Singularity: Skott34-Ed25519, Universal Companion Model
draft-kott-numina-pair-binding-02
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Samuel J. Kott | ||
| Last updated | 2026-10-17 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-kott-numina-pair-binding-02
Network Working Group S. J. Kott
Internet-Draft 18 October 2026
Intended status: Informational
Expires: 21 April 2027
Singularity: Skott34-Ed25519, Universal Companion Model
draft-kott-numina-pair-binding-02
Abstract
This document describes a proposed companion format for associating
two frozen software-artifact commitments with attribution and
revisioned claims. It specifies canonical signing bytes, separate
trust and freshness checks, claim-making and verification procedures,
and operational state boundaries. The intended implementing
community is software-provenance maintainers, release operators and
independent security reviewers. Existing IETF canonicalization and
signature specifications are used without defining a new
cryptographic primitive. Retained source comparisons, document-
signature checks and synthetic tests are indexed with their limits.
Application control-plane evidence is distinguished from deployment
of the companion itself. A complete operational profile,
independently authenticated trust and current-state evidence, and a
verified field deployment remain prerequisites to an implementation-
readiness claim.
Technical review candidate and evidence status
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
This separately prepared revision-02 candidate reorganizes
Singularity: Ed25519, a Universal Companion Model around its proposed
companion format and evidence. It has not been submitted as this
artifact. Earlier manuscript signatures, posting receipts and editor
correspondence do not authenticate these changed bytes. Preparation
is not publication acceptance or proof of implementation maturity.
Technical procedures, source identifiers, test timestamps and
artifact digests are included for verification. Credentials, private
keys, protected registry locators and unrelated personal
circumstances are excluded. The original manuscripts and signed
evidence remain unchanged. No RFC number or IETF endorsement is
claimed.
This document retains the trust200902 IPR metadata; the associated
published provisions are identified in [10].
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
This formatting-validation successor preserves the earlier owner-
review artifact. It corrects presentation and citation use, adds
reversible code folding, and is subject to the separately recorded
final validation results. It remains unsubmitted and unsigned as an
artifact.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 April 2027.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Community and problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Approach and relationship to IETF work . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. State and memory architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Claim format and attribution model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Making a claim and constructing its signature . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Claim-making procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Signing authority and trust policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Verifying claims and rejecting unsupported acceptance . . . . 11
6.1. Verification sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Current state and revision history . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Decision and rejection rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Private-reference resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
8. Implementation and field-deployment evidence . . . . . . . . 14
9. Operational considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Unresolved implementation and acceptance gates . . . . . . . 17
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12. Proposed applications and research boundaries . . . . . . . . 22
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
14. Authorship and attribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A. Technical evidence index and verification scope . . 29
Appendix B. Frozen source example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B.1. Frozen source commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix C. Retained technical evaluation and manuscript
evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
C.1. Tests required before an implementation claim . . . . . . 36
C.2. Manuscript publication and document signature evidence . 36
C.3. New public input diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
C.4. Separate bounded controller study . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix D. Exact recorded block-zero hash . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix E. Chronological project record . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
E.1. 9 September 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
E.2. 10 September 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
E.3. 11 September 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
E.4. 18 and 24 September 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
E.5. 1 October 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
E.6. 5 October 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
E.7. 6 October private computation record . . . . . . . . . . 43
E.8. 7 October v156 provider update . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
E.9. 8 October manuscript and research events . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix F. Attribution wording and historical checks . . . . . 44
F.1. Person to alias map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
F.2. Software attribution note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
F.3. Historical reproduction checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
F.4. New public diagnostic test inventory . . . . . . . . . . 45
F.5. Frozen excerpt integrity checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix G. Requirements evidence and acceptance criteria . . . 46
G.1. Required v156 release evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Appendix H. Public manuscript and diagnostic receipt
identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix I. Complete worked commitment and package-signature
calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendix J. Additional research methods and boundaries . . . . . 53
J.1. Private computation history and proposed algorithmic
relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
J.2. A testable bounded common source hypothesis . . . . . . . 54
J.3. Proposed reproducibility and adversarial evaluation
program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Appendix K. Navigation and vision research context . . . . . . . 56
Appendix L. Application evidence and reproducibility details . . 57
L.1. Controller reproduction record . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Appendix M. Proposed implementable validation profile and
fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Appendix N. Proposed bounded field deployment and receipt
checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Appendix O. External engagement and review boundaries . . . . . 66
Appendix P. Additional public-key and digital-geometry
evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
P.1. Public-key correspondence and historical signature
checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
P.2. Digital geometry and retained software execution . . . . 68
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
1. Community and problem statement
Independent verifiers need a reproducible way to check that a signed
record binds two specified artifacts to an authorized source and
revision, without confusing attribution with proof of the record's
claims.
The author's intended beneficiaries are all humanity. The initial
technical community addressed here is narrower: maintainers of
software-artifact archives, release operators that preserve existing
commitments, and independent reviewers deciding whether a provenance
or attribution statement is supported. The immediate use case is
adding or correcting an association without changing the previously
committed artifacts. No universal adoption or demonstrated universal
benefit is claimed.
This document concerns evidence preservation and bounded acceptance
of signed statements. It does not authorize an external action,
determine disputed human authorship, derive an unknown genesis value,
or establish a medical, financial or physical-world claim. Broad
proposed applications are summarized separately in Section 12.
2. Approach and relationship to IETF work
Preserve the original artifacts and their hashing procedures. Create
a separate companion payload that names their commitments, an
attribution mapping, a binding identity and revision, and an opaque
private reference. Sign the exact canonical payload under a fixed
application prefix. A verifier then reports independent findings for
the bytes, signer authority, source selection, freshness and private
linkage. One passing finding never substitutes for another.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS), [1], defines canonical bytes for
the new payload; I-JSON, [3], constrains interoperable JSON; and pure
Ed25519, [2], supplies the signature primitive. These do not replace
the historical source-artifact normalizer. The model retains its
numina.pair-binding.v1 identity and original commitment order.
The RATS architecture, [37], separates evidence appraisal from the
relying party's policy decision. That separation is a useful
architectural comparison: this companion carries an association claim
and the verifier evaluates evidence under an independently
provisioned policy. It is not a hardware-attestation profile or a
claim of RATS wire interoperability. COSE, [38], provides
standardized signed-object structures; this design instead retains
its existing fixed-prefix JSON construction and is not a COSE object.
A future COSE profile would require a new explicit wire specification
and test vectors, not relabeling existing signatures.
in-toto [7] and DSSE [8] are further comparison points for
development evidence and signed envelopes. No novelty or comparative
security advantage is established. The additional navigation and
vision literature is retained as non-normative research context in
Appendix K; it is not the protocol's IETF rationale.
2.1. State and memory architecture
The proposed companion requires distinct stores or equivalently
isolated records: immutable original artifacts and pinned hash
profiles; immutable companion revisions containing canonical payload
and envelope bytes; independently administered key and scope policy;
an authenticated accepted-revision view; an access-controlled
private-reference map; and verifier decision records identifying
evidence, policy version and observation time. The architecture is a
requirement for a future companion deployment, not evidence that all
six components are already operational.
The accepted-revision view identifies binding_id, revision and
canonical payload digest. A verifier checks it against the retained
predecessor chain and rejects conflicting same-revision digests.
Caches retain the policy/version/observation context and report age;
loss of current authority leaves freshness unverified. Restoration
must preserve revision monotonicity and prior decisions. A hash-
linked log alone does not stop a privileged administrator from
replacing the whole log and recomputing its hashes.
The retained Numina application has a different, inspected control-
state implementation: a durable singleton row, hash-linked events,
revision-bound actions and caller-scoped projections. The source
names its table numina_control_manifest; an older architecture
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
document says numina_control_state. This discrepancy is recorded
rather than hidden. Application journal revisions, manuscript
revisions and companion binding revisions are separate counters. Its
canonicalization and authority policy must not be assumed equivalent
to JCS or companion trust. [39] [40]
Human or agent context is a derived narrative projection, not signing
authority or canonical accepted state. A proposed persistent-context
record carries its source/version, observation time, access class and
correction history. Updates invalidate affected cached summaries;
unavailable provenance remains explicit. Retention, authorized
deletion and recovery policy must state which evidence remains
verifiable after removal. This describes a design boundary, not
immutable model memory or automatic history availability to every
future assistant.
3. Claim format and attribution model
The private envelope contains exactly payload and signature_b64u; a
null signature marks an unsigned candidate. Status is computed
externally. The fixed schema string is numina.pair-binding.v1.
Table 1 summarizes the required components. binding_id remains the
record identity field. Ed25519 identifies the signature algorithm,
never a replacement for binding_id or proof of signing identity.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
+=============+=================================================+
| Component | Required meaning |
+=============+=================================================+
| Record | schema; stable opaque binding_id; positive |
| identity | safe-integer revision; actual issued_at in UTC, |
| | to seconds. |
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Predecessor | previous_payload_sha256 is null at revision 1 |
| | and otherwise the lowercase SHA-256 of the |
| | prior canonical payload bytes. |
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Scope | scope.project_id, scope.release_id, |
| | scope.canonical_source_id: exact project, |
| | release, and immutable canonical source. A |
| | planned release is not an observed publication. |
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Private | genesis_ref is an approved opaque reference. |
| association | It contains neither the genesis value nor a |
| | revealing derivative or secret locator. |
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Sources | Exactly two ordered records: source_1 then |
| | source_2. Each carries source_id, alias, |
| | artifact_id, hash_profile_id, and sha256. |
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Attribution | attribution.people, attribution.note, |
| | attribution.personToAlias. people contains |
| | exactly two name/label records in personal |
| | order: Sam Kott / 1A, then Lauren Anderson / |
| | 1B. Source order stays separate. |
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Signer | algorithm is Ed25519; public_key_b64u encodes |
| | the raw 32-byte key; key_id is sha256: plus the |
| | SHA-256 of those raw bytes. |
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Private payload components and their roles.
The payload object has exactly schema, binding_id, revision,
issued_at, previous_payload_sha256, scope, genesis_ref, sources,
attribution and signer. scope has exactly project_id, release_id and
canonical_source_id. Each source has exactly source_id, alias,
artifact_id, hash_profile_id and sha256. attribution has exactly
people, note and personToAlias; each people entry has name and label.
signer has exactly algorithm, public_key_b64u and key_id. Unknown or
missing members are rejected. Status and verification results are
outside the signed payload.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
schema equals numina.pair-binding.v1. revision is an integer from 1
through 9007199254740991. issued_at is an actual UTC issuance time to
seconds. previous_payload_sha256 is null only for an established
initial revision, otherwise a lowercase 64-hex predecessor payload
digest. Source sha256 values are lowercase 64-hex strings. The key
and signature decode to exactly 32 and 64 bytes respectively.
Identifier values and accepted artifact/profile bindings require an
independently approved deployment profile; a string passing JSON
parsing is insufficient. The available evidence contains no complete
approved profile or schema-valid operational instance. [42]
The fixed example maps source_1 / UNIVERSAL_PAIR_1 to Lauren J.
Anderson, label 1B, and source_2 / UNIVERSAL_PAIR_2 to Samuel J.
Kott, label 1A. Personal display order remains Sam Kott / 1A
followed by Lauren Anderson / 1B. The exact commitments and approved
person-to-alias note are retained in Appendix B.1 and Appendix F.
The AI-assistance display name Ed25519 does not add a third source
commitment or replace the signature-algorithm field.
For implementation review, this revision proposes the fixed-pair
validation profile in Appendix M. Its numeric limits, identifier
grammar, timestamp restriction and rejection rules are new design
choices, not recovered historical configuration. The supplied JSON
Schema and fixtures make these choices inspectable; accepting this
document does not provision keys, registry entries or live policy.
The immutable source mapping is unchanged.
4. Making a claim and constructing its signature
The new companion payload is parsed with duplicate-member detection
and validated against a closed, versioned schema before use.
Unsupported schemas, unknown fields, missing required fields,
malformed encodings, and an unexpected number of sources are
rejected. Revisions are positive integers within the interoperable
safe-integer range. Field-level constraints must be explicit;
accepting an arbitrary string as an artifact or profile identifier
would leave the hash's meaning unresolved.
JCS, specified in RFC 8785, supplies a deterministic UTF-8
representation of a JSON value [1]. Object properties are ordered
recursively by UTF-16 code units; array order is retained.
Whitespace between tokens is omitted. Strings are preserved without
Unicode normalization, and invalid Unicode input is rejected. Number
serialization follows the specified ECMAScript behavior. I-JSON
supplies related interoperability constraints, including unique
member names [3]. This design additionally limits revisions to safe
integers and treats hashes and identifiers as strings.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Let payload be the validated payload and C = UTF8(JCS(payload)). C
has no byte-order mark or appended newline. The signature field is
outside payload. The following specifies signing; it does not report
an executed signing operation. The separator is one zero byte
(0x00).
M = ASCII("NUMINA-PAIR-BINDING/V1") || 0x00 || UTF8(JCS(payload))
signature = Ed25519.Sign(private_key, M)
Here, || means byte concatenation. This produces a signature over
the payload, which contains the source hashes and genesis reference.
It does not calculate the genesis hash. No verified genesis-
derivation equation is available in the evidence we inspected.
The algorithm is pure Ed25519 as specified in RFC 8032 [2]. No extra
application prehash is inserted. In particular, signing SHA-256(M)
would define a different construction. The prefix is part of the
message passed to pure Ed25519; it is not an Ed25519ctx parameter.
The 64-byte signature and 32-byte public key are represented as
unpadded base64url. Decoding must reject malformed input and enforce
exact lengths.
The SHA-256 of C identifies the payload for revision linkage. An
optional envelope-file digest identifies the exact serialized
envelope bytes and can differ when formatting changes. These digest
roles must be labeled explicitly. Neither one replaces either frozen
source commitment. The construction specifies bytes to sign but
supplies no operational key, signature, or signed public payload.
4.1. Claim-making procedure
1. Establish the claim's project, release, immutable source,
intended audience and approved attribution. Obtain the
independent signing policy, accepted binding state and permitted
disclosure scope. If any required authority or identity is
unavailable, stop before issuance and retain an explicitly
incomplete candidate.
2. Inventory the original artifacts and original hash-profile code
by path, version, byte count and raw-file digest. Reproduce the
two commitments under those profiles. Record failures without
changing the expected hashes or substituting a new normalizer.
3. Choose the approved binding_id and next revision under the
deployment's serialized update policy. For a successor, copy the
accepted predecessor's canonical payload digest. Do not borrow a
control-journal or manuscript revision. Resolve the approved
opaque reference only through the authorized mapping process.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
4. Construct and schema-check the complete payload. Populate the
actual issued_at at issuance. Produce C and M exactly as
specified above. Send M to the authorized signer; keep the
private key out of the payload, report and public package.
5. Verify the returned signature against the independently approved
public key and M before marking issuance complete. Persist the
canonical payload, envelope bytes, digests, predecessor and
issuance receipt without altering the original artifacts.
