TG-FP
TrustGate Federation Profiles
Part 1 — Constitutional Federation
1.1. Purpose
The TrustGate Federation Profiles specification defines how independent ECOs exchange constitutional trust state across the ZAYAZ ecosystem.
Federation does not exchange raw data.
Federation exchanges governed constitutional artifacts, including identity, lineage, assurance, replay references, trust delegation, synchronization state, and verification metadata.
This specification focuses on how federation operates, not on redefining the artifacts exchanged.
1.2. Constitutional Principle
TrustGate Federation federates constitutional state.
It shall preserve:
- identity;
- provenance;
- lineage;
- assurance;
- replayability;
- lifecycle state;
- delegation boundaries;
- cryptographic integrity.
Federation shall never mutate originating constitutional artifacts.
1.3. Federation Philosophy
Traditional integration says:
Here is data.
TrustGate Federation says:
Here is a constitutionally verified artifact,
with identity, provenance, trust, replayability,
assurance, delegation scope, and verification proof.
This distinction is foundational.
1.4. Constitutional Federation Scope
Federation governs:
- federation protocols;
- synchronization;
- federation policies;
- trust delegation;
- exchange profiles;
- transport;
- security;
- replay registration;
- federation verification.
Artifact semantics are defined elsewhere by the Trust Model, Attestation Catalog, Replay Specification, and TG-INTEL specifications.
1.5. What Federation Exchanges
Federation may exchange references to:
- TG-ATTEST;
- TAID;
- Replay Manifest;
- Replay Package;
- TOID;
- TVID;
- TG-VRES;
- VEVID;
- TIID;
- DAL anchors;
- federation metadata.
Federation exchanges governed artifacts, not internal system state.
1.6. Federation Responsibilities
TrustGate Federation is responsible for:
- verifying originating ECO identity;
- resolving federation profiles;
- validating delegation authority;
- enforcing federation policies;
- constructing exchange packages;
- signing exchange payloads;
- transporting constitutional artifacts;
- confirming receipt;
- synchronizing state;
- registering replay references.
1.7. Federation Boundaries
Federation shall not:
- redefine Trust Objects;
- redefine Trust Vectors;
- redefine TG-ATTEST;
- redefine Replay Packages;
- redefine TG-INTEL;
- expose private runtime internals;
- overwrite originating artifacts;
- regenerate identifiers.
Federation coordinates exchange and verification only.
1.8. Constitutional Federation Model
Originating ECO
│
▼
Federation Policy Resolution
│
▼
Delegation Verification
│
▼
Exchange Package Construction
│
▼
Signature & Integrity Verification
│
▼
Transport
│
▼
Receiving ECO
│
▼
Receipt Verification
│
▼
Synchronization
│
▼
Replay Registration
This model preserves constitutional continuity across ECO boundaries.
1.9. Relationship to Existing Specifications
Federation Profiles depend on:
| Specification | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Trust Model | Trust semantics |
| Attestation Catalog | TG-ATTEST and TAID |
| Replay Specification | Replay Package, Replay Manifest, CRP, CRE |
| CIR | Invariant and identifier governance |
| CALM | Lifecycle preservation |
| CIA | Identity preservation |
| TG-INTEL | Intelligence provenance |
| DAL | Cryptographic integrity |
Federation Profiles orchestrate exchange across these specifications.
1.10. Constitutional Federation Principles
TrustGate Federation shall preserve the following principles.
- Originating ECO sovereignty.
- Immutable artifact identity.
- Explicit delegation.
- Replayability.
- Cryptographic verifiability.
- Policy-governed exchange.
- Lifecycle continuity.
- Federation auditability.
- Receiving ECO autonomy.
These principles are normative.
1.11. Federation and ECO Sovereignty
Each ECO remains sovereign over the constitutional artifacts it issues.
Receiving ECOs may:
- verify artifacts;
- replay artifacts;
- accept artifacts;
- reject artifacts;
- reference artifacts;
- derive local intelligence.
Receiving ECOs shall not alter originating artifacts.
1.12. Federation and Trust Delegation
Federation may include delegated authority.
Delegation may permit another ECO or ZAYAZ instance to:
- validate evidence;
- issue attestations;
- exchange artifacts;
- register replay references;
- publish TG-INTEL;
- synchronize federation state.
Delegation shall always be explicit, scoped, revocable, and auditable.
1.13. Federation and Replay
Federation depends on replay.
Every federated assurance artifact should reference sufficient replay material to support independent verification.
