UK Patent Application
Applicant: Neil Grassby
AIEP --- Open Protocol Governance and Boundary Enforcement Framework
Abstract
A computer-implemented method and system for enforcing governance boundaries between open protocol participants and proprietary core authority layers within a distributed reasoning substrate operating under an Architected Instruction & Evidence Protocol (AIEP). The system maintains a deterministic boundary enforcement layer that validates protocol-compliant participation whilst preserving separation between open ecosystem artefacts and constitutionally governed execution authority. Boundary enforcement is cryptographically bound to schema-versioned protocol rules and operates fail-closed such that boundary violations suppress execution enablement. The invention enables controlled ecosystem growth without exposing core authority mechanisms to modification by open protocol participants.
Description
Field of the Invention
[0001] The present invention relates to governed distributed reasoning substrates and more particularly to deterministic enforcement of participation boundaries between open protocol layers and proprietary constitutional authority layers within such substrates.
Background to the Invention
[0002] Governed reasoning substrates of the type described in GB2519711.2 maintain execution authority under strict constitutional constraints including hash-bound artefact lineage, fail-closed gating, and canonical schema enforcement.
[0003] Ecosystem growth and third-party participation in such substrates requires mechanisms that permit open protocol integration without granting participants access to or influence over core authority primitives.
[0004] Existing systems do not provide a deterministic boundary enforcement layer that can validate protocol-compliant participation, enforce artefact scope restrictions, and cryptographically verify boundary compliance prior to execution enablement.
[0005] There exists a need for a boundary enforcement framework that separates open protocol surface from constitutional core, enforces that separation cryptographically, and operates fail-closed to prevent boundary violation.
Summary of the Invention
[0006] According to a first aspect of the invention, there is provided a computer-implemented method for enforcing governance boundaries in a distributed reasoning substrate, the method comprising:
(a) maintaining a protocol boundary definition comprising a schema-versioned specification of permitted artefact types, submission formats, and interaction scope for open protocol participants;
(b) receiving an artefact submission from an open protocol participant;
(c) evaluating the submission against the protocol boundary definition to determine boundary compliance;
(d) computing a BoundaryComplianceHash over the submission and applicable boundary definition version;
(e) permitting progression of the submission only when boundary compliance is confirmed; and
(f) suppressing execution enablement in a fail-closed manner upon detection of boundary violation.
[0007] According to a second aspect, there is provided a system comprising: a boundary definition registry storing schema-versioned protocol boundary specifications; a compliance evaluation engine; a BoundaryComplianceHash computation module; and a fail-closed execution gate.
[0008] According to a third aspect, there is provided a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a processor to perform the method of the first aspect.
Brief Description of the Drawings
Figure 1 illustrates the boundary architecture separating open protocol participants from core authority layer.
Figure 2 illustrates BoundaryComplianceHash computation and verification.
Figure 3 illustrates fail-closed enforcement upon boundary violation.
Detailed Description of Preferred Embodiments
1. Protocol Boundary Definition
[0009] The protocol boundary definition is maintained in a schema-versioned registry.
[0010] The boundary definition specifies:
(a) permitted artefact types submissible by open protocol participants;
(b) structural format requirements for submissions;
(c) interaction scope limitations defining what aspects of the substrate participants may observe or influence;
(d) prohibited operations that remain exclusive to core authority layer.
[0011] The boundary definition is version-controlled and hash-bound to a schema version identifier.
[0012] Modifications to the boundary definition require constitutional authority and are committed to append-only lineage.
2. Boundary Compliance Evaluation
[0013] Upon receipt of a submission from an open protocol participant, the compliance evaluation engine evaluates the submission against the active boundary definition.
[0014] Compliance evaluation comprises:
(a) artefact type validation against permitted types;
(b) structural format verification against schema requirements;
(c) interaction scope verification confirming the submission does not reference or modify restricted substrate elements;
(d) provenance verification confirming the submission carries appropriate participant identity.
[0015] Evaluation is deterministic and reproducible across distributed nodes operating with identical boundary definitions.
3. BoundaryComplianceHash
[0016] A BoundaryComplianceHash is computed as a cryptographic hash over:
(a) a canonical serialisation of the submission;
(b) the schema version identifier of the applicable boundary definition;
(c) the evaluation outcome; and
(d) a timestamp.
[0017] BoundaryComplianceHash is appended to substrate lineage as an attestation record.
