{ "round": 25, "accessed_utc": "2026-10-16", "archive_commit_inspected": "9b1305fcc3b75ce893c6dbc39135ca136330d0a0", "sources": [ { "id": "S01", "type": "Encevra archive", "title": "Round 24: Do Two Watchers Count as Two? Authority Lineage and Common-Origin Failure in Claim Revalidation", "date": "2026-10-15", "locator": "src/content/research-round-24.md at archive commit 9b1305fcc3b75ce893c6dbc39135ca136330d0a0", "inspected": "Full manuscript, source ledger, diagnostic boundary, results, limitations, and Round 25 handoff.", "supports": "The authority-lineage baseline, five authority families, carried claim set, and the explicit adversarial-omission fallback for Round 25.", "does_not_support": "Production completeness, empirical omission rates, or effectiveness of the Round 25 protocol." }, { "id": "S02", "type": "Encevra archive", "title": "Round 23: Can the Gate Catch Tomorrow's Change? A Prospective Shadow Trial of Claim Revalidation", "date": "2026-10-14", "locator": "src/content/research-round-23.md at archive commit 9b1305fcc3b75ce893c6dbc39135ca136330d0a0", "inspected": "Full manuscript, selector design, real-interval result boundary, authored mutations, limitations, and handoff.", "supports": "The distinction between received change evidence and claim revalidation, plus the common-origin limitation later audited in Round 24.", "does_not_support": "Observation-channel completeness or production reliability." }, { "id": "S03", "type": "Encevra archive", "title": "Round 10: Evidence exchange, selective revision, and a testable path toward brain-inspired intelligence", "date": "2026-10-01", "locator": "src/routes/research-round-10.tsx at archive commit 9b1305fcc3b75ce893c6dbc39135ca136330d0a0", "inspected": "Research question, evidence-exchange conclusions, roadmap, and the Round 21-25 dependency/change-retention block.", "supports": "Program continuity and the requirement that brain-inspired mechanisms remain testable engineering hypotheses.", "does_not_support": "A literal brain-copying claim or any Round 25 result." }, { "id": "S04", "type": "Encevra archive", "title": "Round 9: Learning reusable procedures from verified experience", "date": "2026-09-30", "locator": "src/routes/research-round-9.tsx at archive commit 9b1305fcc3b75ce893c6dbc39135ca136330d0a0", "inspected": "Research question, findings, caveats, and procedural-learning scope.", "supports": "The exclusion of procedural learning from Round 25's novelty claim.", "does_not_support": "Observation-gap detection." }, { "id": "S05", "type": "Primary research", "title": "Unreliable Failure Detectors for Reliable Distributed Systems", "authors": "Tushar Deepak Chandra and Sam Toueg", "date": "1996-03", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1145/226643.226647", "open_copy": "https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs734/2000FA/cached%20papers/ct96.pdf", "inspected": "Abstract; Sections 2.2-2.4 defining failure-detector histories, completeness, accuracy, and eventual accuracy.", "supports": "A detector can be useful only by balancing detection completeness against false suspicion; silence cannot be turned into perfect knowledge in an asynchronous setting.", "does_not_support": "Direct transfer of consensus theorems to Encevra or numeric thresholds for SACP." }, { "id": "S06", "type": "Primary research", "title": "Heartbeat: A Timeout-Free Failure Detector for Quiescent Reliable Communication", "authors": "Marcos K. Aguilera, Wei Chen, and Sam Toueg", "date": "1997-05", "url": "https://ecommons.cornell.edu/entities/publication/365af68a-24d0-4b7e-a12e-9d511a389545", "inspected": "Repository metadata and abstract; problem statement covering process crashes, lossy links, quiescence, and timeout-free heartbeat counters.", "supports": "Active liveness evidence can make message-loss detection possible without treating missing application messages alone as proof.", "does_not_support": "That a heartbeat proves semantic completeness or issuer honesty." }, { "id": "S07", "type": "Authoritative standard", "title": "RFC 9162: Certificate Transparency Version 2.0", "authors": "B. Laurie, E. Messeri, and R. Stradling", "date": "2021-12", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9162.html", "inspected": "Sections 4.1, 4.11, 8.2, and security considerations: Maximum Merge Delay, signed tree heads, consistency proofs, monitor duties, unavailable entries, and split-view limits.", "supports": "Signed checkpoints, append-only consistency, explicit freshness bounds, and continuous monitoring can expose some omission and equivocation failures.", "does_not_support": "That one monitor sees every event or that a quiet log is complete." }, { "id": "S08", "type": "Primary research", "title": "CONIKS: Bringing Key Transparency to End Users", "authors": "Marcela S. Melara, Aaron Blankstein, Joseph Bonneau, Edward W. Felten, and