6. Request an atomic update of the authenticated current-state view
conditioned on the expected predecessor. Retain conflict and
failure receipts. Publish only approved companion bytes after a
verifier repeats the required checks; record any external deposit
separately. No completed issuance or publication is asserted by
describing this procedure.
5. Signing authority and trust policy
A signature can establish consistency between a message and a public
key. Acceptance as an authorized Numina statement additionally
requires an independent trust entry that binds that key to the exact
project, release, and signing role. The verifier recomputes the key
fingerprint from the raw key bytes, matches the approved key material
and scope, and applies validity and revocation rules defined by the
trust policy.
A public key carried inside a payload is an input to verification,
not an authority to trust itself. A malicious party can create a
different key and sign a false attribution statement. Trust
bootstrapping must therefore occur through a separately authenticated
channel. The trust policy also needs a documented decision about
evaluating revocation and key validity at issuance, verification
time, or both; this paper does not assert that such a policy already
exists.
An authorized signature attests the signer's association statement.
Personal identity, authorship, mathematical derivation, and equality
with current source artifacts each need their own evidence. The
absence of any one of those findings must remain visible even when
the signature check succeeds.
Ed25519 is also the assistant's user-assigned display name. That
label assigns no signing key or signing authority. In the record
schema, Ed25519 names the signature algorithm; authorization and key
identity are checked separately.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
The deployment profile must identify who administers trust, how
initial keys and policy updates are authenticated, permitted
project/release/source/role scopes, key validity intervals,
revocation evaluation time, and recovery authority. A candidate
containing its own public key cannot provision that trust. The
retained incomplete candidate lacks an approved operational signer
and these policy receipts; historical document or package keys are
not promoted to companion authority.
A newly inspected public-only package establishes the raw bytes of
one historical Ed25519 public key and their correspondence to its SSH
fingerprint. This closes a public-key encoding gap for that exact
key. It does not establish current private-key custody or authorize
a companion signer, scope, profile or payload. The historical SSHSIG
signature uses a different signing format. See Appendix P. [45]
6. Verifying claims and rejecting unsupported acceptance
A verifier produces a structured result rather than one
undifferentiated success value. At minimum, it reports schema
validity, attribution-map validity, payload signature validity,
signer authorization, source commitment reproduction, current-source
equality, revision freshness, and private genesis linkage. Each
result records the target checked, the evidence used, the observation
time where relevant, and a reason for any failure or unavailable
evidence.
6.1. Verification sequence
1. Parse the envelope once under size and depth limits; detect
duplicate keys before a parser could discard them. Check the closed
envelope and payload schemas. A null signature yields an unsigned
pending state. A malformed or failing signature yields an invalid
state rather than pending.
2. Construct C and M exactly as in Section 4. If signature_b64u is
null, retain the unsigned pending signature result and skip signature
decoding and verification. Otherwise, decode the key and signature,
enforce lengths and encodings, recompute the key fingerprint, and
verify with the required Ed25519 variant. Reuse the same validated
payload for subsequent decisions. Unsigned or invalid records cannot
be accepted as signed; permitted independent diagnostic checks may
still report separate results.
3. Compare project, release, signing role, and immutable source
identifier with independently expected values. Evaluate the approved
trust entry and key policy. A cryptographically valid statement
outside its authorized scope is rejected for that scope.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
4. Resolve each artifact and its pinned hash profile, recompute the
original commitments, and compare both outputs. Separately check
whether the source being evaluated is the canonical source named in
scope. Historical hash reproduction is reported only for the
snapshot actually inspected.
5. Obtain independently trusted current-state evidence for the
binding identifier and revision. Check predecessor linkage,
revocation, and same-revision conflicts. Resolve genesis_ref only
through an authorized private channel when that check is available.
Return the individual results without promoting an unavailable check
to success.
6.2. Current state and revision history
A signed timestamp is the signer's statement about issuance. It does
not show that no later revision exists. A predecessor digest
establishes a link to an earlier payload; it does not, by itself,
establish which branch is current. Acceptance therefore depends on a
current-state authority or an independently authenticated policy
source that identifies the accepted revision and payload digest.
A stale revision, a revoked statement, or divergent payloads at the
same binding identifier and revision must not be accepted as the
unique current record. If current-state evidence is unavailable, the
correct freshness result is unverified. A future implementation must
specify update ordering, rollback handling, evidence caching, and how
an offline verifier communicates the age of its last trusted state.
6.3. Decision and rejection rules
+===========================+=====================================+
| Condition | Required handling |
+===========================+=====================================+
| Malformed envelope, | Invalid input; do not accept or |
| duplicate/unknown/missing | execute. Diagnostic results must |
| fields, wrong source | not imply a valid payload. |
| order, invalid Unicode or | |
| unsupported schema | |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| signature_b64u is null | Unsigned pending; do not decode or |
| | verify a nonexistent signature, and |
| | never report signed acceptance. |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Malformed key/signature, | Invalid signature or signer |
| fingerprint mismatch or | binding. Do not reclassify a |
| cryptographic failure | failure as merely missing evidence. |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
| Valid signature, but | Reject for the requested scope. |
| unauthorized key/role/ | Signature success remains a |
| scope or revoked policy | separate fact. |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Artifact/profile | Report unavailable or mismatch for |
| unavailable or | that exact check; no current-source |
| reproduction unequal | equality is inferred. |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Stale, conflicting or | Reject claimed current acceptance; |
| untrusted accepted- | where evidence is absent, freshness |
| revision evidence | is unverified. |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Private resolver | Private linkage unverified; other |
| unavailable or reader not | independent findings may still be |
| authorized | reported. |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| All checks required by | Accept only that stated scope under |
| the relying policy | that policy/version. The result |
| succeed for the pinned | does not prove the underlying |
| target | attribution/scientific claim or |
| | authorize unrelated action. |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 2: Independent verifier outcomes
A decision record contains the target identifiers and digests, each
check's result and reason, evidence locators and observation times,
verifier/version, trust-policy version, and cache age where used. A
missing required check cannot be silently omitted. Downstream users
receive the structured result; a single verified label is
insufficient. This reporting contract is proposed and requires
interoperability tests before a deployment claim.
7. Private-reference resolution
The proposed private-reference model uses an opaque identifier
independent of the genesis value. The public schema does not
prescribe an actual reference, registry endpoint, or private record
identifier. This manuscript separately records the following
existing block-zero hash at the author's request; publishing the
value does not establish a trusted resolution service.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Successful authorized resolution would establish that the reference
points to the private record identified by the authenticated mapping.
It would not establish an inverse derivation of genesis from the pair
or a unique common origin. Reported source-input dependence is a
separate forward-computation fact. A reader without resolution
evidence receives an unverified private-linkage status even when
other checks succeed.
The resolver has its own authentication, access-control and mapping-
version boundary. It returns only the permitted result with a
verifiable receipt; a caller-supplied URL or record name is not
fetched merely because it appears in a signed payload. Existence,
association and mathematical derivation are separate claims. The
exact previously recorded genesis and collection procedure appear in
Appendix D. No authenticated operational mapping receipt has been
recovered.
8. Implementation and field-deployment evidence
Evidence is grouped by what was actually observed. The complete
retained manuscript checks, source comparisons, diagnostic
operations, negative controller findings and acceptance records are
indexed in Appendix A and the following appendices. Reported
historical runs are not presented as reruns of this candidate.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
+==============+================================================+
| Object | Evidence and current limit |
+==============+================================================+
| Companion | Specified in this document. No complete |
| wire model | operational instance, authenticated trust/ |
| and | current-state/private-resolution set, or |
| procedures | field-used companion verifier was recovered. |
+--------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Retained | Architecture document and static server-source |
| application | excerpt corroborate revision-bound |
| control | authorization, journal consistency and atomic |
| plane | internal record commits. Source inspection is |
| | not a fresh runtime test or proof of current |
| | deployed-source equality. |
+--------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Historical | The September 15 security record reports 19 |
| application | production read/initialization checks (18 |
| observations | responding, one requiring attention), plus |
| | version76 reviewer sign-in and a persisted |
| | account-owned request. These are reported |
| | application exercises, not companion |
| | acceptance or independent penetration testing. |
+--------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Provider | v156 metadata reports succeeded for source |
| deployment | df099d3ae4952a9966cf3b9e4ef299626dc7d338. |
| metadata | Exact archive bytes were not verified; a host |
| | publication receipt does not establish a |
| | deployed companion. |
+--------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Current | An October 9 read reports |
| public | currentJournalRootVerified=false and null |
| projection | revision/eventCount/journalContinuity. It |
| | exposes a projection, not an authenticated |
| | current private journal. |
+--------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Synthetic | 128 held-out toy episodes: loss 186,670 versus |
| controller | hold 187,656 and fixed contraction 183,350; |
| | performance and direct-input safety gates |
| | failed. No real-world outcome dataset or |
| | field predictive result exists in that |
| | experiment. |
+--------------+------------------------------------------------+
Table 3: Implementation and deployment status
A field-deployment claim requires the exact deployed source/build
identities, operator and environment, actual accepted companion
bytes, independent trust and current-state receipts, verifier
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
outputs, protected mapping evidence where required, observed usage
over a declared interval, failure/revocation/recovery exercises, and
a reproducible access path for an authorized independent reviewer.
Website availability, a provider succeeded flag, signed manuscripts
and unit tests do not collectively supply those missing observations.
Additional retained application evidence includes an October 1 v139
public-interface check, an October 4 authenticated journal display at
revision 142, and a v157 source/deployment receipt. The v157 report
names source 9e65e4606a7e51a54f2ea2260a2f0654ecf049fb and 1,188
tests: 1,187 passed, 0 failed, 1 Swift/Foundation test skipped on
Linux. These are historical or reported application observations.
The exact source identities, times, receipt hashes, unsuccessful
checks and access limitations are retained in the technical catalog.
[43]
Additional retained local software evidence comprises a digital
geometry package and a test log recording 974 passes and zero
failures. Fresh readback checks all 25 STL/OBJ artifact digests and
measures the assembled OBJ bounds; the application report identifies
nine geometry and nine action-framework tests. This is local
digital-artifact evidence, not physical fabrication or a deployed
companion. Its scope and remaining gates are recorded in Appendix P.
[46]
9. Operational considerations
Keep source artifacts, companion revisions and operational logs under
distinct identities. Apply least-privilege issuance, trust-
administration and resolver roles. A client or model proposes a
command; server-side policy determines authorization from current
state. Never let a narrative, uploaded record or client-supplied
status grant itself authority. The retained application follows this
separation in its inspected control paths, but a companion service
needs its own verified integration. [40]
Specify request, nesting, string and artifact-size limits; time
budgets; storage quotas; and behavior under exhausted resources
before deployment. The application guide reports 16 KiB requests,
five-second read limits and journal-wide validation, with operation-
specific bounds; those are application-profile claims, not
automatically the companion's negotiated limits. Full-journal replay
cost grows with retained history. No measured companion throughput,
availability, recovery-time objective or restoration drill is
established. [39]
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
For uncertain writes, reconcile by the persisted operation identity
and expected revision before retrying. Preserve conflicting branches
and failed issuance attempts. Credential rotation does not erase
history; recovery must keep binding identity, accepted revisions and
authenticated policy continuity. A rollback to an older application
may remove controls and cannot be called equivalent enforcement. Do
not clear nonces, journals or trust records to make a failed check
pass.
Record source/build/runtime versions, time synchronization
assumptions, policy/key changes, observation windows, and operational
owners. Keep secret keys and sensitive resolver locations outside
public reports. Public-safe evidence must identify what an
independent reviewer can reproduce, what requires authorized access,
and what was not available. An incident runbook is an untested
procedure until an actual drill or event provides receipts. [41]
Key lifecycle policy records custodian, purpose, permitted scope,
policy version and validity/revocation intervals. Rotation requires
independent authorization of the new key and an explicit transition
rule for old signatures; a compromised old key cannot authorize its
own recovery by signature alone. Historical records retain their
original keys and verdict context. Framing or semantic changes
require an explicit new schema/profile version and migration tests;
never reinterpret already signed bytes.
Monitor rejected signatures, unknown keys, source mismatches, same-
revision conflicts, unavailable or old current-state evidence,
resolver denials, quota exhaustion and journal growth. Define
responsible operators and escalation thresholds before field
operation. No such monitoring deployment or response service is
demonstrated here. Record provider request/outcome identities
separately; idempotent internal commits do not establish an external
provider effect.
10. Unresolved implementation and acceptance gates
The retained candidate is explicitly incomplete and unsigned. It
lacks approved binding identity/history, actual issuance time/
predecessor, an authenticated opaque private mapping, final artifact/
profile registry identifiers, and approved signer material. Its
source lookup inspected 143 event rows (revisions 0–142); five event
values and the manifest were truncated. That bounded search
recovered no operational binding fields but cannot prove they do not
exist. [42]
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Before claiming interoperable implementation, publish the complete
closed schema and deployment profile, canonical/signature vectors,
independently implemented verifier results, trust/current-state/
revocation rules, limits and recovery behavior. Run tampering,
parsing, source-order, key-substitution, stale/forked-revision,
authorization, unavailable-dependency and preservation tests. Before
claiming deployment, supply the field receipts listed in Section 8.
The detailed acceptance checklist is retained in Appendix G.1. No
document edit closes an unavailable-evidence gate.
11. Security Considerations
This analysis follows the RFC 3552/BCP 72 approach of identifying
assets, adversaries, attacks, countermeasures and residual risk. [36]
Protected assets include original evidence bytes, association
integrity, signing authority, accepted revision state, private
mappings, audit history and service availability. An attacker can
read public artifacts, submit malformed records, replay or reorder
messages, substitute evidence and keys, or compromise a client. On-
path modification and passive observation are considered. Signing
hosts, trust administrators, private resolvers and database
administrators are privileged boundaries; their compromise is not
solved by a bare signature.
The table identifies controls required by the companion design, with
application-level evidence identified separately. A stated
mitigation is not an executed test. The retained record does not
establish that every mitigation is implemented, independently
assessed, or field-tested. Cryptography authenticates specified
bytes under a key; it does not establish the truth of an authorized
signer's statement.
*Threats introduced or exposed by the design*
T1 Parser and canonicalization ambiguity
Mechanism: Duplicate members, invalid Unicode, number handling or
source-order changes can make implementations sign or evaluate
different values.
Handling: Reject before decision; parse once, enforce closed
schema and I-JSON constraints, preserve array order, use JCS for
the payload only. Pin the original artifact normalizers.
Residual risk and evidence limit: Independent cross-implementation
vectors and approved operational profile and full conformance
remain outstanding.
T2 Artifact or profile substitution
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Mechanism: An attacker substitutes a path, hash profile, registry
or current source while retaining a familiar attribution label.
Handling: Compare independently expected scope, raw-file/profile
pins and registry version; reproduce each original commitment;
report current-source equality separately.
