ZK Prover, and Merkle Log data flow.
+
+## 2. Regulator Orientation Guide
+How to interpret the Verifier Node CLI outputs and ZK proof statements.
+
+## 3. FAQ: Security and Privacy
+- **Q:** Can the institution hide telemetry?
+- **A:** No. The Merkle tree and PQC-WORM logging ensure that all events are anchored. Missing events are detected by the Verifier Node.
+- **Q:** Does the regulator see private model data?
+- **A:** No. ZK proofs confirm policy compliance without revealing the underlying telemetry.
+
+## 4. Engagement Contact List
+Direct lines to the ASO and technical leads for sandbox-specific queries.

docs/sandbox-exit-dossier/SANDBOX_EXIT_REQUEST.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# Sandbox Exit Request: Supervisory Control Plane (SCP)
+
+## 1. Request Summary
+The [Institution Name] formally requests exit from the Supervisory Sandbox Phase 1 and approval for live production deployment of the Supervisory Control Plane (SCP).
+
+## 2. Fulfillment of Sandbox Criteria
+- **Operational Stability:** 99.99% uptime of the SCP Core and ZK Prover pipeline over 24 months.
+- **Regulatory Transparency:** Successful delivery of 24 Monthly Metrics Reports and 8 Quarterly Roadmap Reviews.
+- **Security Assurance:** Zero critical vulnerabilities identified in external audits of the TEE enclaves and PQC-WORM fabric.
+- **Formal Verification:** TLA+ verification of all core containment protocols with 100% invariant satisfaction.
+
+## 3. Transition to Production
+Upon approval, the institution will:
+1. Promote the current "Sandbox" GIEN Agents to "Production" status.
+2. Synchronize the Production Merkle Log with the Sandbox evidence history.
+3. Initiate Phase 2 (Regional Federation) as per the Decadal Roadmap.
+
+## 4. Ongoing Supervisory Commitment
+The institution remains committed to high-frequency reporting and regulator verifier node access as defined in the Permanent Engagement Framework.

docs/sandbox-exit-dossier/SECTION_13_EXTERNAL_AUDIT_REPORT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# Section 13: External Audit Report
+
+## 1. Audit Scope
+This report summarizes the findings of the independent external audit of the Supervisory Control Plane (SCP) sandbox operations from Q1 2026 to Q3 2028.
+
+## 2. Integrity of the Evidence Chain
+The audit team verified the PQC-WORM Audit Plane integrity:
+- **ML-DSA-65 Signatures:** 100% of sampled audit logs exhibited valid post-quantum signatures.
+- **Merkle Anchoring:** Monthly audit of Merkle roots confirmed zero deletions or unauthorized alterations in the S3 Object Lock storage.
+- **ZK Proof Validity:** Independent verification of 500+ random ZK proofs against their respective witnesses confirmed 100% accuracy.
+
+## 3. GSM Transition Compliance
+The audit reviewed all high-risk state transitions in the Governance State Machine:
+- **Quorum Verification:** Every promotion to "PROD" state was preceded by a valid multi-sig supervisory quorum.
+- **Policy Adherence:** 100% of transitions matched the authorized OPA/Rego policy rules.
+
+## 4. Operational Resilience and Drills
+The audit witnessed three "Red Dawn" simulations and one unannounced "Rogue-Yield" drill.
+- **Containment Latency:** Average time to model quarantine was 450ms, well within the 1000ms threshold.
+- **Recovery Liveness:** Post-drill state recovery was completed within 15 minutes in all cases.
+
+## 5. Conclusion
+The external audit confirms that the SCP system operates with a degree of cryptographic and formal assurance suitable for live G-SIFI deployment. Residual risks are managed via the ongoing G-SRI monitoring framework.

