Typed UNISON and Non-Collapse Boundaries for Evidence and Authorization Systems GoodShyt Group Inc.
San Francisco CA United States of America deonte@goodshyt.fun https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8586-3650
Security authorizationagentsevidence This document describes a transport-neutral model for bounded correspondence among distinct representations and explicit promotion boundaries between observation, evidence, authorization, and execution.
IntroductionThis document defines a typed correspondence model for comparing evidence and state representations without treating coordinate equality, semantic equivalence, scientific support, authorization, and execution as the same property.
Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Typed Comparison SpacesEach required comparison declares source representations, a common comparison space, bridge functions, units, snapshot alignment, uncertainty treatment, and tolerance. Missing required bridge data is indeterminate rather than pass.
Non-CollapseObservation does not imply evidence qualification; evidence qualification does not imply authorization; authorization does not imply execution. Each promotion requires an explicit procedure and artifact.
Comparison RelationsProfiles distinguish strict invariance, covariant transformation, quotient equivalence, and tolerance-bounded equivalence. A comparison MUST state which relation is being tested.
SelectionAn empty authorized set yields no selection. A tie without a declared tie rule yields no implicit selection. Feasibility does not imply attainment or progress.
Status of ValidationThe v0.1 reference implementation reports 40 passing boundary checks, including fail-closed empty-set, missing-representation, unit-mismatch, uncertainty, tie, promotion, and finite quotient checks. Independent formal proof is not claimed.
Security ConsiderationsThis document defines an architectural model. Implementations MUST fail closed when required authority, evidence, or enforcement state is unknown. The model does not establish closure outside a declared enforcement boundary.
Privacy ConsiderationsCapability and evidence graphs can reveal topology, identity relationships, and operational context. Implementations SHOULD minimize disclosure and use scoped identifiers and digests where possible.
IANA ConsiderationsThis document has no IANA actions.
 Normative References Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
Changes since -00 Editorial and tooling-conformance changes only; no technical content was changed.
  • Added BCP 14 Requirements Language section (document uses uppercase requirement keywords without the boilerplate; idnits error)
  • Added RFC 2119 reference entry
  • Added RFC 8174 reference entry
  • Normalized author metadata (full name with ASCII form, initials, organization GoodShyt Group Inc., San Francisco CA postal, email, ORCID URI)
  • Updated document date and revision number.