Replay enables the receiving ECO to verify constitutional assurance without accessing the originating ECO’s internal runtime.
1.14. Federation and DAL
Federation may reference DAL anchors to verify:
- artifact immutability;
- signing chronology;
- replay package integrity;
- attestation integrity;
- federation exchange integrity.
DAL provides cryptographic assurance for exchanged constitutional state.
1.15. Federation and TG-INTEL
TG-INTEL may be exchanged or derived from federated artifacts.
Federated intelligence shall preserve:
- TIID;
- originating ECO;
- provenance;
- replay references;
- assurance references;
- confidence metadata.
Receiving ECOs remain responsible for local interpretation.
1.16. Constitutional Constraints
TrustGate Federation shall satisfy the following requirements.
- Federation shall preserve originating identifiers.
- Federation shall preserve originating ECO identity.
- Federation shall preserve provenance.
- Federation shall preserve replayability.
- Federation shall enforce delegation boundaries.
- Federation shall preserve cryptographic integrity.
- Federation shall remain policy governed.
- Federation shall never mutate originating artifacts.
These constraints are normative.
1.17. Summary
Constitutional Federation defines the foundation for trusted cross-ECO exchange within ZAYAZ.
By federating constitutional state rather than raw data, TrustGate enables independent organizations to exchange verified, replayable, attestable, and cryptographically anchored business facts while preserving sovereignty, delegation boundaries, provenance, and trust.
The following part defines the TrustGate Federation Architecture, including federation domains, participants, roles, topology, exchange boundaries, and runtime responsibilities.
Part 2 — Federation Architecture
2.1. Purpose
This part defines the constitutional architecture governing TrustGate Federation.
The Federation Architecture specifies how independent ECOs exchange constitutional artifacts while preserving sovereignty, identity, trust, replayability, lifecycle continuity, and cryptographic integrity.
It defines architectural roles, federation domains, constitutional boundaries, and runtime responsibilities.
2.2. Architectural Principles
The Federation Architecture shall satisfy the following principles.
- decentralized constitutional authority;
- originating ECO sovereignty;
- immutable constitutional identity;
- explicit trust delegation;
- deterministic federation;
- implementation independence;
- policy-governed exchange;
- replayability by design.
Federation shall coordinate constitutional exchange without centralizing ownership.
2.3. Constitutional Federation Model
TrustGate Federation is a federation of constitutional authorities.
Each participating ECO remains the constitutional authority for the artifacts it issues.
ECO A
│
│
Constitutional
Federation
│
│
┌───────────┼───────────┐
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
ECO B ECO C ECO D
No federation participant becomes authoritative for another participant's constitutional artifacts.
2.4. Federation Domains
Federation is organized into constitutional domains.
| Domain | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Identity Domain | ECO identity and organizational authority |
| Trust Domain | Trust evaluation and delegation |
| Assurance Domain | Validation and attestation exchange |
| Replay Domain | Replay references and verification |
| Intelligence Domain | TG-INTEL exchange and provenance |
| Synchronization Domain | State synchronization |
| Policy Domain | Federation policy enforcement |
| Security Domain | Cryptographic protection |
Each domain operates independently while preserving constitutional consistency.
2.. Federation Participants
A federation may contain the following participant types.
| Participant | Constitutional Role |
|---|---|
| Originating ECO | Constitutional issuer of artifacts |
| Receiving ECO | Constitutional consumer of artifacts |
| Delegated ECO | Authorized constitutional processor |
| Federation Gateway | Protocol and transport endpoint |
| Replay Verifier | Independent replay verification |
| Trust Authority | Trust policy enforcement |
| DAL Service | Integrity verification |
| ZAYAZ Platform | Constitutional orchestration |
Participants are defined by responsibility rather than deployment topology.
2.6. Constitutional Responsibilities
Every federation participant has clearly defined responsibilities.
Originating ECO
Responsible for:
- issuing constitutional artifacts;
- preserving provenance;
- assigning identifiers;
- publishing replay references;
- defining delegation scope.
Receiving ECO
Responsible for:
- verifying constitutional artifacts;
- enforcing local policy;
- performing replay verification;
- accepting or rejecting exchanged artifacts;
- deriving local intelligence.
Delegated ECO
Responsible for performing explicitly delegated constitutional functions on behalf of another ECO.
Delegated authority shall never exceed the scope granted by the originating ECO.
2.7. Constitutional Authority
Authority always remains with the originating ECO.
