AIEP — Cross-Node Persistent State Synchronisation Protocol with Deterministic Snapshot Alignment and Merge Governance
Field of The Invention
[0001] The present invention relates to distributed state synchronisation in computing systems.
[0002] More particularly, the invention relates to a deterministic cross-node persistent state synchronisation protocol for distributed arbitration systems operating under an Architected Instruction & Evidence Protocol (AIEP) system as defined in United Kingdom patent application GB2519711.2.
Background
[0003] Distributed deterministic systems commonly maintain persistent state across multiple nodes.
[0004] State divergence may occur due to asynchronous updates, network partitioning, or delayed artefact propagation.
[0005] Conventional synchronisation mechanisms frequently rely on eventual consistency models or non-deterministic merge strategies.
[0006] Such approaches may lead to inconsistent state resolution, replay incompatibility, or irreproducible arbitration outcomes.
[0007] Known consensus mechanisms focus on transaction ordering but do not provide deterministic snapshot alignment combined with invariant-bound merge governance within a genealogical arbitration substrate.
[0008] There exists a need for a deterministic synchronisation protocol that:
(a) produces reproducible snapshot identities;
(b) detects divergence deterministically;
(c) governs merge operations under invariant enforcement; and
(d) prevents non-deterministic state reconciliation.
Summary Of The Invention
[0009] The invention provides a computer-implemented method for cross-node persistent state synchronisation.
[0010] Each node periodically generates a deterministic StateSnapshot.
[0011] StateSnapshot comprises canonical serialisation of persistent genealogical state.
[0012] A SnapshotHash is computed over the canonical serialisation.
[0013] Nodes exchange SnapshotHash values to detect divergence.
[0014] Where SnapshotHash values match, synchronisation equivalence is confirmed.
[0015] Where SnapshotHash values differ, a deterministic divergence resolution process is initiated.
[0016] Divergence resolution comprises canonical diff classification and schema-governed merge rules.
[0017] Merge operations are performed only when invariant compliance is satisfied.
[0018] Execution enablement is suppressed in a fail-closed manner when merge conditions are not satisfied.
[0019] The technical effect is deterministic cross-node state alignment ensuring reproducible distributed arbitration behaviour.
Definitions
[0020] StateSnapshot: A canonical serialised representation of persistent genealogical state at a defined execution point.
[0021] SnapshotHash: A cryptographic hash computed over a StateSnapshot.
[0022] MergePolicy: A schema-defined rule set governing reconciliation of divergent state branches.
[0023] SynchronisationCertificate: An append-only artefact documenting snapshot alignment or merge results.
Brief Description Of The Drawings
[0024] Figure 1 illustrates generation of a StateSnapshot.
[0025] Figure 2 illustrates SnapshotHash comparison between nodes.
[0026] Figure 3 illustrates deterministic divergence resolution and merge evaluation.
[0027] Figure 4 illustrates fail-closed enforcement during synchronisation.
Detailed Description Of Preferred Embodiments
Snapshot Generation
[0028] Persistent genealogical state is serialised in canonical order.
[0029] Canonical serialisation includes branch identifiers, status indicators, lineage references, and schema version identifiers.
[0030] Serialisation prohibits non-deterministic ordering.
[0031] SnapshotHash is computed over the canonical serialisation.
[0032] Nodes operating over identical state produce identical SnapshotHash values.
Divergence Detection
[0033] Nodes exchange SnapshotHash values during synchronisation intervals.
[0034] Matching SnapshotHash values indicate state equivalence.
[0035] Mismatched SnapshotHash values indicate divergence.
[0036] Divergence classification is initiated upon mismatch detection.
Deterministic Merge Evaluation
[0037] Divergent StateSnapshots are compared using deterministic structural diff classification.
[0038] Differences are enumerated in canonical order.
[0039] MergePolicy defines permitted reconciliation operations.