Residual risk and evidence limit: A malicious approved artifact
can still satisfy its hash. Historical equality does not attest a
current runtime.
T3 Key substitution or unauthorized signing
Mechanism: A self-supplied key signs false attribution or a valid
signer acts beyond scope.
Handling: Provision trust independently; recompute fingerprint;
evaluate project/release/source/role, validity and revocation. Do
not promote historical test keys.
Residual risk and evidence limit: Compromised signer or dishonest
authorized claims can remain correctly signed; external review and
recovery are required.
T4 Replay, rollback or equivocation
Mechanism: A valid old record or competing same-revision payload
is represented as uniquely current.
Handling: Authenticate accepted binding state; check predecessor
and policy; reject stale/conflicting accepted states and disclose
cache age.
Residual risk and evidence limit: A dishonest or unavailable
current-state authority can conceal updates. No transparency or
independent checkpoint service is demonstrated.
T5 Durable-state or journal compromise
Mechanism: Deleting/replacing state or rolling back backups
changes what history appears current.
Handling: Retain append-only evidence, verify sequence/links/state
binding, use transactional revision checks and independently
protected recovery evidence.
Residual risk and evidence limit: An administrator can rewrite a
self-contained hash chain. Independent backup restoration and
off-system anchoring are unverified.
T6 Private-reference disclosure or misuse
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Mechanism: Stable references, resolver responses or debug records
reveal protected information or enable unauthorized correlation.
Handling: Use opaque references, authenticated caller-scoped
resolution, minimized public results and protected audit records.
Do not fetch untrusted locators from claims.
Residual risk and evidence limit: Opaque stable identifiers still
permit correlation; access control and encryption need actual
deployment verification.
T7 Transport substitution and interception
Mechanism: A network attacker observes private data or replaces
policy/resolver/service responses.
Handling: Use authenticated confidential transport for protected
online exchanges and verify object signatures/policy identities
independently.
Residual risk and evidence limit: Object signatures do not encrypt
data; transport authentication does not prove record truth.
Production endpoint settings remain separately testable.
T8 Forged client authority, CSRF or hostile content
Mechanism: A browser request, proxy header, document or model
output tries to broaden permissions or execute a claim.
Handling: Reauthorize server-side against current state; validate
identity ingress and Origin for cookie-authenticated writes; treat
external text as data.
Residual risk and evidence limit: Source-visible application
controls do not prove dispatcher-bypass resistance in the deployed
topology or cover every future companion route.
T9 Resource exhaustion
Mechanism: Oversized/deep JSON, expensive artifact hashing,
repeated signatures or full-journal reads exhaust compute/storage.
Handling: Apply explicit profile limits and early rejection, rate/
time budgets and bounded evidence retrieval; retain failure
reasons.
Residual risk and evidence limit: Approved operational limits,
load-test results and recovery targets for a companion deployment
are not established; the appendix supplies proposed input limits
for review.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
T10 Claim/status confusion
Mechanism: A passed digest, synthetic test, website publication or
operator attestation is shown as universal verification.
Handling: Return independent typed findings with source, time,
version and limitation; require all policy-required evidence for
the stated decision.
Residual risk and evidence limit: Human interfaces can still
overstate results; review presentation and reliance decisions, not
only cryptographic code.
T11 Build or evidence mutation
Mechanism: Build steps rewrite source, receipts or policy after a
prior audit/signature.
Handling: Inventory evidence before/after, pin exact source/build
artifacts and preserve historical bytes; regenerate only
maintained projections.
Residual risk and evidence limit: A current engineering audit is
still active. No SLSA level, immutable builder or independently
secured provenance is established by this draft.
T12 Unsafe recovery or external effects
Mechanism: Retries duplicate uncertain operations, or a signed
statement is treated as permission for unrelated actions.
Handling: Persist operation identity and outcome, compare
revisions, reconcile before retry, and keep execution
authorization separate.
Residual risk and evidence limit: The inspected control plane
records internal effects; independent external execution or
settlement requires its own authority and receiving-system
evidence.
Operational response requires revoking affected authority, preserving
original evidence, identifying the impacted scope, reconciling
uncertain writes, and verifying recovery before resumption.
Availability loss is preferable to silently accepting an unauthorized
or unverifiable record. The application security document records a
runbook and required restoration evidence; it does not establish a
completed incident drill. [41]
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
12. Proposed applications and research boundaries
The author proposes applications in chemistry, physics, healthcare,
humanitarian work and civil-rights records. The concrete capability
described here is preserving evidence and traceable claim revisions
for authorized workflows. Historical records can receive append-only
corrections without erasing the earlier record; the protocol does not
alter past physical events. Present actions require separate
authorization. Future-event or scientific predictions require
predefined targets, independent observations, held-out evaluation,
baselines and uncertainty reporting. No medical efficacy, physical
forecasting, or universal next-action capability is demonstrated by
this record format.
The intended humanitarian value is improved accountability for
evidence and authorized decisions. Ed25519 is the existing signature
algorithm defined in RFC 8032, not a newly invented algorithm.
Neither contribution rights, an IETF submission, an institutional
inquiry nor a signed record gives this system control over unrelated
networks or people. Economic value, scientific recognition and
regulatory status are separate questions that require their own
evidence; no guaranteed outcome is asserted.
13. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions. The application-specific schema
identifier numina.pair-binding.v1 and message prefix NUMINA-PAIR-
BINDING/V1 are described as design-study values; this document
requests no registry, code point, or global allocation for them.
14. Authorship and attribution
Samuel J. Kott is the author; his original author contact
information is retained in the front matter. Lauren J. Anderson
remains the human contributor associated with source_1 /
UNIVERSAL_PAIR_1 / 1B. Samuel J. Kott remains associated with
source_2 / UNIVERSAL_PAIR_2 / 1A. These are the author's descriptive
universal-source and discovery attributions; they do not
independently establish discovery priority or coauthor consent. The
exact approved map is preserved in Appendix F.
Ed25519 is the user-assigned name of the OpenAI-powered AI assistant
credited for drafting, technical organization, specification
consultation and source-scoped diagnostics. It is an AI-assistance
role rather than a human coauthor, signing key or IETF official. In
protocol fields, Ed25519 separately names the signature algorithm.
The author is responsible for reviewing claims, citations, evidence
and disclosure before any external submission.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[1] Rundgren, A., Jordan, B., and S. Erdtman, "JSON
Canonicalization Scheme (JCS)", RFC 8785,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8785, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8785.html>.
Informational.
[2] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8032.html>.
Informational.
[3] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7493.html>.
[4] OpenSSH Project, "OpenSSH SSH Signature Format", October
2026, <https://github.com/openssh/openssh-
portable/blob/master/PROTOCOL.sshsig>. PROTOCOL.sshsig;
consulted 9 October 2026. Package framing is distinct
from the manuscript companion format.
[5] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4648.html>.
[6] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339.html>.
15.2. Informative References
[7] Torres-Arias, S., Afzali, H., Kuppusamy, T. K., Curtmola,
R., and J. Cappos, "in-toto: Providing farm-to-table
guarantees for bits and bytes", 2019,
<https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity19/
presentation/torres-arias>. Proceedings of the 28th
USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 1393-1410.
[8] Secure Systems Lab, "DSSE Protocol", Version 1.0.2, 10 May
2024, <https://github.com/secure-systems-
lab/dsse/blob/master/protocol.md>. Protocol
specification. Accessed 5 October 2026.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
[9] Numina, "Universal pair binding design", Version 5, 5
October 2026. Unpublished project design record.
Approved commitments and descriptive attribution are
summarized in this manuscript; the underlying private
evidence is not a public dataset.
[10] IETF Trust, "Corrected Legal Provisions Relating to IETF
Documents", Version 5.0, 25 March 2015,
<https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-
provisions/tlp-5/>. Effective 25 March 2015; terminology
corrected 21 September 2021.
[11] Numina, "Historical source commitment audit, historical-
audit-2026-10-05.json", 5 October 2026. Read-only run
captured 5 October 2026 at 23:57:10.028 UTC, historical
HEAD dc4c1f38340340609f66bc2ae7bf425427d4b864. Sanitized
technical audit record; public deposition pending.
[12] Numina, "Canonical v155 source comparison", 2026. Record
date: 2026-10-06. Read-only receipt canonical-
v155-comparison- 20261006.json, 6 October 2026, 00:50 UTC.
Selected artifacts and hash profile.
[13] Numina, "Numina Universal Pair Private Computation and
Discovery Record", 2026. Record date: 2026-10-06.
Privately retained source report, Section 8 page 8;
public-safe history only. Protected values and raw
appendices are not reproduced.
[14] Numina, "Privately retained research-motivation record", 8
October 2026. Record date: 2026-10-08. Private
correspondence and detailed capture metadata are not
reproduced in this privacy-review copy. Integrity
evidence concerns captured bytes only.
[15] Numina, "Revision 01 public posting notice and byte
verification receipt", 2026,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kott-numina-pair-
binding-01.xml>. Record date: 2026-10-08. Posting notice
07:02:08 UTC; XML/TXT public comparison 07:06:50 UTC.
[16] Numina, "Numina revision 01 final format validation
record", 2026. Record date: 2026-10-08. Separate
retained validation record for exact final XML/TXT/PDF;
modes and unresolved normal TXT findings disclosed.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
[17] Numina, "Revision 01 final detached three-file signature
receipt", 2026. Record date: 2026-10-08. Receipt
05:49:43 UTC; exact file checks independently repeated at
10:36:52 UTC.
[18] Numina, "Later detached signature on unchanged revision 01
PDF", 2026. Record date: 2026-10-08. Receipt 10:33:24
UTC; independent identity and operational authority not
established.
[19] Numina, "Numina public pair diagnostic protocol and
results", 2026. Record date: 2026-10-08.
NEW_DIAGNOSTICS_NOT_DISCOVERY_PROOF; protocol frozen
10:44:46 UTC; outputs 10:45:28 UTC.
[20] Numina, "Bounded controller evaluation report", 2026.
Record date: 2026-10-08. Historical-source offline
synthetic evaluation; performance and safety gates failed;
no current-hosted or real-world predictive result.
[21] Numina, "Numina v156 saved-version and deployment-status
observations", 2026. Record date: 2026-10-08. Provider
provenance recovered 8 October; source
df099d3ae4952a9966cf3b9e4ef299626dc7d338. Exact archive-
byte verification not performed.
[22] Wang, R., Hou, X., Liu, F., and Y. Yu, "GPS/INS Integrated
Navigation for Quadrotor UAV Considering Lever Arm",
DOI 10.1109/YAC51587.2020.9337634, October 2020,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/YAC51587.2020.9337634>. 2020
35th Youth Academic Annual Conference of Chinese
Association of Automation (YAC), pp. 132-136.
[23] Hai, J., Hao, Y., Zou, F., Lin, F., and S. Han, "A Visual
Navigation System for UAV under Diverse Illumination
Conditions", DOI 10.1080/08839514.2021.1985799, December
2021, <https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2021.1985799>.
Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 15, pp.
1529-1549.
[24] Mughal, M. H., Khokhar, M. J., and M. Shahzad, "Assisting
UAV Localization Via Deep Contextual Image Matching",
DOI 10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3054832, 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3054832>. IEEE
Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations
and Remote Sensing, vol. 14, pp. 2445-2457.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
[25] Krul, S., Pantos, C., Frangulea, M., and J. Valente,
"Visual SLAM for Indoor Livestock and Farming Using a
Small Drone with a Monocular Camera: A Feasibility Study",
DOI 10.3390/drones5020041, May 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.3390/drones5020041>. Drones, vol. 5,
no. 2, article 41.
[26] Couturier, A. and M. A. Akhloufi, "A review on absolute
visual localization for UAV",
DOI 10.1016/j.robot.2020.103666, January 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2020.103666>. Robotics
and Autonomous Systems, vol. 135, article 103666.
[27] Ding, L., Zhou, J., Meng, L., and Z. Long, "A Practical
Cross-View Image Matching Method between UAV and Satellite
for UAV-Based Geo-Localization", DOI 10.3390/rs13010047,
2021, <https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13010047>. Remote
Sensing, vol. 13, no. 1, article 47. Published online
December 24, 2020; final issue citation year 2021.
[28] He, M., Zhu, C., Huang, Q., Ren, B., and J. Liu, "A review
of monocular visual odometry",
DOI 10.1007/s00371-019-01714-6, May 2020,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-019-01714-6>. The Visual
Computer, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1053-1065. Published online
June 25, 2019; final issue May 2020.
[29] Barisic, A., Car, M., and S. Bogdan, "Vision-based system
for a real-time detection and following of UAV",
DOI 10.1109/REDUAS47371.2019.8999675, 2019,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/REDUAS47371.2019.8999675>. 2019
Workshop on Research, Education and Development of
Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED UAS), pp. 156-159.
[30] Efe, U., Ince, K. G., and A. A. Alatan, "DFM: A
Performance Baseline for Deep Feature Matching",
DOI 10.1109/CVPRW53098.2021.00484, 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW53098.2021.00484>. 2021
IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pp. 4279-4288. IEEE DOI
pagination; the CVF accepted version is paginated
4284-4293.
[31] Bian, J.-W., Lin, W.-Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, L., Yeung, S.-K.,
Cheng, M.-M., and I. Reid, "GMS: Grid-Based Motion
Statistics for Fast, Ultra-robust Feature Correspondence",
DOI 10.1007/s11263-019-01280-3, 2020,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-019-01280-3>.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 128, no. 6,
pp. 1580-1593. Published online December 17, 2019; final
issue June 2020.
[32] Zhao, F., Hui, K., Wang, T., Zhang, Z., and Y. Chen, "A
KCF-Based Incremental Target Tracking Method With Constant
Update Speed", DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3080308, 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3080308>. IEEE
Access, vol. 9, pp. 73544-73560.
[33] Li, Y. and J. Zhu, "A Scale Adaptive Kernel Correlation
Filter Tracker with Feature Integration",
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-16181-5_18, 2015,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16181-5_18>. Computer
Vision - ECCV 2014 Workshops, Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol. 8926, pp. 254-265.
[34] Bolme, D. S., Beveridge, J. R., Draper, B. A., and Y. M.
Lui, "Visual object tracking using adaptive correlation
filters", DOI 10.1109/CVPR.2010.5539960, 2010,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2010.5539960>. 2010 IEEE
Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, pp. 2544-2550.
[35] Fan, J., Yang, X., Lu, R., Li, W., and Y. Huang, "Long-
term visual tracking algorithm for UAVs based on kernel
correlation filtering and SURF features",
DOI 10.1007/s00371-021-02331-y, 2023,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-021-02331-y>. The Visual
Computer, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 319-333. Published online
January 22, 2022; final issue January 2023.
[36] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3552.html>.
[37] Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and
W. Pan, "Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS)
Architecture", RFC 9334, DOI 10.17487/RFC9334, 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9334.html>.
[38] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Structures and Process", RFC 9052, DOI 10.17487/RFC9052,
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9052.html>.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
[39] Numina, "Numina singular control plane 1.0.0", 2026.