Receiving ECOs may verify, reference, replay, or derive intelligence from artifacts, but shall not:
- modify constitutional identity;
- alter provenance;
- overwrite assurance;
- replace originating trust decisions.
Authority is preserved throughout federation.
2.8. Federation Boundaries
Federation boundaries define constitutional responsibility.
┌────────────────────────────┐
│ Originating ECO │
│ │
│ Signals │
│ Trust │
│ Validation │
│ Attestations │
│ Replay │
│ TG-INTEL │
└─────────────┬──────────────┘
│
Federation Boundary
│
┌─────────────▼──────────────┐
│ Receiving ECO │
│ │
│ Verification │
│ Replay │
│ Local Policy │
│ Local Intelligence │
└────────────────────────────┘
Crossing a federation boundary shall never alter constitutional artifacts.
2.9. Federation Runtime Components
Representative runtime components include:
| Component | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Federation Gateway | Protocol endpoint |
| Policy Engine | Federation policy evaluation |
| Delegation Engine | Delegated authority verification |
| Package Builder | Exchange package construction |
| Signature Service | Digital signatures |
| Synchronization Engine | State synchronization |
| Replay Registration Service | Replay registration |
| TG-INTEL Publisher | Intelligence publication |
These components are logical responsibilities and may be implemented using one or more micro-engines.
2.10. Canonical Federation Pipeline (CFP)
Federation execution follows the Canonical Federation Pipeline (CFP).
Partner Request
│
▼
CFP-01 Policy Resolution
│
▼
CFP-02 Identity Verification
│
▼
CFP-03 Delegation Validation
│
▼
CFP-04 Trust Evaluation
│
▼
CFP-05 Exchange Package Construction
│
▼
CFP-06 Signature & Integrity
│
▼
CFP-07 Transport
│
▼
CFP-08 Receipt Verification
│
▼
CFP-09 Synchronization
│
▼
CFP-10 Replay Registration
│
▼
CFP-11 TG-INTEL Publication
The CFP provides the normative execution model for constitutional federation.
2.11. Constitutional Relationships
The Federation Architecture integrates with the broader constitutional platform.
| Framework | Constitutional Relationship |
|---|---|
| CEP | Produces constitutional artifacts for federation |
| CRP | Enables independent replay after federation |
| CIA | Preserves artifact identity |
| CIR | Resolves canonical identifiers |
| CALM | Preserves lifecycle continuity |
| CPA | Governs persistence |
| Trust Model | Trust semantics |
| Attestation Catalog | Assurance semantics |
| Replay Specification | Replay semantics |
| TG-INTEL | Intelligence semantics |
| DAL | Cryptographic integrity |
Federation orchestrates these frameworks without redefining them.
2.12. Constitutional Constraints
The Federation Architecture shall satisfy the following requirements.
- Originating ECO authority shall be preserved.
- Constitutional identifiers shall remain immutable.
- Federation shall preserve replayability.
- Federation shall preserve provenance.
- Federation shall preserve lifecycle continuity.
- Federation shall enforce delegation boundaries.
- Federation shall remain policy governed.
- Federation shall remain implementation independent.
These constraints are normative.
2.13. Summary
The Federation Architecture defines the constitutional structure of TrustGate Federation.
By organizing federation around constitutional authorities rather than infrastructure, and by introducing federation domains, participant responsibilities, constitutional boundaries, and the Canonical Federation Pipeline (CFP), TrustGate enables independent ECOs to exchange verified constitutional artifacts while preserving sovereignty, identity, trust, replayability, and cryptographic integrity.
The following part defines the Federation Profiles themselves, specifying the standardized modes of federation supported by TrustGate, including local, partner, regulatory, ecosystem, and public exchange profiles.
Part 3 — Federation Profiles
3.1. Purpose
This part defines the standardized Federation Profiles supported by TrustGate.
A Federation Profile specifies the constitutional rules governing exchange between participating ECOs, including trust expectations, synchronization behavior, delegation requirements, replay obligations, and security guarantees.
Federation Profiles define what constitutional behavior is required for an exchange, independent of the underlying transport protocol.
3.2. Constitutional Principles
Every Federation Profile shall satisfy the following principles.
- constitutional interoperability;
- explicit policy governance;
- immutable artifact identity;
- replayability;
- provenance preservation;
- cryptographic integrity;
- implementation independence.
Profiles define constitutional behavior rather than implementation technology.
3.3. Federation Profile Model
Each federation exchange shall be governed by exactly one Federation Profile.