docs/sandbox-exit-dossier/SUPERVISORY_BRIEFING_DECK.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Supervisory Briefing: SCP Sandbox Exit (Q3 2028)
+
+## Slide 1: Title
+**Unified AI Supervisory Control Plane: Live G-SIFI Deployment**
+- Presenter: Chief AI Safety Officer (ASO)
+- Date: [Date]
+
+## Slide 2: Decadal Vision (2026-2035)
+- **Goal:** Scalable, trustworthy AI governance for AGI/ASI era.
+- **Milestone:** Successful completion of 2026-2028 Sandbox Phase 1.
+
+## Slide 3: The SCP Governance Stack
+- **Architecture:** Zero-trust, TEE-rooted, PQC-signed.
+- **GSM:** Formally verified state machine for model lifecycles.
+
+## Slide 4: Cryptographic Evidence
+- **PQC-WORM:** ML-DSA-65 signatures and S3 Object Lock.
+- **Merkle Roots:** Daily commitments to the GIEN mesh.
+
+## Slide 5: Zero-Knowledge Verification
+- Proving compliance without exposing proprietary telemetry.
+- Regulator Verifier Nodes independently confirm proof validity.
+
+## Slide 6: G-SRI: Systemic Risk Monitoring
+- Real-time composite risk index.
+- Automated gates based on institutional and market concentration.
+
+## Slide 7: Formal Verification (TLA+)
+- "Safety by Design" - containment invariants proven in the TLA+ Toolbox.
+- SIP v3.0 protocol safety and equivocation detection.
+
+## Slide 8: External Audit Findings
+- **Chain of Custody:** 100% integrity.
+- **Transition Validity:** 100% quorum adherence.
+
+## Slide 9: Red Dawn Simulation Results
+- Proven containment capability under adversarial stress.
+- Mean Time to Contain (MTTC): 450ms.
+
+## Slide 10: Regulatory Alignment
+- Annex IV (EU AI Act) automated evidence generation.
+- Basel III/IV and DORA compliance mapping.
+
+## Slide 11: Roadmap to 2035
+- Next: Phase 2 Regional Federation.
+- 2030+: ASI-ready autonomous containment.
+
+## Slide 12: Sandbox Exit Request
+- Fulfillment of all success criteria.
+- Request for Live Production Approval.
+
+## Slide 13: Q&A
+- Discussion of verifier node access and ongoing oversight.
+
+---
+
+### Speaker Notes Snippet (Slide 5):
+"Our Verifier Nodes allow you, the regulator, to verify that every decision made by our AI models was governed by the board-approved policy. You see the proof, you see the Merkle root, but you don't need to see the raw data—preserving both privacy and accountability."

docs/supervisory-control-plane/GSIFI_PILOT_2028_BLUEPRINT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# G-SIFI 2028 Supervisory Pilot Blueprint
+
+## 1. System Overview
+
+The 2028 Pilot focuses on the deployment of a federated supervisory nervous system across three major G-SIFI nodes and a central Regulator Verifier Node.
+
+## 2. Infrastructure: Kubernetes Pod Layouts
+
+### SCP Core Pod (Enclave)
+- **Container 1 (scp-core):** Primary orchestration logic.
+- **Container 2 (gsm-engine):** Governance State Machine execution.
+- **Container 3 (pqc-signer):** ML-DSA signature service.
+
+### ZK Prover Pod
+- **Container 1 (prover):** SnarkJS-based proof generation.
+- **Container 2 (evidence-binder):** Aggregates witnesses for ZK circuits.
+
+### GIEN Agent Pod
+- **Container 1 (sip-client):** Implements SIP v3.0 gossip and anchoring.
+- **Container 2 (root-fetcher):** Syncs roots from GIEN Roots.
+
+## 3. Enclave Boundaries and Hardware Root of Trust
+
+- **Security Zone A (Confidential):** Model weights and decision logic (Intel TDX).
+- **Security Zone B (Governance):** GSM state, private keys, and evidence witnesses (AMD SEV-SNP).
+- **Security Zone C (Public):** Signed Merkle roots and ZK proofs.
+
+## 4. Kafka Topics and Data Flow
+
+- `governance.events.raw`: Internal high-fidelity telemetry (Encrypted).
+- `governance.events.signed`: PQC-signed audit trail (WORM).
+- `governance.proofs.pending`: Witnesses ready for ZK proving.
+- `governance.roots.public`: Merkle roots shared via SIP v3.0.
+
+## 5. Regulator Verification Workflow
+
+Regulators operate **Verifier Nodes** that independently confirm institutional compliance:
+1. **Root Verification:** Verify Merkle root signatures against institutional PQC public keys.
+2. **Proof Verification:** Verify ZK proofs against public Merkle roots and policy hashes.
+3. **Liveness Check:** Monitor "Containment Heartbeats" to ensure active oversight.
+
+Regulators can verify *that* a policy was followed without seeing the *content* of the telemetry.