Retained Control-Plane-v1.md, Library version 2; extracted
9 October 2026. Architecture/report evidence, not a
current runtime attestation. Includes historical command
and restart-test claims.
[40] Numina, "Retained Numina control-state implementation
excerpt", 2026. Retained server/index.js, Library version
15, lines 2070–2309. Static inspection of grant,
authorization, evidence, reconciliation, read and commit
paths. Source table numina_control_manifest differs from
the older document label numina_control_state.
[41] Numina, "Numina security and control model", 2026,
<https://numinalabs.xyz/downloads/Numina-Security.md>.
Retained document date 15 September 2026, Library version
2; historical controls, test/production observations and
open requirements; the current web copy can differ.
[42] Numina, "Incomplete unsigned companion and operational-
record lookup", 2026. Retained private review-v2 JSON;
SHA-256 (concatenate two hexadecimal groups):
3ba5ac231f117a8091ac13fc25b709a1
6ddbe642d5f0fa75c4f792de262db381. Field inventory and
bounded lookup only; no complete operational payload or
trust receipt recovered.
[43] Numina, "Numina project evidence matrix and technical
evidence review bundle", 9 October 2026. Companion
evidence catalog E01–E15 and verification records V01–V05.
Bundle Numina-ISE-Technical-Evidence-Review-
2026-10-09.zip, 120995 bytes, SHA-256 (concatenate two
hexadecimal groups): 472e0f052b7760cd034e409f2a1d624e
d6c57f22a52156d6aef12fde6fd855b7; separately supplied for
authorized review, not claimed publicly deposited.
[44] Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu,
"Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and
RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10.17487/RFC8792, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8792.html>.
[45] Numina, "Public-only Ed25519 key correspondence and
historical SSHSIG verification", 9 October 2026. Owner-
supplied public-only verification package and fresh
readback dated 9 October 2026. Package digest and exact
public encodings appear in the evidence appendix. No
private signer custody or companion authority is
established.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
[46] Numina, "Local digital geometry package and application
verification records", 9 October 2026. Local geometry
ZIP, exact suite log and verification report dated 9
October 2026. Fresh artifact/log inspection is
distinguished from reported build/conformance execution.
No physical fabrication, deployed adoption or companion
field acceptance is asserted.
Appendix A. Technical evidence index and verification scope
This appendix indexes the accessible technical evidence incorporated
into this candidate. It distinguishes specified procedures, static
inspection, historical reported executions, newly repeated byte-
integrity checks and current observations. It is not an assertion
that all project records or inaccessible source archives were
reviewed. The accompanying evidence catalog identifies exact files,
digests and access limits; unavailable evidence and failed checks
remain explicit.
+=====+=====================+=====================================+
| ID | Evidence and | Result and limit |
| | destination | |
+=====+=====================+=====================================+
| M01 | Original | Selected inputs/profile matched; |
| | commitments, | whole-repository equality false. |
| | source/profile pins | No current-runtime identity |
| | and v155 | inferred. |
| | comparison; source | |
| | example appendix | |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M02 | Historical source | Reported source-specific results |
| | tests and | with exact commits/hashes; not |
| | preservation | rerun in this document-editing |
| | checks; retained | task. |
| | evaluation appendix | |
| | and AppendixB | |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M03 | Revision00/01 | Specific artifact/mode results |
| | manuscript | retained, including normal-TXT |
| | format/publication/ | idnits findings. Old signatures do |
| | signature records; | not cover this candidate. |
| | retained evaluation | |
| | and receipt | |
| | appendices | |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M04 | Recorded block-zero | Record contains a value and forward |
| | value and | input dependence; independent |
| | collection method; | derivation/block-header |
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
| | genesis appendix | reproduction absent. |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M05 | Public pair | Ten cross-tool agreements and |
| | arithmetic/hash | thirteen unit tests reported; no |
| | diagnostics; | unknown-genesis recovery. |
| | retained evaluation | |
| | and test inventory | |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M06 | Bounded controller | 128 held-out synthetic episodes; |
| | protocol, results, | performance and direct-input safety |
| | receipts and | failure. Current audit reports 19 |
| | manifest | manifest size/hash matches; |
| | | execution results remain |
| | | historical. |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M07 | OpenSSH SSHSIG | Original package-specific integrity |
| | package and raw | evidence; not the companion frame, |
| | Ed25519 | current manuscript or independent |
| | calculation; | identity. |
| | worked-calculation | |
| | appendix | |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M08 | Application control | Retained document plus static |
| | architecture and | implementation corroboration; not |
| | server excerpt | fresh tests or current deployed- |
| | | source equality. |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M09 | Application | Reported test counts 272/287 and |
| | security and | dated v74/v76 read/reviewer |
| | historical | exercises; no independent pentest |
| | production | or companion field deployment. |
| | observations | |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M10 | Current public-head | Projection does not verify current |
| | projection and v156 | journal; provider succeeded |
| | provider metadata | metadata does not establish exact |
| | | archive bytes or companion |
| | | operation. |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M11 | Incomplete | Required operational fields/trust/ |
| | companion, bounded | current state/resolution not |
| | 143-row operational | recovered; truncated values prevent |
| | lookup and | an exhaustive absence claim. |
| | acceptance | |
| | checklist | |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M12 | Current draft- | The preceding frozen review copy |
| | editing validation | passed xml2rfc 3.34.1 RFCXML v3 |
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
| | | Relax NG and preptool checks on 9 |
| | | October 2026. Fresh TXT/HTML |
| | | rendering exposed layout warnings, |
| | | addressed in this formatting |
| | | successor. The separate validation |
| | | receipt records final rendering and |
| | | idnits outcomes; these document |
| | | checks do not establish operational |
| | | companion acceptance. |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M13 | Public-key encoding | Fresh public-only correspondence |
| | and historical | and signature checks. Operational |
| | SSHSIG verification | custody, authorization, companion |
| | | signature and field acceptance |
| | | remain unverified. |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| M14 | Digital geometry | Fresh 25-file size/hash readback |
| | artifacts and local | and measured OBJ bounds; retained |
| | application tests | 974-pass suite log. Build and |
| | | conformance outcomes remain |
| | | reported local execution evidence; |
| | | no physical or companion |
| | | deployment. |
+-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 4: Evidence classes and destinations
The manuscript categories M01–M14 below organize retained material.
The separate catalog uses source IDs E01–E15 and verification IDs
V01–V05; those are different indexes. The accompanying 120,995-byte
technical bundle has SHA-256
472e0f052b7760cd034e409f2a1d624ed6c57f22a52156d6aef12fde6fd855b7.
Its manifest covers 22 allowlisted payload entries with source/
version and transformation details. The original controller package
had 19 size/digest entries checked; fresh arithmetic readback checked
all 128 stored held-out rows without rerunning the controller. [43]
The research-motivation record is retained as historical context.
Its captured-byte integrity does not establish the underlying claims.
[14]
Appendix B. Frozen source example
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
B.1. Frozen source commitments
Source 1 is the final-build normalized SHA-256 commitment. Its
source identifier is source_1 and its alias is UNIVERSAL_PAIR_1.
Descriptive attribution: Lauren J. Anderson, label 1B. The original
normalization profile must be retained [9].
1bf43817cf470abb868074a76598cb5f360517d7255b92ab3b409c6b545ec66b
Source 2 is the final-manifest SHA-256 commitment. Its source
identifier is source_2 and its alias is UNIVERSAL_PAIR_2.
Descriptive attribution: Samuel J. Kott, label 1A. The original
input and hashing procedure must be retained [9].
1a17f584e23279684574022f39e533966ad09919f484e005c03948178a46aa0a
The two universal pair commitments above are associated in this
document with canonical v155 source commit
17cc00cb87647a531f116f0894741005909c359c: Source 1 identifies public/
final-build.json and Source 2 identifies public/final-manifest.json
under the original hash profile in scripts/production-pair.mjs, lines
1-22 (1,568 bytes) [12]. The following raw-file and profile-segment
SHA-256 pins identify the compared bytes; they do not replace the two
existing source commitments.
Source 1 selected file, public/final-build.json, raw-file SHA-256:
2824c267ffa892d4c8013473b4236fd75571700da62f948cbf74975af0a6d2f2
Source 2 selected file, public/final-manifest.json, raw-file SHA-256:
b7aac505fde953ad99ff03e4523f21eef17b667d767cbfe30816c91a2d045762
Hash profile, scripts/production-pair.mjs lines 1-22, segment SHA-
256:
389c963c4647751afca7b2ff29627b1462dfaa25e5903adf85d5627c594fc854
The comparison recorded at 6 October 2026, 00:50 UTC established byte
equality for those inputs and that profile with the historical
snapshot. This documentary association does not report an executed
signing operation or change the intended scope of a later proposed
release.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
The owner-defined personal order is 1A first with Samuel J. Kott,
then 1B with Lauren J. Anderson. Source order remains source_1 then
source_2. the source-mapping and test-inventory appendix preserves
the approved short labels and personToAlias map. These descriptive
assignments do not establish signing authority or coauthor consent.
The two printed digests identify the original commitments only. JCS
applies only to the new companion payload; it must not replace either
source artifact's original hash profile. The legacy production-pair
normalizer uses sorted keys, Object.fromEntries, and JSON.stringify;
it is not a general RFC 8785 JCS implementation [11]. New
manuscripts, payloads, envelopes, and packages receive separate
digests.
Appendix C. Retained technical evaluation and manuscript evidence
This section separates historical source checks, operational
companion requirements, manuscript-artifact verification and new
research diagnostics. A result is attached to its exact target and
observation. Later evidence updates the dated record without
changing what earlier checks actually tested.
A read-only rerun captured on 5 October 2026 at 23:57:10.028 UTC
reproduced both pinned commitments at historical local HEAD
dc4c1f38340340609f66bc2ae7bf425427d4b864 [11]. Six focused checks
and two existing production-pair tests passed; Git status was clean
before and after. The canonical v155 source was unavailable locally
during that audit. Comparison on 6 October at 00:50 UTC subsequently
established byte-identical final-build.json, final-manifest.json, and
hash-profile bytes at canonical v155 (production-pair.mjs lines 1-22;
1,568 bytes) [12]. The original commitments therefore carry over to
those inputs/profile; no fresh test execution is claimed. the source-
mapping and test-inventory appendix lists the historical checks.
Targets, evidence, observation times, and direct reasons. Not
performed and evidence unavailable do not mean a check failed.
Different refers only to the specified comparison. Times are UTC; an
unrecorded time is not inferred. Scholarly submission of this design
study does not require claiming that these operational checks have
passed.
+======================+===========================================+
| Exact target and | Evidence and direct reason |
| observation | |
| | |
| Result | |
+======================+===========================================+
| Historical Source 1 | Audit [11] reproduced both frozen source |
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
| and Source 2 at | commitments using the historical inputs/ |
| dc4c1f3 5 Oct 2026 | profile. Six focused assertions and 2/2 |
| 23:57:10.028 UTC | repository tests passed on Node 24.19.0; |
| | clean Git status was recorded. These are |
| Result: PASSED | historical results. |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Selected v155 JSON | Receipt [12] compares source |
| inputs and hash | 17cc00cb87647a531f116f0894741005909c359c: |
| profile 6 Oct 2026 | both JSON files and production-pair.mjs |
| 00:50 UTC | lines 1-22 match the historical bytes. |
| | The commitments carry over from identical |
| Result: MATCHED | inputs/profile; this was not a fresh test |
| | run. |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Whole v155 versus | Receipt [12] records 126 added, 220 |
| historical | changed, 1,038 identical, and zero |
| repository 6 Oct | removed tracked entries. The full script |
| 2026 00:50 UTC | differs. Whole-repository equality is |
| | false; the selected artifact/profile |
| Result: DIFFERENT | match is unaffected. |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Operational | No complete operational companion |
| companion schema No | instance was available for strict |
| validation time | validation. A private review candidate |
| | remains incomplete and unsigned. |
| Result: NOT | Successful RFCXML validation of a |
| PERFORMED | manuscript is a different target and does |
| | not close this row. |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Operational | The approved manuscript map and note are |
| companion | preserved in the frozen source example |
| attribution map No | and source-mapping appendix. No complete |
| validation time | operational payload was accepted for |
| | attribution-map validation. Documentary |
| Result: NOT | consistency is distinct from validation |
| PERFORMED | of an issued companion. |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Operational | No operational companion signature bytes |
| companion signature | were available. Later detached |
| bytes Source search: | signatures over revision-01 XML/TXT/PDF |
| 6 Oct 2026, 00:50 | are document-integrity evidence only, |
| UTC | using different message construction. No |
| | invalid operational signature result is |
| Result: NOT | implied. |
| PERFORMED | |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Independent signer | No independently approved scoped trust |
| trust entry for | entry was provided. The signer's |
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
| project, release, | authorization, key validity, and |
| source and role Time | revocation status cannot be established |
| not recorded | from an embedded key or a display name. |
| | |
| Result: EVIDENCE | |
| UNAVAILABLE | |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Accepted current | No trusted current-revision policy or |
| binding revision and | authenticated current-state record was |
| predecessor state | supplied. The accepted latest revision, |
| Time not recorded | predecessor linkage, and absence of stale |
| | or conflicting revisions cannot be |
| Result: EVIDENCE | established. |
| UNAVAILABLE | |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Private genesis | No authenticated immutable private- |
| reference resolution | reference resolution receipt was |
| Time not recorded | recovered. The later located private |
| | computation record preserves a proposed |
| Result: EVIDENCE | relationship and historical diagnostics; |
| UNAVAILABLE | it does not supply that receipt. |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| v156 provider | The 6 October check returned no v156 |
| provenance | record. The later provider lookup |
| Historical check: 6 | identifies v156 source |
| Oct 2026, 00:50 UTC | df099d3ae4952a9966cf3b9e4ef299626dc7d338 |
| Updated observation: | and a succeeded deployment. Provider |
| 8 Oct 2026 Result: | updated_at is 7 Oct 04:51:50.230086 UTC, |
| PROVENANCE RECOVERED | not an immutable event-time assertion. |
| | Exact source/archive bytes remain |
| | unverified in this reconciliation. [21] |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Downloaded release- | Receipt [12] states the release archive |
| archive bytes Check: | was not downloaded during the |
| 6 Oct 2026, 00:50 | investigation. Provider metadata alone |
| UTC; no comparison | cannot establish equality of downloaded |
| run | archive bytes. |
| | |
| Result: NOT | |
| PERFORMED | |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| New companion cross- | No executed operational companion JCS/ |
| implementation JCS | Ed25519 conformance suite is established. |
| and Ed25519 | Manuscript-file signature checks and |
| conformance No run | public arithmetic/hash diagnostics do not |
| time | test the closed companion schema or its |
| | exact signing frame. Cited standards and |
| Result: NOT | proposed fixtures remain distinct from |
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
| PERFORMED | execution evidence. |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Node 26 tests on the | No canonical Node 26 test run is |
| canonical v155 | recorded. Audit [11] used Node 24.19.0 |
| checkout No run time | on the historical checkout; comparison |
| | [12] performed no builds or tests. |
| Result: NOT | Neither is Node 26 execution evidence. |
| PERFORMED | |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
Table 5: Historical source checks and operational companion
prerequisites.