[0040] MergePolicy may comprise:
(a) branch dominance rules;
(b) timestamp precedence rules;
(c) weight-based arbitration rules;
(d) schema-priority rules.
[0041] Merge operations are applied deterministically according to MergePolicy.
[0042] Resulting merged state is re-serialised and hashed to produce a new SnapshotHash.
Invariant Enforcement
[0043] Merge operations require invariant validation prior to state acceptance.
[0044] Invariants comprise lineage integrity, schema compliance, and deterministic ordering compliance.
[0045] Where invariant validation fails, merge is rejected.
[0046] ExecutionEnablementSignal is suppressed in a fail-closed manner until convergence is achieved.
Certification
[0047] Upon successful synchronisation or merge, a SynchronisationCertificate is generated.
[0048] SynchronisationCertificate comprises:
(a) participating node identifiers;
(b) prior SnapshotHash values;
(c) resulting SnapshotHash;
(d) applied MergePolicy identifier;
(e) schema version identifier.
[0049] SynchronisationCertificate is appended to the genealogical structure.
Distributed Reproducibility
[0050] Nodes applying identical MergePolicy and operating over identical divergent snapshots produce identical merged state and SnapshotHash.
[0051] Divergence resolution is reproducible across distributed nodes.
[0052] SnapshotHash comparison enables deterministic convergence validation.
Technical Effect
[0053] The invention enables deterministic cross-node state alignment.
[0054] The invention prevents non-deterministic reconciliation of divergent states.
[0055] The invention ensures reproducible merge behaviour under invariant governance.
[0056] The invention improves reliability of distributed arbitration systems.
[0057] The invention provides certifiable synchronisation events.
CLAIMS
1. A computer-implemented method for deterministic cross-node persistent state synchronisation within a distributed arbitration system operating under an Architected Instruction & Evidence Protocol (AIEP), the method comprising:
(a) generating a StateSnapshot by canonical serialisation of persistent genealogical state;
(b) computing a SnapshotHash over the StateSnapshot;
(c) comparing SnapshotHash values across distributed nodes;
(d) initiating deterministic divergence resolution upon mismatch;
(e) applying a schema-defined MergePolicy to reconcile divergent state; and
(f) suppressing execution enablement in a fail-closed manner when invariant validation fails.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein StateSnapshot serialisation enforces deterministic ordering of branch identifiers and lineage references.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein MergePolicy comprises branch dominance, timestamp precedence, or weight-based arbitration rules.
4. The method of claim 1 further comprising generating a SynchronisationCertificate appended to the genealogical structure.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein identical divergent snapshots processed under identical MergePolicy produce identical merged SnapshotHash values.
6. A distributed computing system configured to perform the method of any preceding claim.
7. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, perform the method of any of claims 1–5.
Abstract
A deterministic cross-node persistent state synchronisation protocol is disclosed for distributed arbitration systems operating under an Architected Instruction & Evidence Protocol (AIEP). Canonical state snapshots are generated and hashed to produce SnapshotHash values. Nodes exchange SnapshotHash values to detect divergence. Divergent states are reconciled using deterministic structural diff classification and schema-defined merge policies. Invariant validation governs merge acceptance, and execution enablement is suppressed in a fail-closed manner upon failure. The invention improves distributed reproducibility and ensures certifiable state convergence.
Brief Description of the Drawing
FIG. 1 — Swarm Consensus Architecture
┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐
│ Node A │ │ Node B │ │ Node C │
│ AIEP │◀────▶│ AIEP │◀────▶│ AIEP │
│ Substrate│ │ Substrate│ │ Substrate│
└────┬─────┘ └────┬─────┘ └────┬─────┘
│ │ │
│ contribution │ contribution │
└────────────┬────┘─────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────▼──────────────────────┐
│ Coordinator-free Consensus │
│ • each node submits signed evidence │
│ • weight = stake × attestation score │
│ • no single point of trust │
│ • hardware-anonymised contributions │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