docs/supervisory-control-plane/GSM_ZK_SPECIFICATION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Governance State Machine (GSM) ZK Specification
+
+## 1. Objective
+To provide a zero-knowledge proof of validity for transitions in the AI Governance State Machine (GSM), ensuring that model promotions (e.g., Staging -> Production) only occur when all policy, evidence, and supervisory quorum requirements are met.
+
+## 2. Circuit Architecture: `GSMTransition.circom`
+
+### Public Inputs
+- **current_state_hash:** Poseidon hash of `(state_id, policy_root, epoch)`.
+- **next_state_hash:** Poseidon hash of `(next_state_id, policy_root, epoch + 1)`.
+- **policy_hash:** Reference to the OPA/Rego policy bundle that authorizes the transition.
+- **evidence_root:** Merkle root of the PQC-WORM evidence trail for the current epoch.
+
+### Private Inputs
+- **current_state_id:** Integer ID of the current state (0: DEV, 1: STAGING, 2: PROD, 3: QUARANTINE).
+- **next_state_id:** Integer ID of the target state.
+- **transition_id:** ID representing the specific transition logic being invoked.
+- **epoch:** Incremental counter preventing replay attacks.
+- **quorum_count:** Number of valid supervisory signatures gathered.
+
+### Constraints
+1. **Hash Consistency:** The prover must prove knowledge of state components that hash to the public values.
+2. **State Transition Logic:** Enforces allowed paths (e.g., cannot go directly from DEV to PROD without passing STAGING).
+3. **Quorum Enforcement:** Verifies that the number of authorizing signatures meets the threshold defined in the policy.
+4. **Temporal Monotonicity:** Ensures the epoch increments by exactly 1.
+
+## 3. PQC-WORM Anchoring
+
+The GSM state is anchored to the PQC-WORM Audit Plane:
+1. **Decision Trace:** Every GSM transition generates a "Decision Trace" containing the transition metadata.
+2. **Signature:** The Decision Trace is signed using the institution's ML-DSA-65 private key.
+3. **Merkle Integration:** The hash of the Decision Trace is added to the daily Merkle tree.
+4. **Regulator Verifier:** The regulator downloads the Signed Decision Trace and the ZK proof to verify the transition without seeing the underlying telemetry.