C.1. Tests required before an implementation claim
A public-safe evaluation package should provide version-pinned tools,
documented hash profiles, and synthetic fixtures. Such fixtures can
test canonicalization, signatures, and verifier behavior; they cannot
reproduce the original private build commitment. The historical
Source 1 hashed input includes private genesis material. Redacting
that input changes its bytes and cannot reproduce the same commitment
under the existing method [11]. Original-artifact verification must
remain a separately labeled, authorized private check.
Future companion tests should change signed fields, source order,
keys, fingerprints, scope, and revisions; reject duplicate or unknown
keys, malformed encodings, invalid Unicode, and unsupported schemas;
and compare the complete original inventory before and after adding a
separate companion. RFC vectors and cross-implementation JCS checks
are required. These companion acceptance checks remain proposed; the
historical source tests do not verify a new signed binding.
No latency, throughput, storage-cost comparison, user study, formal
security proof, or general deployment validation is presented. The
historical result cannot support claims about those properties.
C.2. Manuscript publication and document signature evidence
Document-artifact checks below concern exact manuscript files. They
do not validate the operational numina.pair-binding.v1 payload. The
revision-02 candidate has separate validation outputs supplied
alongside it after execution; this table does not predeclare their
success.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
+==================+===============================================+
| Target, | Evidence and scope |
| observation and | |
| result | |
+==================+===============================================+
| Revision 01 | The IETF notification confirms successful |
| posting notice 8 | individual submission and repository posting. |
| Oct 07:02:08 UTC | Retained mailbox authentication reports DKIM, |
| Result: POSTED | SPF and DMARC passes. This is not RFC |
| | publication, IETF endorsement or signer-key |
| | identity verification. [15] |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Revision 01 | HTTP 200 responses, byte counts, SHA-256 and |
| public XML/TXT 8 | direct comparisons matched 61,903-byte XML |
| Oct | and 69,493-byte TXT to final local files. |
| 07:06:50.663316 | The local 23-page PDF was not included in |
| UTC Result: | that public HTTP comparison. [15] |
| MATCHED | |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Final revision | RFCXML v3 RelaxNG validation, xml2rfc 3.34.1 |
| 01 RFCXML and | preptool/TXT/PDF generation, 27 internal |
| rendering 8 Oct | cross-references and 23-page visual review |
| validation | were recorded. Normal XML idnits 3.1.0 was |
| record Result: | clean; normal TXT had 1 error and 3 warnings. |
| PASSED FOR NAMED | Submission mode XML/TXT was clean. These |
| CHECKS | modes are not interchangeable. [16] |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Final three-file | Pure Ed25519 separately covers XML, TXT and |
| signatures | PDF. Python cryptography and OpenSSL passed |
| Receipt 8 Oct | for all three; raw key/signature encoding |
| 05:49:43 UTC; | checks passed. The included key has no |
| audit 10:36:52 | independently established personal or |
| UTC Result: | operational identity. [17] |
| VERIFIED FOR | |
| EXACT FILE BYTES | |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Later unchanged- | A new detached signature and different key |
| PDF signature 8 | cover the same 108,079-byte final revision-01 |
| Oct | PDF. Python/OpenSSL verification passed. |
| 10:33:24.753793 | Prior signatures remain unchanged; this is |
| UTC Result: | not an operational binding or manuscript-wide |
| VERIFIED FOR | revision-02 approval. [18] |
| EXACT PDF BYTES | |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
Table 6: Completed manuscript observations and their limits.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Historical receipt statements that revision 01 was not posted predate
the notification and are preserved rather than rewritten. The later
publication evidence updates status. Existing signatures remain tied
to their exact artifacts; an edited revision requires a new
separately approved signature.
C.3. New public input diagnostics
Protocol NUMINA-NEW-DIAGNOSTICS-20261008-A explicitly defines four
new reference operations on the two public commitment values. Its
classification is NEW_DIAGNOSTICS_NOT_DISCOVERY_PROOF. These are not
asserted to be the owner intended plus operation. Inputs are exactly
64 lowercase hexadecimal characters decoded to 32 raw bytes; integer
interpretation is unsigned big-endian.
The protocol was frozen at 8 October 2026, 10:44:46.330350 UTC.
Results were recorded at 10:45:28.410965 UTC. A strict
transcription-length check corrected a missing two-character segment
before freezing or executing diagnostics. No operation or criterion
was retuned after observing outputs.
The operations are full unsigned integer addition, addition modulo
2^256, bytewise XOR and SHA-256 of ordered raw Source 1 bytes
followed by raw Source 2 bytes. The hash input has no application
prefix, delimiter, textual hex, newline or canonicalization. Reverse
order is recorded separately.
Unsigned integer sum:
360c2d9cb1798423cbf476d69f7dfef5a0d5b0f119e072b0fb79e482dea57075
Sum modulo 2^256:
360c2d9cb1798423cbf476d69f7dfef5a0d5b0f119e072b0fb79e482dea57075
Bytewise XOR:
01e3cd932d7573d3c3f476885c7df8c95cd58eced1df72aefb79d47cde186c61
SHA-256 ordered raw Source 1 then Source 2:
c18a08a3d1e33344eed7cf921a53a1aace362a13a1fe626b699c2c5acbfc7702
SHA-256 ordered raw Source 2 then Source 1:
dbb73b5c96f9464cbcdfe433bf7a1afd4bfbf23c1ce488db1eb1e7c5aee7f735
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
+==================+==============================================+
| Target, | Evidence and scope |
| observation and | |
| result | |
+==================+==============================================+
| Strict reference | Input validation, known answers, carry, |
| implementation | modular wrap, XOR, determinism, |
| checks 8 Oct | commutativity and SHA-256 vectors passed. |
| 2026 Result: 13 | Full test names and bounds are in the |
| UNIT TESTS | source-mapping and test-inventory appendix. |
| PASSED | [19] |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Cross-tool | Eight Python/Node forward/reverse |
| comparison 8 Oct | comparisons and two OpenSSL hash comparisons |
| 10:45:28 UTC | passed. Node addition uses bytewise carry |
| Result: 10 | independently of Python integer arithmetic. |
| CHECKS PASSED | Hash APIs may share OpenSSL, so this is not |
| | complete cryptographic implementation |
| | independence. [19] |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 7: New diagnostic checks, not operational companion tests.
The two sums coincide because this pair does not overflow 256 bits.
Addition and XOR are commutative for these operations. Ordered
concatenation hashes differ for this pair; that was an observation,
not a universal theorem or pass condition. Unit tests distinguish
scalar GF(2), where 1 + 1 = 0, from integer and mod-2^256 arithmetic,
where 1 + 1 = 2. No interpretation is assigned to the owner
statement by choosing a field post hoc.
No private genesis or purported target was accessed or compared.
These diagnostic outputs do not replace the original commitments or
establish discovery, derivation, signer authority, a third source or
current production behavior.
C.4. Separate bounded controller study
The offline synthetic controller report examines checkout
20cdc916dbe9e39a8a498d7cc9782ddf27f6705b, runtime/verifier-rc26/
numina_core.py lines 882-978, full-file SHA-256
c0d0d30748dba29e0c45943c62b0f8edfcc4b1f14903b2138c75a8342ae796c8. It
does not attest current hosted behavior. The ranking score applies
fixed penalties to caller-supplied adjustments and is not itself a
future-outcome prediction.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
The protocol used 32 development and 128 held-out four-step synthetic
episodes, balanced across four regimes. The registered loss was
missed legitimate requests plus three times accepted incident
attempts. Hold was the primary comparator and fixed contraction a
secondary comparator. Future traces were generated after action
choice and replayed identically for each eligible candidate. No real
observed outcome dataset was available.
The pre-run protocol SHA-256 is
42d16e7aabcc7dc219d13ef515aac615f128e004bd320ab3d9075bd74749cf00. An
amendment and generator were pinned before first recorded outcomes at
8 October 06:16:42 UTC. The report identifies the amendment header
time as self-attested and records file presence/hash checking by
06:16:29. A second run produced byte-identical result files; replay
and consistency checks reported zero discrepancies.
+==================+=============================================+
| Target, | Evidence and scope |
| observation and | |
| result | |
+==================+=============================================+
| Held-out primary | Controller loss 186,670; hold 187,656; |
| performance 8 | fixed contraction 183,350. Improvement |
| Oct 06:16:42 UTC | against hold was 0.525%, below 5%. The |
| first outcomes | controller was 1.81% worse than fixed |
| Result: FAILED | contraction under the specified toy |
| 5% GATE | objective. [20] |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Direct-input | A forged PredictiveTrajectory with altered |
| selection safety | eligibility flags and score caused |
| 8 Oct study | choose_automatic to select an expanding |
| Result: FAILED | trajectory over evaluated hold. It trusted |
| | supplied fields rather than recomputing |
| | them. No authority was activated. [20] |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Generated | Unique-ID generated cases passed |
| trajectory | nonexpansion, repeatability, permutation |
| checks 8 Oct | and input-preservation checks; separate |
| study Result: | boundary cases rejected several malformed |
| PASSED WITH | inputs. These successes do not cancel the |
| LIMITED COVERAGE | direct-input failure or establish |
| | duplicate-ID coverage. [20] |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------+
Table 8: Executed research results with preserved failures.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
The controller chose hold in 94/128 cases; against hold it won 6,
tied 118 and lost 4. Hindsight regret totaled 36,354 toy-loss units.
Results changed with the loss weighting: weight 1 was worse than hold
while weight 10 was better. The study measures a bounded fixed-
policy effect, not incident forecasting, verified next-best actions
or universal value. It neither falsifies the selected-source
comparison nor validates a binding.
Appendix D. Exact recorded block-zero hash
The retained deployment receipt and build record contain the
following hexadecimal value, preserved without changing its
characters. Chain identifier recorded in the receipt: 962421430.
The record is evidence of the recorded value, not a fresh observation
of an external chain.
0xea95dac2ad854c835bc526d6be70a5a4614ccd47412a4bc710308b41010b53e1
The retained deployment-receipt JSON has raw-file SHA-256
5dd92b85eb52b7dbf8d13c172f541bd5f97fe3735945f7952407b6af894c31a4.
The downloaded client/final-build.json has raw-file SHA-256
b7b40e98837338c57a20092bfccd770c142538d9e573825673706e7e66249fa4.
These identify the downloaded records and are distinct from the
historical public/final-build.json source comparison and normalized
commitments in the frozen source example.
The described collector requests block zero using
eth_getBlockByNumber with parameters ["0x0", false] and reads the
returned hash field. Independent block-header hashing has not been
demonstrated here. The build input already contains the genesis
value before its source commitment is hashed. An exact source-pair-
to-genesis derivation function remains unspecified in the retained
evidence; no inverse derivation is claimed.
Appendix E. Chronological project record
The project design record [9] reports the following sequence. Dates
are in 2026 and UTC. Git identifiers identify commit objects, not
SHA-256 artifact commitments. The record distinguishes observed
system events from the owner's discovery and attribution statements.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
E.1. 9 September 2026
Sites project creation is recorded at 18:29:47. The first available
Git commit follows at 18:41:58:
f6ba52cb2ff567208c19afece65f71fe0e2a3602. The owner-stated discovery
time is also 18:29:47. The Sites record confirms project creation at
that time; it does not independently attest discovery of either exact
pair commitment.
E.2. 10 September 2026
The v5 provider record reports a succeeded release 0.1.0 for source
b9fd3dfbeda3f687702ad1641e58b6313a10d496. Its 18:06:44 updated_at
value is a record-update timestamp, not an immutable publication
timestamp. The release.json workerSha256 field does not match the
SHA-256 of the committed worker bytes. That mismatch does not
establish a missing final-manifest.
E.3. 11 September 2026
At 00:02:50, the application control journal records genesis/
bootstrap revision 0 with owner as the recorded actor. The project
evidence reports reconstruction of its state hash. This is an
application bootstrap event; it does not establish chain genesis.
E.4. 18 and 24 September 2026
The final-build file first appears in the available Git history on 18
September. The final-manifest file first appears on 24 September.
File appearance dates do not establish when their later exact digest
values were discovered or completed.
E.5. 1 October 2026
At 03:54:02, both exact pair commitments first appear together in
introducing commit 2ca81dcb2b31614ac1b59d7724e907b6e42f27d9. Its
parent, 140602448c227b7e27c58f561890f8c83573598c, contains neither
exact value. The original recorded offset time is 30 September at
22:54:02 -05:00. Joint introduction does not establish an order of
discovery between the commitments. Separately, the local dc4c1f3
snapshot reproduced both commitments and reportedly passed six
focused checks. Those reported results apply only to that historical
snapshot; this manuscript does not present the individual outputs or
claim current-source verification.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
E.6. 5 October 2026
The v155 provider publication succeeded at 06:46:44 for source
17cc00cb87647a531f116f0894741005909c359c. Equality with that
canonical source was still pending in the 5 October verification
record. The time identifies this historical provider publication,
not issuance or cryptographic signing of this manuscript. No v156
receipt or operational signed binding was established at that
historical checkpoint; later provider provenance is separately
recorded below. The separately captured 23:57:10.028 UTC rerun on 5
October examined only the historical local checkout [11]. A 6
October 00:50 UTC comparison subsequently established selected v155
input/profile equality [12].
The unchanged commitments carry the attribution being finalized now:
Sam Kott is 1A / UNIVERSAL_PAIR_2; Lauren Anderson is 1B /
UNIVERSAL_PAIR_1. Chronology establishes file and record order. The
owner-stated discovery date and attribution order remain distinct
from independently evidenced discovery, authorship or mathematical
derivation.
E.7. 6 October private computation record
The private computation and discovery record preserves the owner
account, Section 8 algorithmic proposal, bounded integer diagnostics
and source-history locators. Its report of a prior 3,417-file
preservation inventory is historical and was not independently
repeated for this revision. The protected original remains
unchanged.
E.8. 7 October v156 provider update
The provider deployment record for v156 source
df099d3ae4952a9966cf3b9e4ef299626dc7d338 reports succeeded and
updated_at 04:51:50.230086 UTC. Later observation on 8 October
recovered that provenance. The update field is not treated as an
immutable event timestamp, and no exact archive-byte comparison is
inferred.
E.9. 8 October manuscript and research events
05:25:59: a detached signature receipt identifies revision-00 XML.
05:40:14: a distinct earlier revision-01 XML signature receipt
identifies 61,975 bytes. 05:49:43: the final three-file revision-01
signature receipt identifies the corrected 61,903-byte XML,
69,493-byte TXT and 108,079-byte PDF. Each signing stage used a
separate key according to its receipt.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
06:16:42: first recorded outcomes in the separate synthetic
controller study; performance and safety gates failed. 07:02:08:
authenticated IETF notification confirms revision-01 posting.