Federation Request
│
▼
Federation Profile Resolution
│
▼
Policy Evaluation
│
▼
Delegation Verification
│
▼
Synchronization Rules
│
▼
Exchange Execution
Profiles determine constitutional behavior before transport begins.
3.4. Canonical Federation Profiles
The following Federation Profiles are defined by this specification.
| Profile | Name | Primary Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| FP-LOCAL | Local Federation | Exchange within a single ZAYAZ deployment or trusted organizational boundary |
| FP-PARTNER | Partner Federation | Exchange between trusted commercial partners |
| FP-SUPPLIER | Supply Chain Federation | Exchange between organizations in a supplier or value chain |
| FP-AUDIT | Audit Federation | Independent assurance and replay verification |
| FP-REG | Regulatory Federation | Exchange with regulators and supervisory authorities |
| FP-CERT | Certification Federation | Exchange with certification and verification bodies |
| FP-ECO | ECO Federation | Exchange between trusted ECO ecosystems |
| FP-PUBLIC | Public Federation | Publication of constitutionally approved public artifacts |
Additional profiles may be defined by future constitutional specifications.
3.5. Local Federation (FP-LOCAL)
Local Federation governs constitutional exchange within a single trusted organizational environment.
Typical characteristics include:
- shared identity authority;
- low-latency synchronization;
- full replay availability;
- internal trust policies;
- shared lifecycle governance.
This profile is optimized for operational efficiency while preserving constitutional guarantees.
3.6. Partner Federation (FP-PARTNER)
Partner Federation governs exchange between organizations with established commercial relationships.
Typical characteristics include:
- explicit trust agreements;
- controlled delegation;
- policy-based synchronization;
- replay references;
- bilateral governance.
Partner Federation preserves organizational sovereignty while enabling trusted collaboration.
3.7. Supply Chain Federation (FP-SUPPLIER)
Supply Chain Federation governs constitutional exchange across supplier ecosystems.
Typical characteristics include:
- obligation exchange;
- evidence exchange;
- attestation sharing;
- supply chain replay;
- provenance preservation;
- delegated validation.
This profile supports transparent and verifiable value chains.
3.8. Audit Federation (FP-AUDIT)
Audit Federation supports independent verification.
Typical characteristics include:
- immutable replay packages;
- complete provenance;
- independent replay execution;
- attestation verification;
- DAL verification;
- replay evidence preservation.
Audit Federation shall never require access to originating runtime internals.
3.9. Regulatory Federation (FP-REG)
Regulatory Federation supports constitutional exchange with supervisory authorities.
Typical characteristics include:
- regulatory evidence;
- mandatory replay support;
- policy enforcement;
- audit logging;
- long-term preservation;
- immutable assurance artifacts.
Regulatory exchanges shall preserve constitutional traceability.
3.10. Certification Federation (FP-CERT)
Certification Federation supports conformity assessment and certification activities.
Typical characteristics include:
- certification evidence;
- assurance bundles;
- replay verification;
- trust verification;
- delegation validation;
- certification lineage.
Certification bodies remain independent constitutional consumers.
3.11. ECO Federation (FP-ECO)
ECO Federation governs exchange between independent constitutional ecosystems.
Typical characteristics include:
- cross-platform interoperability;
- identifier resolution;
- federation synchronization;
- replay interoperability;
- trust delegation;
- constitutional policy negotiation.
ECO Federation represents the highest level of constitutional interoperability.
3.12. Public Federation (FP-PUBLIC)
Public Federation governs publication of constitutionally approved information.
Typical characteristics include:
- public trust metadata;
- published attestations;
- approved intelligence;
- immutable references;
- replay verification where permitted.
Only artifacts explicitly authorized for publication shall be exchanged.
3.13. Profile Selection
Federation Profile selection shall consider:
- participating organizations;
- constitutional purpose;
- delegation scope;
- assurance requirements;
- replay requirements;
- synchronization policies;
- regulatory obligations;
- confidentiality requirements.
Profile selection shall be deterministic and policy governed.
3.14. Constitutional Relationships
Federation Profiles interact with the Canonical Federation Pipeline (CFP).
Federation Request
│
▼
Federation Profile
│
▼
Federation Policy
│
▼
Delegation Rules
│
▼
Synchronization Rules
│
▼
CFP Execution
Profiles determine constitutional behavior throughout the federation pipeline.