Michael J. Freedman", "date": "2015-08", "url": "https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity15/technical-sessions/presentation/melara", "paper": "https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity15/sec15-paper-melara.pdf", "inspected": "Abstract, system goals, user self-monitoring, consistency auditing, and non-equivocation claims.", "supports": "Clients can monitor their own bindings and collectively audit provider consistency without downloading the entire directory.", "does_not_support": "Completeness of arbitrary operational event streams or Encevra's authority model." }, { "id": "S09", "type": "Primary research", "title": "PeerReview: Practical Accountability for Distributed Systems", "authors": "Andreas Haeberlen, Petr Kouznetsov, and Peter Druschel", "date": "2007-10", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1145/1294261.1294279", "open_copy": "https://www.mpi-sws.org/tr/2007-003.pdf", "inspected": "Abstract; assumptions; Sections 4.4 and 4.11; tamper-evident logs, authenticators, witnesses, probabilistic checks, and completeness limits.", "supports": "Hash-chained signed logs and external witnesses can make recorded behavior accountable; witness correctness is an explicit assumption.", "does_not_support": "Prevention of unobserved effects or completeness when every relevant witness shares the same fault." }, { "id": "S10", "type": "Authoritative technical specification", "title": "The Update Framework: Security and roles/metadata", "date": "current pages inspected 2026-10-16", "url": "https://theupdateframework.io/docs/security/", "metadata_url": "https://theupdateframework.io/docs/metadata/", "inspected": "Rollback, fast-forward, freeze, and mix-and-match threat descriptions; snapshot versions/hashes; short-lived timestamp metadata.", "supports": "Monotonic versions, snapshot commitments, and expiration can turn replayed or frozen metadata into detectable states.", "does_not_support": "Detection of a change that the trusted metadata issuer never commits." }, { "id": "S11", "type": "Authoritative technical specification", "title": "CloudEvents core specification", "date": "v1.0 milestone 2019-10-28; current core text inspected 2026-10-16", "url": "https://github.com/cloudevents/spec/blob/main/cloudevents/spec.md", "inspected": "Required id, source, specversion, and type attributes; duplicate-event identity semantics.", "supports": "A portable event envelope can name a producer context and unique event identity.", "does_not_support": "Sequence completeness, no-change evidence, or producer honesty." }, { "id": "S12", "type": "Authoritative guidance", "title": "NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5.1, AU-5 Response to Audit Logging Process Failures", "authors": "Joint Task Force", "date": "2020-09; derived Rev. 5.1 text inspected", "url": "https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-53r5", "open_copy": "https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Projects/risk-management/800-53%20Downloads/800-53r5/SP_800-53_v5_1-derived-OSCAL.pdf", "inspected": "AU-5 control and discussion; alerting and action on software, hardware, capture, and storage failures.", "supports": "The logging process itself is an object of monitoring and failure response.", "does_not_support": "A specific Encevra design or effectiveness estimate." }, { "id": "S13", "type": "Authoritative implementation documentation", "title": "OpenTelemetry Collector resiliency", "date": "page last modified 2026-01-14", "url": "https://opentelemetry.io/docs/collector/resiliency/", "inspected": "Persistent sending queues, WAL recovery, message queues, enumerated loss scenarios, and monitoring recommendations.", "supports": "Retries and durable queues reduce specific transport losses but retain explicit failure modes such as overflow, disk failure, retention expiry, and misconfiguration.", "does_not_support": "End-to-end event completeness or semantic correctness." }, { "id": "S14", "type": "Primary research", "title": "Auditory cortex neurons that encode negative prediction errors respond to omissions of sounds in a predictable sequence", "authors": "Amit Yaron, Tomoyo Shiramatsu-Isoguchi, Felix B. Kern, Kenichi Ohki, Hirokazu Takahashi, and Zenas C. Chao", "date": "2025-06-18", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003242", "inspected": "Abstract, experimental conditions, evidence-accumulation analysis, reported omission-response relation to predictability, and model framing.", "supports": "In a rat auditory experiment, some neural omission responses increased with learned predictability, motivating a testable engineering analogy: missing expected signals should matter in proportion to an explicit expectation.", "does_not_support": "Literal neural equivalence, a software architecture mandate, or any claim that brains implement SACP." } ] }