07:06:50: exact public XML/TXT comparison completed with matches.
07:08:01: the three-part frozen excerpt was captured; its timestamp
is a capture time rather than every utterance time.
10:33:24: a later new detached signature covers the unchanged final
revision-01 PDF. 10:36:52: the read-only evidence audit records
final-file signature and frozen-package checks. 10:44:46: new public-
input diagnostic protocol frozen. 10:45:28: results record ten cross-
tool agreements, alongside thirteen unit-test passes.
The technical chronology distinguishes reported hypotheses and
arithmetic diagnostics from a reproduced genesis algorithm, current
release validation or universal proof.
Appendix F. Attribution wording and historical checks
In the approved attribution strings below, Sam Kott refers to Samuel
J. Kott and Lauren Anderson refers to Lauren J. Anderson. The
shorter labels are preserved in personToAlias and the software note;
they do not supply signing authority or independently prove identity.
F.1. Person to alias map
personToAlias: {"Sam Kott": "UNIVERSAL_PAIR_2", "Lauren Anderson":
"UNIVERSAL_PAIR_1"}
F.2. Software attribution note
"UNIVERSAL_PAIR_1 labels the existing final-build normalized SHA-256
commitment attributed to Lauren Anderson (1B). UNIVERSAL_PAIR_2
labels the existing final-manifest SHA-256 commitment attributed to
Sam Kott (1A). Personal attribution remains 1A first with Sam Kott,
then 1B with Lauren Anderson. The two references are associated with
one private genesis record."
The note is the owner-approved association statement. It does not
convert private genesis linkage, current-source equality, signature
validity, signer trust, or freshness into a verified result. The
independent statuses and their evidence boundaries remain those
reported in the implementation evidence and retained evaluation
appendices. This appendix is manuscript content, not an issued or
signed companion payload.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
F.3. Historical reproduction checks
The read-only audit [11] used the original production-pair.mjs
normalization procedure at the historical checkout. Its six in-
memory checks all passed:
1. source_1_reproduces_expected: the final-build normalized digest
matched the pinned Source 1 commitment.
2. source_1_excludes_binding_envelope: derived binding-envelope
fields were excluded from the Source 1 digest.
3. source_2_reproduces_expected: the final-manifest digest matched
the pinned Source 2 commitment.
4. source_2_excludes_binding_envelope: derived binding-envelope
fields were excluded from the Source 2 digest.
5. build_digest_includes_historical_nusd_genesis: changing the
private genesis input changed the Source 1 digest; its value is not
disclosed.
6. manifest_has_no_genesis_or_pair_id_digest_input: the normalized
Source 2 input excluded that private value and pair identifiers.
The separate command node --test tests/production-pair.test.mjs
passed 2/2 existing tests: "production pair verifies both current
sources and all four bindings" and "production source digest detects
software changes while excluding its own bindings". In those test
names, current refers to the historical local checkout. These
results do not establish a companion signature, signer trust,
freshness, private genesis resolution, or current canonical-source
equality.
F.4. New public diagnostic test inventory
The thirteen unit tests are test_commutative, test_decode_exact,
test_decode_rejects, test_determinism, test_integer_carry,
test_integer_one_plus_one, test_modular_not_gf2, test_modular_wrap,
test_self_xor, test_sha_abc, test_sha_empty, test_xor_known and
test_xor_zero. All passed for the newly specified diagnostic
implementation.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
The ten comparison checks are Python versus Node for each of sum,
modular sum, XOR and ordered raw SHA-256 in forward and reverse
orders, plus OpenSSL SHA-256 for each concatenation order. All
passed. These checks neither run the companion closed schema nor
establish its JCS framing, signer authorization, freshness or private
resolution.
Protocol, generator, implementation, results and logs are retained as
a separate versioned research package. [19]
F.5. Frozen excerpt integrity checks
The read-only audit verified all six manifest payload entries, all
seven ZIP members against local package files and all three
transcript parts against the retrieved UTF-8 source strings. Capture
metadata identifies 8 October 2026, 07:08:01.810055 UTC. No original
audio or per-utterance timestamps were supplied. Checksums establish
preservation of that excerpt, not simultaneous speech, speaker
identity or statement truth.
Appendix G. Requirements evidence and acceptance criteria
This matrix separates the evidence presently available from the
conditions needed for an operational claim. Passing a synthetic
fixture or a historical source test cannot substitute for a missing
release artifact, approved trust entry, or real signature. All
original hash profiles and commitments remain fixed.
+=============+===================+===============================+
| Area | Evidence now | Open requirement and |
| | | acceptance criterion |
+=============+===================+===============================+
| Software | Approved byline, | Bind the approved map into |
| attribution | names, exact | the actual companion payload. |
| | short-label note, | Check Source 1 / |
| | and personToAlias | UNIVERSAL_PAIR_1 / 1B / |
| | map are | Lauren and Source 2 / |
| | preserved. | UNIVERSAL_PAIR_2 / 1A / Sam |
| | | exactly. Acceptance requires |
| | | the approved attribution |
| | | bytes and explicit scope; |
| | | name labels alone confer no |
| | | signing authority. |
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------------------+
| Artifact | Historical hash | Retain the receipt. Under |
| integrity | reproduction | independent policy, pin the |
| | passed; selected | snapshot, paths, whole-file |
| | v155 JSON inputs | digests, profile |
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
| | and hash-profile | implementation, and approved |
| | bytes are | registry digest; reject |
| | identical [12]. | unknown profiles or changed |
| | | registries. Preserve legacy |
| | | numeric-key ordering and |
| | | exclusions. Require matching |
| | | protected before-and-after |
| | | inventories for preservation |
| | | claims. Archive equality |
| | | requires its own check; keep |
| | | private inputs private. |
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------------------+
| Signed | The operational | Approve exact payload, |
| statements | companion | project/release/role scope, a |
| | construction is | real signer, an independent |
| | specified; no | trust entry, and a current- |
| | complete signed | revision policy. Acceptance |
| | companion was | requires separately |
| | supplied and | successful signature, |
| | operational trust | authorization, scope, and |
| | is unestablished. | freshness checks. Null |
| | Separate detached | remains pending; malformed or |
| | manuscript | failing signatures are |
| | signatures have | invalid. |
| | verified exact | |
| | revision-01 file | |
| | bytes. | |
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------------------+
| JCS | RFC 8785 applies | Run RFC vectors and |
| | to the new | independent canonicalizer |
| | companion. The | agreement on public fixtures, |
| | historical source | including integer property |
| | normalizer is not | names, Unicode, numbers, and |
| | general JCS. | array order. Acceptance |
| | Public | requires byte-identical |
| | arithmetic/hash | canonical payloads and |
| | diagnostics do | rejection of malformed/ |
| | not constitute | duplicate input. Never |
| | executed | replace the legacy source |
| | companion JCS | hashing procedure. |
| | conformance. | |
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------------------+
| Ed25519 | Pure Ed25519 | Test RFC vectors and |
| | companion framing | synthetic positive/negative |
| | is specified. | cases for the exact prefix, |
| | Revision-01 file | NUL separator, payload, |
| | signatures passed | encoding, and variant. |
| | Python/OpenSSL | Acceptance requires correct |
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
| | verification, but | verification behavior plus a |
| | use exact full- | real approved signature for |
| | file messages | any operational claim. A |
| | rather than the | test key cannot become |
| | companion frame. | production signing authority. |
| | No operational | |
| | companion | |
| | signature is | |
| | supplied. | |
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------------------+
| Provenance | Chronological | Keep source history, |
| | source events, | manuscript validation, public |
| | selected v155 | diagnostics and private |
| | equality, | originals distinct. Revision |
| | revision-01 | 01 is posted. v156 provider |
| | publication/byte | provenance is recovered, |
| | verification, | while exact release-archive |
| | manuscript | bytes, accepted operational |
| | signatures and | binding and authenticated |
| | newly scoped | private resolution remain |
| | research checks | unverified. Any broader |
| | are recorded | claim needs its own scoped |
| | separately. | evidence. |
+-------------+-------------------+-------------------------------+
Table 9
Revision 00 RFCXML provenance: the archived source at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kott-numina-pair-binding-00.xml
contains 61,416 bytes and has SHA-256
5bc15dab8c6f992bb179536beaf1ba3b61673ff37eba2dd043d9f27fd9cbb022.
This identifies the posted manuscript source, not a companion or
software-release artifact.
G.1. Required v156 release evidence
For the intended v156 release and numina.pair-binding.v1 companion,
keep one release record containing the following evidence. These are
acceptance requirements. the retained technical evaluation appendix
remains the record of checks actually performed.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
1. Final scope and payload. Record the exact approved payload and
its schema, binding_id, revision, actual issued_at, predecessor,
and scope.project_id, scope.release_id, and
scope.canonical_source_id values. Identify the immutable v156
source and release candidate; retain v155 as the inspected
baseline. Bind the approved attribution map and note into the
payload. Record the canonical payload bytes and SHA-256
separately from the serialized envelope bytes and their digest.
2. Pinned artifacts and profiles. Identify each selected artifact
by path, version, size, and whole-file digest. Pin each
hash_profile_id to the original input selection and normalization
implementation, with its version and registry digest. Preserve
the two original source commitments and reject an unknown profile
or an unexpected registry. These pins must identify the actual
release inputs, not merely a planned filename.
3. Signing and independent trust. Record the approved signing
service or key reference, raw public key, and recomputed key
fingerprint. Retain the independently authenticated trust entry
that binds the key to the project, release, canonical source, and
signing role. State the key-validity and revocation policy,
including the times at which it is evaluated. Retain the actual
signature bytes and verification result for the exact message
specified in Section 4. Keep private keys out of the release
record.
4. Accepted revision evidence. Retain independently authenticated
current-state evidence identifying the accepted binding_id,
revision, and canonical payload digest. Record the authority,
observation time, predecessor linkage, revocation decisions, and
checks for stale or conflicting revisions. Record the age of
cached evidence when an offline decision uses it. Apply the
separate freshness result specified in Section 6.
5. Private mapping and resolution. Retain an authenticated receipt
linking the approved opaque genesis_ref through the immutable
mapping to the intended private record. Identify the mapping
version or immutable mapping identity, the authorized resolver,
observation time, and resolution result within the authorized
private evidence. Keep private values, record locators, and
registry details out of the public package; provide a public-safe
result where appropriate.
6. Executed tests and preservation inventories. Retain the complete
before-and-after original-evidence inventories, including file
identity, size, and digest. Record version-pinned tools and
runtimes, commands, fixture versions, exact source snapshots, and
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
results for the applicable v156 validation and the JCS/Ed25519
checks required in the implementation-test subsection of the
retained evidence appendix and this appendix. Keep public
fixture results separate from authorized private original-
artifact verification. Retain the actual outputs supporting
every reported result.
7. Version manifest. Provide a manifest relating each released
artifact's filename, version, byte count, digest, and role.
Distinguish original source commitments, canonical payload
digests, envelope-file digests, and new package digests. Relate
the manifest to the immutable release and source identifiers.
Record the manifest's own digest separately in the release
evidence rather than making it self-referential.
8. Release and public-deposit receipts. Record the approved public-
safe files and the privacy-review result. For each authorized
release or public deposit actually performed, retain its provider
or repository receipt, immutable version or deposit identifier,
locator, and observation time. Retrieve the deposited files and
compare their bytes and digests with the version manifest. Keep
a manuscript deposit receipt separate from a v156 software-
release receipt. A planned destination or unverified metadata
does not establish a completed deposit or byte equality.
For each check, record the exact target, evidence used, observation
time, result, and direct reason. Preserve the independent results
defined in Section 6; a successful check does not supply evidence for
another check. This release record adds no implementation or test
result to the manuscript.
Appendix H. Public manuscript and diagnostic receipt identities
The hashes below identify earlier preserved artifacts. This
candidate does not embed its own digest, avoiding self-reference.
Its new exact file identities and validation receipt are supplied
separately after generation.
Final posted revision-01 XML; 61,903 bytes SHA-256:
96ef2137b1ecf7defa0a0caa250bfc6b8fc2b1224fcf4153230f6c909cb184db
Final posted revision-01 TXT; 69,493 bytes SHA-256:
a645916a220034393f0081653460bd4ea3791571c82434142a31d6169c6a1200
Final local revision-01 PDF; 108,079 bytes SHA-256:
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
e3447124d3674dae5362304d2d1bf23d8c2aa68137d810726b0619e555448ca0
Final three-file raw public key fingerprint SHA-256:
667e886acf7c8f9402cba3d4b12697515851c1d33ea0a09f7f3757d6d2580f24
Later PDF-only raw public key fingerprint SHA-256:
ef7b597fd970af99fcd880878f3632f39babebc6da50bba21b7f38a5611f7835
Final three-file signature package SHA-256:
a4793db57a86ec1df9dbffd8b001b368858143d1c6078a45f151a0cba417ec31
Frozen conversation ZIP SHA-256:
4ed4ed73a2e07cb13995996bce8cb495556a1f686c768d52dc763256808b3a78
New public diagnostic protocol SHA-256:
7a3b37689c0aba2fee9c21ca72297c4c30b300268494572a9f44948f99de7539
New public diagnostic results JSON SHA-256:
2d92854d170c45add02ccbf20d34a27b7bf7d3dc6d9ee94375ca2d97dadfab46
New public diagnostic ZIP SHA-256:
6faf132bc2225503d742ba5e7373a966f04043f5cb3fc36ab6a80dcfeef9168b
All document signatures use pure Ed25519 on exact full file bytes
without application prehash or companion framing. The receipts
report process-memory-only private keys, no serialization or
retention, and no forensic zeroization guarantee. Verification under
those public keys does not independently authenticate a person or
operational role.
Appendix I. Complete worked commitment and package-signature
calculation
This appendix reports a fresh public-input calculation and a separate
verification of the preserved signed genesis evidence ZIP. It is a
reproducible integrity example, not an operational companion or a
source-pair-to-genesis derivation. The retained package contains the
recorded genesis value as data. The package was not constructed by
replacing that value with the public-input pair diagnostic.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Step 1. Preserve the two 64-character commitments. Source 1 is the
original Lauren J. Anderson / 1B build commitment. Source 2 is the
original Samuel J. Kott / 1A manifest commitment. Personal
attribution order and computational source order are distinct.
1bf43817cf470abb868074a76598cb5f360517d7255b92ab3b409c6b545ec66b
1a17f584e23279684574022f39e533966ad09919f484e005c03948178a46aa0a
Step 2. Hex-decode each commitment into exactly 32 bytes,
concatenate Source 1 then Source 2 with no separator and no text
encoding, and hash those 64 bytes with SHA-256. The complete
concatenated bytes, in hexadecimal, are:
1bf43817cf470abb868074a76598cb5f360517d7255b92ab3b409c6b545ec66b
1a17f584e23279684574022f39e533966ad09919f484e005c03948178a46aa0a
Step 3. SHA256(hexdecode(source_1) || hexdecode(source_2)) gives:
c18a08a3d1e33344eed7cf921a53a1aace362a13a1fe626b699c2c5acbfc7702
This output does not equal the recorded block-zero genesis value
printed in the recorded-genesis appendix. No algorithmic step
connecting that diagnostic output to genesis is available in the
retained evidence. This appendix neither inserts a missing
transformation nor treats a signature as a derivation.