docs/supervisory-control-plane/SCP_CORE_ARCHITECTURE_V1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Unified AI Supervisory Control Plane (SCP) Architecture V1
+
+## 1. Vision and Decadal Roadmap (2026–2035)
+
+The Unified AI Supervisory Control Plane (SCP) is the central orchestration layer for AI governance, designed to provide high-assurance oversight for G-SIFIs.
+
+- **Phase 1 (2026-2027):** Foundation & WORM Logging. Establishment of the PQC-WORM audit plane and initial OSCAL/Rego integration.
+- **Phase 2 (2027-2028):** G-SIFI Pilot & Federated Defense. Rollout of the SIP v3.0 protocol and GIEN integration for collective defense.
+- **Phase 3 (2029-2030):** Systemic Risk Integration (G-SRI). Integration of real-time systemic risk index monitoring into automated governance gates.
+- **Phase 4 (2031-2035):** ASI-Ready Autonomy. Transition to fully decentralized, hardware-rooted kill-switches and autonomous containment.
+
+## 2. Zero-Trust Governance Stack
+
+The SCP architecture is built on a zero-trust model where every model action, policy decision, and audit log is cryptographically verified.
+
+- **SCP Core:** Orchestrates the governance lifecycle.
+- **Governance State Machine (GSM):** Formally defined transitions for model lifecycle states (e.g., Development -> Staging -> Production -> Quarantined).
+- **Execution Plane:** TEE-based enclaves (AMD SEV-SNP/Intel TDX) for sensitive logic and model weights.
+
+## 3. Cryptographic Evidence Pipeline
+
+All governance events are captured in the PQC-WORM Audit Plane.
+
+1. **Telemetry Generation:** Sidecars capture traces, policy decisions, and internal signals.
+2. **PQC Signing:** Events are signed using ML-DSA-65 (Post-Quantum Cryptography).
+3. **Merkle Anchoring:** Daily Merkle roots are committed to WORM storage (S3 Object Lock).
+4. **ZK Proof Generation:** Circom/Groth16 circuits generate proofs for public consumption without leaking telemetry.
+
+## 4. Regulatory Alignment (OSCAL/OPA/Rego)
+
+- **OSCAL:** Machine-readable control catalogs (EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF).
+- **OPA/Rego:** Executable policy gates for runtime enforcement.
+- **TLA+:** Formal verification of containment invariants (e.g., "Kill-switch always preempts actions").
+
+## 5. Federated Defense (GIEN/SIP)
+
+- **SIP v3.0:** Federated protocol for cross-institutional risk telemetry.
+- **GIEN (Global Intelligence Enforcement Network):** Mesh of supervisory nodes sharing anonymized threat intelligence and compliance attestations.

docs/supervisory-control-plane/TLA_VERIFICATION_PLAN_SIPV3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# TLA+ Verification Plan for SIP v3.0 Federated Protocol
+
+## 1. Objective
+To formally verify the safety and liveness properties of the Sentinel Interoperability Protocol (SIP) v3.0, focusing on its ability to detect equivocation and missing attestations in a federated environment.
+
+## 2. Protocol Scope: SIP v3.0
+SIP v3.0 enables institutions to gossip Signed Tree Heads (STHs) to a set of Roots. Roots then exchange this information to ensure global consistency.
+
+## 3. Critical Invariants
+
+### Safety Invariants
+- **NoSilentDivergence:** An honest institution never publishes two different STHs for the same epoch.
+- **EquivocationDetected:** If an institution attempts to fork its Merkle log (equivocation), at least one honest root will eventually detect the conflicting STHs.
+- **RootConvergence:** All honest roots eventually agree on the state of all honest institutions.
+
+### Liveness Invariants
+- **MissingAttestationDetectable:** If an institution fails to publish an STH within `MaxMissingWindows`, the supervisory system triggers a "Missing Attestation" alert.
+- **NoProtocolError:** The protocol should never reach a deadlocked state where valid STHs cannot be propagated.
+
+## 4. Verification Workflow
+1. **Model Setup:** Define constants for `Institutions`, `Roots`, and `MaxMissingWindows`.
+2. **State Exploration:** Use the TLC model checker to explore all reachable states of the `SIPv3_Federated_Protocol.tla` specification.
+3. **Property Checking:**
+   - Verify `NoSilentDivergence` holds in all states.
+   - Inject "Byzantine" behavior (manual STH publication forking) to verify `EquivocationDetected` is triggered.
+   - Simulate silence beyond `MaxMissingWindows` to verify detection.
+4. **Refinement:** Adjust the protocol logic if invariants are violated.
+
+## 5. Phase 0 Sandbox Validation
+The TLA+ specification serves as the formal foundation for the Phase 0 sandbox, where simulated Decision Trace Packs are anchored to the Merkle log and verified by Regulator Verifier Nodes.