3.15. Relationship to Constitutional Frameworks
Federation Profiles integrate with:
| Framework | Constitutional Contribution |
|---|---|
| CFP | Federation execution pipeline |
| CIA | Identity preservation |
| CIR | Canonical identifier resolution |
| CALM | Lifecycle continuity |
| CPA | Persistence requirements |
| CRP | Replay verification |
| CRE | Replay equivalence |
| Trust Model | Trust semantics |
| TrustGate Attestation Catalog | Assurance semantics |
| TG-INTEL | Intelligence exchange |
| DAL | Integrity verification |
Profiles coordinate these frameworks without redefining them.
3.16. Constitutional Constraints
Every Federation Profile shall:
- preserve constitutional identity;
- preserve provenance;
- preserve replayability;
- preserve lifecycle continuity;
- preserve delegation boundaries;
- preserve cryptographic integrity;
- enforce profile-specific policies;
- remain implementation independent.
These constraints are normative.
3.17. Summary
Federation Profiles define the standardized constitutional modes of exchange within TrustGate.
By distinguishing Local, Partner, Supply Chain, Audit, Regulatory, Certification, ECO, and Public federation scenarios, TrustGate enables organizations to exchange constitutionally assured artifacts under policies tailored to their governance, trust, replay, and assurance requirements. Federation Profiles provide the semantic foundation upon which the Canonical Federation Pipeline (CFP), transport protocols, synchronization mechanisms, and security services operate.
Part 4 — Federation Protocol
4.1. Purpose
This part defines the TrustGate Federation Protocol (TFP), the normative protocol governing constitutional communication between participating ECOs.
The protocol specifies the constitutional message flow, negotiation, synchronization, verification, and acknowledgement mechanisms required for interoperable federation.
TFP is transport independent.
This specification defines protocol semantics rather than network implementation.
4.2. Constitutional Principles
The Federation Protocol shall satisfy the following principles.
- deterministic communication;
- explicit constitutional intent;
- immutable message identity;
- policy-governed exchange;
- replayability;
- cryptographic integrity;
- implementation independence.
Every protocol interaction shall preserve constitutional state.
4.3. Protocol Architecture
The TrustGate Federation Protocol consists of five logical layers.
Application
│
Federation Semantics
│
Protocol Messages (TFP)
│
Transport Binding
│
Network
TFP defines only the protocol message layer and federation semantics.
Transport bindings are specified independently.
4.4. Constitutional Conversation Model
Every federation interaction follows the same constitutional conversation.
Initiate
│
▼
Negotiate
│
▼
Authorize
│
▼
Exchange
│
▼
Verify
│
▼
Synchronize
│
▼
Acknowledge
No constitutional artifacts are considered exchanged until successful acknowledgement.
4.5. Canonical Protocol Messages
The following protocol message families are defined.
| Message | Purpose |
|---|---|
| HELLO | Establish federation session |
| PROFILE | Negotiate Federation Profile (FPID) |
| POLICY | Exchange federation policy requirements |
| AUTH | Verify constitutional authority and delegation |
| REQUEST | Request constitutional artifacts |
| PACKAGE | Deliver constitutional exchange package |
| VERIFY | Confirm identity, signatures and integrity |
| SYNC | Synchronize constitutional state |
| ACK | Confirm successful constitutional receipt |
| ERROR | Report protocol or policy failure |
| CLOSE | Gracefully terminate federation session |
Each message shall possess a unique constitutional identity.
4.6. Protocol Session
A Federation Session represents a bounded constitutional exchange.
A session shall include:
- Session Identifier (FSID);
- Originating ECO;
- Receiving ECO;
- Federation Profile Identifier (FPID);
- Execution Profile Identifier (XPID), where applicable;
- policy version;
- protocol version;
- timestamps;
- cryptographic metadata.
Sessions are immutable once established.
4.7. Protocol Negotiation
Before exchanging constitutional artifacts, participants shall negotiate:
- supported protocol version;
- Federation Profile (FPID);
- policy requirements;
- delegation scope;
- replay requirements;
- security capabilities;
- synchronization mode.
Negotiation shall complete successfully before artifact exchange begins.
4.8. Protocol Exchange Sequence
The normative exchange sequence is:
HELLO
│
PROFILE
│
POLICY
│
AUTH
│
REQUEST
│
PACKAGE
│
VERIFY
│
SYNC
│
ACK
│
CLOSE
Protocol implementations shall preserve this logical ordering, although transport implementations may optimize message delivery.
4.9. Protocol State Machine
A federation session progresses through the following states.