Step 4. Identify the exact preserved signed artifact: Numina-Final-
Genesis-Record-and-IP-Intake-v1.zip. Its SHA-256 is:
a74e4b07c5e00a77dfda866fd666d20b641edc8633c4945d6f0a89e78fce9a92
Step 5. Decode the detached OpenSSH SSHSIG container. Version is 1;
the namespace is numina-evidence; the reserved field is empty; the
prehash algorithm actually recorded is sha512.
SHA512(package_bytes), without altering the package bytes, is:
503b3317f16421588bba7445105f3295ce14c8a30e43dbd1f5dc34e30b70e27b
3ba687e78c9185bc7697f11172e2e3cfffe45b94262820615a89e02c445d24f0
Step 6. Construct the signed message using the OpenSSH SSHSIG
framing: ASCII("SSHSIG") || ssh_string(namespace) ||
ssh_string(reserved) || ssh_string("sha512") ||
ssh_string(SHA512(package_bytes)). ssh_string(x) is the 4-byte
unsigned big-endian byte length followed by x. The complete signed-
message bytes are:
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
5353485349470000000f6e756d696e612d65766964656e636500000000000000
0673686135313200000040503b3317f16421588bba7445105f3295ce14c8a30e
43dbd1f5dc34e30b70e27b3ba687e78c9185bc7697f11172e2e3cfffe45b9426
2820615a89e02c445d24f0
Step 7. The raw 32-byte Ed25519 public key is:
d6f1f949c1cc2ef38360668bc2270f847a790e95c882ca6945f7d56fed84bb3c
The exact 64-byte Ed25519 signature over the framed message is:
3a638beb9c6b4f7fe8e195815fc9a7ca8d4d6cc58279567950d75cadde781064
729bf4294479e647f38d4a58d5f075f8a078bdb2785e5fd0086758b3d962d203
Step 8. Verify Ed25519(public_key, signed_message, signature). A
fresh raw-signature check using the cryptography Ed25519
implementation passed, independently of the OpenSSH SSHSIG
verification that also passed. The public fingerprint is
SHA256:EUTRdHI7yKEgsiCvob3uDx/kDFwjeiDusoEUqfCvVNc. The allowed
signer principal is skott34@gmail.com. Fingerprint agreement and
mathematical verification do not independently authenticate a person
or establish legal rights.
The signature authenticates the exact package bytes identified above.
It does not cover this expanded manuscript, its PDF, a different ZIP,
or an operational JCS companion. The manuscript's pure Ed25519
application prefix construction is a separate proposed format; it
must not be confused with the SSHSIG calculation in this appendix.
Private-key material is omitted throughout.
SSHSIG wire format and signed-data framing are specified in [4]
Appendix J. Additional research methods and boundaries
J.1. Private computation history and proposed algorithmic relationship
The retained private computation and discovery record, dated 6
October 2026, contains a more specific account than the 5 October
design. Section 8, The proposed algorithmic unlock, page 8,
preserves the owner-proposed universal pair plus algorithmic or
Ed25519 binding relationship to genesis at block zero. The private
source has ten pages; its source service supplied no version number.
This sanitized summary preserves the account while recording the
already retained genesis value separately and omitting protected
third identifiers.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
The documented legacy procedure parses two JSON files, applies
pairSourcePayload, serializes with JavaScript JSON.stringify, UTF-8
encodes and hashes with SHA-256. The build input already contains
the recorded genesis before hashing; the normalized manifest does
not. This is reported forward-computation and association evidence,
not a demonstrated inverse recovery of an unknown genesis from the
digest pair.
Each of the two commitments is associated with LIVE and
FRONTIER_FINAL, giving four environment-binding records. That record
count does not create additional source commitments. The described
deployment collector reads block zero through RPC and records the
returned hash; the retained account does not independently verify
chain genesis or reproduce a block-header hash.
Section 8 also preserves an earlier source/build/runtime identifier
at a 24 September 2026, 23:32:09 UTC source checkpoint. Its
protected value is omitted. The document does not authenticate it as
an assistant key, Ed25519 signature or binding transform. Existing
two-term and three-term unsigned-integer diagnostics did not equal
the recorded genesis. Those historical diagnostics do not evaluate
an undefined algorithmic use of Ed25519.
The private record leaves the exact meaning of plus unspecified and
cautions against automatically reducing it to ordinary integer
addition. A reproducible derivation would require the actual
function or executable algorithm, exact ordered input bytes, domain
and parameters, independently specified expected output and execution
trace. If Ed25519 is involved, the role of signing, verification or
other explicitly defined operation must be stated. The companion
signature authenticates an association; it does not itself supply a
genesis-generation function.
This history records the owner account and bounded source evidence;
it does not supply an authenticated immutable-mapping receipt. The
private original and its chronology remain preserved. [13]
J.2. A testable bounded common source hypothesis
A proposed research formalization first declares a domain D of
eligible work instances, roles R = {Sam-role, Lauren-role, AI-
assistance-role}, a version-pinned extraction procedure P, and an
equality relation E over independently evidenced source records.
P(r,x) returns an evidenced source record or an explicit unavailable
result. This is a proposed analysis framework, not a recovered
genesis formula.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
The candidate H(D,P,E) states that for every x in D, P is defined for
all roles and E holds between each pair of returned records. If E is
byte equality, exact byte selection and normalization must be
specified. If E is a shared documented provenance root, root
selection and complete provenance paths need independent support.
Copying the same owner-provided label into three fields cannot
independently establish common provenance.
For finite D, exhaustive verification depends on complete enumeration
and correct P and E. A broader universal theorem requires explicit
assumptions and a proof extending beyond samples. A verified
counterexample within the declared domain rejects the universal
statement; missing evidence gives an inconclusive or failed
acceptance result rather than proving an alternative origin. Post-
outcome redefinition must be reported as a new hypothesis. The
existing repository differences already reject whole-repository
equality for those snapshots.
J.3. Proposed reproducibility and adversarial evaluation program
Preregister objects and acceptance criteria: source snapshots,
artifact paths, byte counts, whole-file digests, original profile
implementation, companion schema, corpus, runtimes, dependencies and
trust-policy version. Specify whether a claim concerns raw bytes,
normalized inputs, provenance relations or operational outcomes.
Retain commands, outputs and reasons for every status; preserve
amendments before held-out observations.
Separate public synthetic fixtures from authorized private original-
input checks. Public conformance success cannot reproduce a
commitment over a redacted private input. Report who could inspect
which evidence and preserve the legacy normalization in the private
track.
Test JCS ordering, numeric serialization, Unicode preservation, array
order and duplicate/invalid-input rejection against RFC vectors and
independent canonicalizers. Test pure Ed25519 vectors and the exact
application prefix, zero-byte separator, key/signature lengths and
encodings. Test-only keys must never be promoted to production
authority.
Challenge unknown schemas and fields, excessive size/depth, source-
order swaps, substituted artifacts, changed profile registries, key
substitution, unauthorized roles, wrong scope, invalid signatures,
stale revisions, same-revision conflicts, broken predecessor links,
revocation and unavailable current-state services. A valid signature
must not override failed authorization or missing private resolution.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Compare protected before-and-after inventories. Distinguish original
commitments, canonical-payload hashes, serialized-envelope hashes and
package hashes. For release equality, obtain exact candidate bytes
and compare them with the independently expected manifest; provider
metadata is not a substitute.
Use a preregistered corpus with conforming and adversarial cases, and
independently developed verifiers. Record every disagreement. Zero
false acceptances in a finite suite supports only that suite and
scope; it is not proof of no vulnerability. For human review, use
matched randomized cases, predetermined scoring, a meaningful
threshold, justified sample size and uncertainty intervals.
Fail the research gate for unauthorized acceptance, unnoticed
protected-file changes, fabricated success for unavailable evidence
or canonical-byte disagreement. Fixes require new versioned results
preserving earlier failures. An implementation result cannot
automatically establish real-world benefit, a universal theorem or
current operational authority.
Appendix K. Navigation and vision research context
The following navigation and computer-vision literature is included
as informative background on estimation, localization, image
correspondence, and tracking. This manuscript does not implement or
evaluate a UAV navigation, image-matching, or tracking system.
GPS/INS navigation with lever-arm considerations is addressed by
[22]. Absolute UAV visual localization and monocular visual odometry
are surveyed in [26] and [28]. These works concern estimation from
specified sensor measurements or imagery and provide context for
distinguishing an estimated physical state from an asserted
association between records.
Illumination-aware visual navigation [23], contextual aerial-image
matching [24], UAV-to-satellite image matching [27], and indoor
monocular SLAM [25] illustrate task-specific localization methods.
DFM [30] and GMS [31] provide image-correspondence methods. A match
or localization result remains dependent on the method, observations,
reference data, and evaluation conditions.
Related tracking literature includes vision-based UAV detection and
following [29], incremental KCF updating [32], scale-adaptive feature
integration [33], adaptive correlation filters [34], and long-term
UAV tracking with KCF and SURF features [35]. These are perception
and tracking techniques; the present companion does not adopt their
algorithms or claim their experimental results.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Connecting these methods to the proposed Numina genesis relationship
would require specified input types, a defined transformation, output
semantics, reproducible test vectors, and an explicit technical
argument relating that construction to the cited methods. These
citations do not establish the proposed genesis derivation, the
personal chronology, or operational validation. The evidentiary
limits recorded elsewhere in this manuscript remain applicable.
Appendix L. Application evidence and reproducibility details
The application evidence below is included because its state,
authority and audit mechanisms are relevant to evaluating a future
companion service. It is not evidence that the proposed companion is
deployed. The source/document difference in the singleton table name
and the distinction between application canonical JSON and companion
JCS remain open integration checks.
The retained control guide prescribes the following build and test
commands. Its journal stores canonical commands, actor, event time,
prior hash, resulting state hash and decision hash. It reports
explicit bootstrap only when state/journal are absent; missing state
during normal operation returns 503 rather than being recreated. It
reports stale concurrent changes returning 409, exact-input retry
idempotence, descendant delegation expiry/revocation, full-journal
validation and restart regression tests. These are historical
document claims; the static source excerpt corroborates selected code
paths without reexecuting them here.
<CODE BEGINS>
node scripts/build.mjs
node --test tests/*.test.mjs
<CODE ENDS>
The September 15 security document reports 272 tests for a local
build and 287 tests for the Connections release. Its dated v74
observation at 19:30:18–19:30:21 UTC exercised 19 same-origin read/
initialization checks, with 18 responding and one disabled-capability
item needing attention. It reports v76 reviewer sign-in, an account-
owned persisted request and a later cancellation with no confirmed
payment. Those scoped application observations neither demonstrate a
deployed companion nor measure predictive accuracy; sensitive account
details are not reproduced.
The newly inspected public-head record, observed 9 October 2026
around 07:05 UTC, reports schema numina.public-head.v2,
applicationVersion 4.0.0, rootHashScope
public_identity_projection_not_control_genesis,
currentJournalRootVerified=false, and revision/eventCount/
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
journalContinuity all null. blockchainAnchorVerified=false and
current blockchain observation unavailable are reported. Its
identity projection is not the independently authenticated current-
state evidence required by the companion verifier.
The retained v156 provider record names source
df099d3ae4952a9966cf3b9e4ef299626dc7d338 and updated_at
2026-10-07T04:51:50.230086+00:00 with status succeeded. The recorded
archive metadata digest is
0c3119a6dd28e921c80b0bf1ca00f280859af040e1e1b43868872b22d2925101;
archive_bytes_retrieved_or_verified is false. A deployment
provider's record is useful provenance but does not establish the
identity or observed behavior of a field-used companion.
L.1. Controller reproduction record
The retained first run used 3.12.14 (main, Aug 25 2026, 14:00:49)
[Clang 22.1.3 ] on Linux-6.18.44-x86_64-with-glibc2.41. The recorded
command was python3 /workspace/evaluations/predictive-authority-
2026-10-08/run_evaluation.py. First completion:
2026-10-08T06:16:42+00:00; rerun completion:
2026-10-08T06:18:17+00:00. Both receipts identify the same protocol,
generator, development/held-out episodes and result digests. The
command is documented for reproduction; it was not executed during
this revision task.
episodes-dev.jsonl SHA-256:
710790e19e183329116ea5dd65cd94ba62645b578b4f2761f040af3b3709b882
episodes-heldout.jsonl SHA-256:
253be44ece8111aba3eb7e210589e93c4631c2eb7ff1c7885aab048e5c3e2cc0
protocol.md SHA-256:
42d16e7aabcc7dc219d13ef515aac615f128e004bd320ab3d9075bd74749cf00
results.json SHA-256:
b11601406d5691a93550edd5eef0cf9f9f06d6bc85692a0a49f423a6a3dce501
run_evaluation.py SHA-256:
806035d4dfa5cfea42eb08ef7e8c2239f150e9e8838773f26582475a4bda6e5e
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
The protocol uses master seed numina-pac-eval-2026-10-08-v1 and SHA-
256-derived, tagged draws; 32 development and 128 held-out episodes,
four regimes and a four-step horizon. Toy loss is missed legitimate
requests plus three times accepted incident attempts. Weight 1 and
10 sensitivity results cannot replace the registered 5 percent
primary improvement gate. Real observed outcomes are null. The
included protocol/results files retain the complete generator
definitions, regime slices, invariants and failures; these are
synthetic reproducibility material, not field evidence.
Appendix M. Proposed implementable validation profile and fixtures
Status: new candidate design for review. These rules supplement the
existing numina.pair-binding.v1 model without changing its frozen
commitments or human-source mapping. They are not evidence that a
production implementation previously enforced the same limits. The
profile is a fixed-pair application profile; a generalized arbitrary-
artifact profile would require separate review.