[0018] Identical submissions evaluated against identical boundary definitions produce identical BoundaryComplianceHash values across distributed nodes.
4. Fail-Closed Boundary Enforcement
[0019] Where boundary compliance evaluation determines a violation, the fail-closed execution gate suppresses progression of the submission.
[0020] A boundary violation record is appended to append-only lineage comprising:
(a) the BoundaryComplianceHash;
(b) the nature of the detected violation;
(c) the schema version of the applicable boundary definition.
[0021] No software instruction from an open protocol participant may override boundary enforcement.
[0022] Core authority layer operations remain unaffected by boundary violation events.
5. Boundary Separation Properties
[0023] The boundary enforcement framework preserves the following separation properties:
(a) open protocol participants cannot modify constitutional primitives;
(b) open protocol participants cannot access GoalVector generation or stabilisation mechanisms;
(c) open protocol participants cannot override fail-closed execution gates;
(d) open protocol artefacts are structurally distinct from core authority artefacts in the substrate.
Technical Effect
[0024] The invention enables deterministic governance of open protocol participation without exposing constitutional authority mechanisms to modification.
[0025] It permits controlled ecosystem growth under a governed substrate whilst preserving core authority integrity.
[0026] It provides cryptographically verifiable attestation of boundary compliance for every participant interaction.
[0027] It improves security and architectural integrity of distributed reasoning substrates supporting open protocol participation.
CLAIMS
1. A computer-implemented method for enforcing governance boundaries in a distributed reasoning substrate, the method comprising: maintaining a schema-versioned protocol boundary definition specifying permitted artefact types, submission formats, and interaction scope for open protocol participants; receiving a submission from an open protocol participant; evaluating the submission against the protocol boundary definition to determine boundary compliance; computing a BoundaryComplianceHash over the submission and applicable boundary definition version identifier; permitting progression of the submission only upon confirmation of boundary compliance; and suppressing execution enablement in a fail-closed manner upon detection of boundary violation.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein boundary compliance evaluation comprises artefact type validation, structural format verification, interaction scope verification, and provenance verification.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the protocol boundary definition is version-controlled and its modifications are committed to append-only lineage under constitutional authority.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein a boundary violation record comprising the BoundaryComplianceHash and violation nature is appended to append-only lineage upon detection of violation.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein identical submissions evaluated against identical boundary definitions produce identical BoundaryComplianceHash values across distributed nodes.
6. The method of claim 1 wherein core authority layer operations including GoalVector generation and stabilisation mechanisms are excluded from the permitted interaction scope of open protocol participants.
7. A system for enforcing governance boundaries in a distributed reasoning substrate, comprising: a boundary definition registry storing schema-versioned protocol boundary specifications; a compliance evaluation engine configured to evaluate submissions against applicable boundary definitions; a BoundaryComplianceHash computation module; and a fail-closed execution gate configured to suppress execution enablement upon detection of boundary violation.
8. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to perform the method of claim 1.
Abstract
A computer-implemented method and system for enforcing governance boundaries between open protocol participants and constitutional authority layers within a distributed reasoning substrate operating under an Architected Instruction & Evidence Protocol (AIEP). A schema-versioned protocol boundary definition specifies permitted artefact types, submission formats, and interaction scope for open protocol participants. Submissions are evaluated for boundary compliance, and a BoundaryComplianceHash is computed over the submission and applicable boundary definition version. Execution enablement is suppressed fail-closed upon detection of boundary violation. Core authority mechanisms including GoalVector generation and stabilisation remain excluded from open protocol interaction scope. The invention enables controlled ecosystem growth without exposing constitutional authority primitives to modification by open protocol participants.
Brief Description of the Drawing
FIG. 1 — Compliance Certification Flow
┌──────────────────┐
│ AI System / │
│ AIEP Node │
└────────┬─────────┘
│ submits evidence artefacts
┌────────▼─────────┐
│ Compliance │──▶ [jurisdiction rule set]
│ Engine │──▶ [schema validation]
│ │──▶ [hash verification]
│ │──▶ [fail-closed check]
└────────┬─────────┘
│ PASS FAIL
┌────────▼─────────┐ ┌────────────────────┐
│ Certificate │ │ Rejection Record │
│ Artefact │ │ (reason + hash) │
│ signed + hash │ └────────────────────┘
└──────────────────┘