+=======================+=========================================+
| Area | Proposed rule |
+=======================+=========================================+
| Transport-independent | At most 16,384 UTF-8 bytes, no byte- |
| input | order mark; parse one JSON value once; |
| | reject duplicate members, non-JSON |
| | numeric constants, invalid UTF-8/ |
| | unpaired surrogates, and nesting deeper |
| | than 8. |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Object structure | The exact closed member sets listed in |
| | the main format section apply at every |
| | object; reject unknown or missing |
| | members. Only revision is numeric. |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Revision and | revision uses a JSON integer token |
| predecessor | without fraction or exponent, from 1 |
| | through 9007199254740991. revision 1 |
| | requires null predecessor; later |
| | revisions require a lowercase 64-hex |
| | canonical payload digest plus |
| | independent accepted-history |
| | validation. |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Identifiers | binding_id, all scope identifiers, |
| | genesis_ref, artifact_id and |
| | hash_profile_id: 1–256 ASCII |
| | characters, starting with a letter/ |
| | digit and continuing with letters/ |
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
| | digits or . _ : / @ + -. Treat as |
| | opaque; do not auto-dereference. |
| | Registry/scope policy must approve the |
| | exact values. |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Timestamp | Restrict RFC 3339 to actual valid YYYY- |
| | MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ dates in UTC, whole |
| | seconds, with no fraction, offset |
| | alternative or leap-second 60. Reject |
| | impossible calendar dates. This is a |
| | candidate-profile restriction, not the |
| | full RFC 3339 grammar. |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Frozen sources and | Exactly two ordered source objects and |
| attribution | the fixed source_id/alias/hash values |
| | in the source appendix. Exactly Sam |
| | Kott/1A then Lauren Anderson/1B for |
| | people; the existing two-key |
| | personToAlias map. note is 1–2048 |
| | Unicode scalar characters with no C0 or |
| | DEL controls; no Unicode normalization. |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Key and signature | algorithm is Ed25519. Unpadded |
| | base64url per RFC 4648 Section 5: 43 |
| | characters decode to 32 key bytes; 86 |
| | characters decode to 64 signature |
| | bytes. Decode and re-encode must |
| | reproduce the input exactly. Reject |
| | padding, invalid alphabet, noncanonical |
| | pad bits or wrong lengths. key_id is |
| | sha256: plus 64 lowercase hex |
| | characters and must match the raw key. |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Unsigned state | signature_b64u may be null only to |
| | identify a syntactically complete |
| | unsigned candidate. It never becomes |
| | signed acceptance. Syntactic |
| | conformance does not provide signer |
| | authority, source reproduction, |
| | freshness or private resolution. |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Policy-level checks | Apply independent key/scope/registry/ |
| | current-state/private-mapping rules and |
| | all required verifier findings. Opaque |
| | syntax does not prove opacity, consent, |
| | authorization or a valid mapping. Fail |
| | the requested acceptance when required |
| | policy evidence is unavailable. |
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
Table 10: Candidate validation rules
The base64url and timestamp references are [5] and [6]. The separate
candidate-profile.schema.json expresses structural checks; the
accompanying Python checker adds duplicate-member, byte/depth/
Unicode, timestamp, predecessor, decoded-length/canonical-base64 and
fingerprint checks. The small canonicalization routine in that
checker is limited to its deliberately ASCII/integer fixture and is
not offered as a general JCS implementation.
New checks executed during this document revision: 21 of 21 bounded
candidate-profile cases passed, including correct unsigned-pending
handling and 20 negative cases. The published RFC 8032 Section 7.1
Test 1 public key/signature verified its empty message; a changed
message was rejected. No private key or credential was generated,
read or used. No new signed companion was created. These are
documentation-fixture checks, not field evidence or independent
operational-verifier conformance.
*Executed candidate-profile cases*
complete_synthetic_unsigned_fixture
Expected result: UNSIGNED_PENDING_NOT_ACCEPTED
Observed result: passed as expected
unknown_envelope_member
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
unknown_payload_member
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
missing_binding_id
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
source_order_swap
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
revision_overflow
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
invalid_calendar_date
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
noncanonical_padded_public_key
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
fingerprint_mismatch
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
initial_revision_with_predecessor
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
successor_without_predecessor
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
malformed_signature_length
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
published_empty_message_signature_is_wrong_companion_message
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
duplicate_envelope_member
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
invalid_utf8
Expected result: reject
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Observed result: passed as expected
fractional_revision_token
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
byte_order_mark
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
body_over_limit
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
identifier_trailing_newline
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
note_trailing_newline
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
predecessor_trailing_newline
Expected result: reject
Observed result: passed as expected
Python 3.12.14 and Node v24.19.0 produced identical canonical payload
and framed message bytes for the supplied ASCII/integer fixture. The
fixture contains synthetic test-only identifiers and an invented
fixture timestamp, uses the unchanged public source commitments, and
has signature_b64u=null. It is intentionally not an operational
issuance or an authenticated mapping. The published RFC 8032 public
test key is untrusted for real use; its known signature is for a
different, empty message.
Canonical payload C: 1184 bytes; SHA-256
3174a10bd2dd52e932a17522cb7b49d67281e025e9c89d7d78f0725b596eb958.
Framed message M: 1207 bytes; SHA-256
054d474c95f33afa5cf51f69581b7c0df16b68161db1091bd1c36d5453eaf235.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Message prefix including the separator, hexadecimal:
4e554d494e412d504149522d42494e44494e472f563100.
The complete fixture below uses reversible presentation folding under
[44]. Unfold the two-line header and backslash continuations before
JSON parsing. The supplied fixture file and signed-message input
bytes are unchanged.
<CODE BEGINS>
NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792
{
"payload": {
"schema": "numina.pair-binding.v1",
"binding_id": "urn:numina:test:binding:001",
"revision": 1,
"issued_at": "2026-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"previous_payload_sha256": null,
"scope": {
"project_id": "urn:numina:test:project",
"release_id": "test-release-1",
"canonical_source_id": "urn:numina:test:source:001"
},
"genesis_ref": "ref:test-only:001",
"sources": [
{
"source_id": "source_1",
"alias": "UNIVERSAL_PAIR_1",
"artifact_id": "fixture:source-1",
"hash_profile_id": "fixture:legacy-profile-1",
"sha256": "1bf43817cf470abb868074a76598cb5f360517d7255b92\
ab3b409c6b545ec66b"
},
{
"source_id": "source_2",
"alias": "UNIVERSAL_PAIR_2",
"artifact_id": "fixture:source-2",
"hash_profile_id": "fixture:legacy-profile-2",
"sha256": "1a17f584e23279684574022f39e533966ad09919f484e0\
05c03948178a46aa0a"
}
],
"attribution": {
"people": [
{
"name": "Sam Kott",
"label": "1A"
},
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
{
"name": "Lauren Anderson",
"label": "1B"
}
],
"note": "Canonicalization fixture only. No operational trus\
t or issuance.",
"personToAlias": {
"Sam Kott": "UNIVERSAL_PAIR_2",
"Lauren Anderson": "UNIVERSAL_PAIR_1"
}
},
"signer": {
"algorithm": "Ed25519",
"public_key_b64u": "11qYAYKxCrfVS_7TyWQHOg7hcvPapiMlrwIaaPc\
HURo",
"key_id": "sha256:21fe31dfa154a261626bf854046fd2271b7bed4b6\
abe45aa58877ef47f9721b9"
}
},
"signature_b64u": null
}
<CODE ENDS>
Reproduction: run python3 create_profile_vectors.py, then node
check_fixture.mjs in the supplied review directory. The Python
checker needs jsonschema and cryptography. The result and manifest
files record the observed runtime and hashes. The full RFC 8785
vector corpus, a positive signed-companion integration vector,
independent verifier agreement, trusted-state transitions, authorized
private resolution, transport and real field use remain untested.
Independent review found that dollar end-anchors in the initial
proposed schema could admit trailing newlines. The candidate now
uses strict end assertions and includes rejecting tests for an
identifier, attribution note and predecessor digest containing a
final newline. This correction belongs to the new profile review,
not the historical test results.
Appendix N. Proposed bounded field deployment and receipt checklist
Status: planned, not executed. Use one approved nonfinancial release
or technical-document pair in an authorized existing environment.
Identify the operator and relying party, immutable producer/verifier
builds, approved disclosure and exact payload, retained scoped
signer, independently provisioned trust and accepted-revision
authority. None of those identities or permissions is created by
this plan.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Retain deployment time and environment/service identity, source
commit, build/configuration/policy digests, receiving-provider
receipt and independent deployed-version readback. Exercise positive
issuance/verification; altered signed field; valid signature under an
untrusted or wrong-scope key; stale/conflicting revision; changed
artifact/profile; unavailable private resolution; and retry/restart/
retrieval without duplicate acceptance. For each case retain exact
inputs/digests, signature and framing, independent verdicts/reasons,
observation time and relying-party decision. Preserve failures and
rerun only under a versioned fix. [43]
Acceptance requires unchanged original evidence, correct-scope
positive acceptance, bounded rejection of every negative case,
explicit unavailable states, matching deployed build identity and
persistent receipts after restart. A real independent verifier or
separately authenticated relying-party receipt must confirm the
outcome. Local tests and website publication alone do not satisfy
this field-deployment gate.
Appendix O. External engagement and review boundaries
The author has sought technical and governance engagement concerning
constrained autonomous actions, human oversight, signed provenance,
and accountability. Records reviewed for this revision include sent
inquiries to UN-system and related human-rights initiatives, NIST
programs, CISA, and Treasury OCCIP. NIST acknowledged a letter of
interest and supplied administrative submission guidance; CISA
supplied industry-engagement routing and identified an applicable
technology-of-interest area. These interactions do not establish
institutional endorsement, program admission, security certification,
or approval of this specification. Some proposed scientific-method
inquiries remain unsent drafts, and UK-authority and AI-laboratory
safety-review outreach has not been verified in the inspected
records.
Historical SkyFi beta-testing correspondence separately documents
submitted product/performance feedback, recipient acknowledgment, and
reported product-team review. It also records that stress testing
stopped at the transition to production and that the recipient asked
for further stress testing to remain paused. It does not demonstrate
deployment of a fix, a Numina integration, or continuing testing
permission.
IETF-related records distinguish individual technical proposals and
submission administration from technical adoption. NomCom
questionnaire activity is candidacy-related and does not establish an
IAB or IESG office or Numina approval. The Independent Submissions
Editor supplied document-specific feedback that the work requires
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
maturation before publication consideration, including an explicit
threat-and-mitigation analysis and field-deployment evidence.
Outreach is recorded as process history; it is not evidence that the
security properties proposed here have been achieved.
Appendix P. Additional public-key and digital-geometry evidence
Evidence cut: 9 October 2026, 08:45 UTC. This bounded update adds
verified public-key correspondence and inspected local digital-
geometry/software results. It changes no approved operational
profile, frozen source commitment, source-artifact normalizer or
historical outcome. The proposed companion is still unsubmitted as
this artifact, has no newly produced signature, and has not met the
field-acceptance gate.
P.1. Public-key correspondence and historical signature checks
The public-only verification package is 8,337 bytes. Fresh readback
confirmed its package digest, decoded a 51-byte OpenSSH public-key
blob to a 32-byte Ed25519 key, and independently recomputed the raw-
key SHA-256 and SSH fingerprint. The two fingerprints hash different
encodings and are not interchangeable. [45]
Exact raw public-key bytes, hexadecimal:
d6f1f949c1cc2ef38360668bc2270f847a790e95c882ca6945f7d56fed84bb3c
SHA-256 of those 32 raw bytes:
54d64e8ba4e39d33a85592ac8864a7420be96e60a3864f5d8bf029f4dc33a47c
OpenSSH SHA-256 fingerprint of the corresponding 51-byte blob:
SHA256:EUTRdHI7yKEgsiCvob3uDx/kDFwjeiDusoEUqfCvVNc
The candidate v1 key identifier is the literal prefix sha256:
followed by the raw-key digest above. This is an encoding
correspondence, not an authorization entry. The raw public-key
base64url value is 1vH5ScHMLvODYGaLwicPhHp5DpXIgsppRffVb-2Euzw.
Using ssh-keygen verification with the package's public allowed-
signers file, the historical 1,676-byte message passed in the email
namespace. Appending a modification failed, and verifying the
original message in the numina-companion namespace failed. The
checks returned exit codes 0, 255 and 255 respectively. No private
key was read or generated and no signature was created.
Correspondence text is not reproduced here.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Public-only package SHA-256:
8791301c4565e06e8664153396db39057b13d49c8ba2a844019a86d4322a32d0
Exact historical signed-message SHA-256:
42fd1b5a5312c77867f9b02fc7369215a2f20fb497518c4c79e31bb06cf97e6e
The source package's allowed-signers assertion is not independent
authorization for this companion. Present custody, approved
role/project/release/source scope, validity and revocation policy, a
complete approved payload, a pure-Ed25519 signature over the
specified companion frame, trusted accepted revision state and
required private resolution remain open. The historical SSHSIG bytes
cannot populate signature_b64u in this model. None of the seven
field-pilot cases changes to executed because of these checks.
P.2. Digital geometry and retained software execution
The inspected local package contains 24 hollow cosmetic STL shells,
one assembled OBJ, a preview and receipts. Fresh verification
matched byte lengths and SHA-256 digests for all 25 STL/OBJ files,
counted 1,536 STL triangles, and measured the assembled OBJ bounds as
694.944 by 237.744 by 1828.8 mm. The receipt declares 2.4 mm wall
thickness. Its printer-fit state is unspecified. These are digital
geometry and artifact-integrity checks. [46]
The artifact receipt explicitly reports journalCommitted=false,
physicalObjectCreated=false, installationPerformed=false,
engineeringValidationPerformed=false and sourcePairProof=false. No
prior Cricut design was reused. The receipt uses a Numina canonical-
JSON profile with fractional values represented as decimal strings;
it is not asserted to use companion JCS or to constitute a companion
claim. Source-pair records are attribution inputs, not a proved
geometry-generating mechanism.
Geometry ZIP: 206,980 bytes; SHA-256:
a09a479a05d7bc345744a50c1361621b629c89d4bb22f3f443211ffb68586a93
Fresh readback of the 163,026-byte retained execution log counted 974
passing entries and matched its summary: 974 tests, 974 passes, zero
failures, cancellations, skips or todo items; recorded duration
55,132.13132 ms. This revision inspected the exact log rather than
rerunning the repository suite. The associated report identifies
nine geometry and nine action-framework tests, covering local
generation, bounded inputs, authorization and idempotent candidate
handling.
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft Singularity October 2026
Retained suite-log SHA-256:
7a20c289293df48cd8a730b90e3e93972331a8e5201c7063773797bee21fdbf5
The associated local report records a guarded build with 104 unique
source inputs and 321 release artifacts; 11 of 11 public-contract
checks on a read-only loopback server; and preservation of 11
protected files against HEAD. It identifies unchanged source HEAD
20cdc916dbe9e39a8a498d7cc9782ddf27f6705b and a local uncommitted
patch, not verified remote-main or deployed adoption. The report
preserves an earlier 973-of-974 run and its browser-timing correction
before the final 974-pass run. Build, conformance, protected-file
and earlier-run results are reported execution evidence, not fresh
reruns during this manuscript update.
No printer fit, successful printing, engineered connectors,
structural rating, physical installation, remote rollout or companion
field use follows from these results. The local generator and
application test suite do not approve the companion profile or
demonstrate its signer trust, accepted-state authority, private
mapping or independent field acceptance. The submission hold and
prior failed synthetic-controller findings remain unchanged.
Author's Address
Samuel J. Kott
Email: skott34@gmail.com
Kott Expires 21 April 2027 [Page 69]