Created
│
Negotiating
│
Authorized
│
Exchanging
│
Verifying
│
Synchronizing
│
Completed
A session may transition to Failed from any active state upon unrecoverable protocol or policy violations.
4.10. Constitutional Error Handling
Protocol errors are constitutional events.
Representative error categories include:
| Category | Description |
|---|---|
| Identity Error | Identity verification failure |
| Policy Error | Federation policy violation |
| Delegation Error | Insufficient delegated authority |
| Trust Error | Trust evaluation failure |
| Integrity Error | Signature or DAL verification failure |
| Replay Error | Replay requirements not satisfied |
| Synchronization Error | State synchronization failure |
| Protocol Error | Invalid protocol sequence |
| Transport Error | Underlying transport failure |
Errors shall never modify constitutional artifacts.
4.11. Protocol Versioning
Every implementation shall declare:
- Protocol Version;
- Federation Profile Version;
- Policy Version;
- Message Schema Version.
Version negotiation shall preserve backward compatibility whenever possible.
Breaking changes require a new protocol version.
4.12. Relationship to the Canonical Federation Pipeline
The Federation Protocol realizes the Canonical Federation Pipeline (CFP).
CFP
│
├── Policy Resolution
├── Identity Verification
├── Delegation Validation
├── Trust Evaluation
├── Package Construction
├── Signature
├── Transport
├── Verification
├── Synchronization
└── TG-INTEL Publication
↓
TrustGate Federation Protocol
TFP is the communication mechanism through which CFP stages are coordinated across constitutional domains.
4.13. Transport Independence
The Federation Protocol is transport agnostic.
Normative transport bindings may include:
- HTTPS/REST;
- HTTP/2;
- gRPC;
- AMQP;
- MQTT;
- AS4;
- message queues;
- future secure transports.
Transport selection shall not alter constitutional semantics.
4.14. Constitutional Constraints
The Federation Protocol shall satisfy the following requirements.
- Protocol messages shall possess immutable identity.
- Negotiation shall precede exchange.
- Authorization shall precede package delivery.
- Verification shall precede synchronization.
- Acknowledgement shall conclude every successful exchange.
- Protocol semantics shall remain transport independent.
- Constitutional artifacts shall never be modified during transport.
These constraints are normative.
4.15. Summary
The TrustGate Federation Protocol (TFP) defines the constitutional communication model for federation between independent ECOs.
By standardizing negotiation, authorization, package exchange, verification, synchronization, acknowledgement, and error handling while remaining independent of transport technology, TFP enables interoperable, deterministic, replayable, and policy-governed exchange of constitutional artifacts across the ZAYAZ ecosystem.
The following part defines the synchronization model, including constitutional consistency, state convergence, synchronization strategies, conflict handling, and federation continuity.
Part 5 — Synchronization
5.1. Purpose
This part defines the constitutional synchronization model governing TrustGate Federation.
Synchronization ensures that participating ECOs maintain a consistent constitutional understanding of exchanged artifacts while preserving sovereignty, provenance, replayability, trust, lifecycle continuity, and cryptographic integrity.
Synchronization governs constitutional state rather than physical data replication.
5.2. Constitutional Principles
Constitutional synchronization shall satisfy the following principles.
- deterministic convergence;
- immutable constitutional identity;
- originating ECO sovereignty;
- replayability;
- provenance preservation;
- policy-governed synchronization;
- implementation independence.
Synchronization shall never alter originating constitutional artifacts.
5.3. Constitutional Synchronization Model
Synchronization establishes constitutional agreement between federation participants.
Originating ECO
│
▼
Constitutional Artifact
│
▼
Synchronization Policy
│
▼
Synchronization Execution
│
▼
Receiving ECO
The objective is constitutional consistency rather than database consistency.
5.4. What Is Synchronized
TrustGate synchronizes constitutional state, including:
- artifact identity;
- lifecycle state;
- provenance;
- lineage;
- trust metadata;
- attestation references;
- replay references;
- federation metadata;
- synchronization metadata.
Local implementation details shall not be synchronized.
5.5. Synchronization Modes
The following synchronization modes are defined.
| Mode | Description |
|---|---|
| Push | Originating ECO initiates synchronization |
| Pull | Receiving ECO requests synchronization |
| Event | Synchronization triggered by constitutional events |
| Scheduled | Policy-driven periodic synchronization |
| Replay | Synchronization during replay verification |
| Hybrid | Combination of multiple synchronization strategies |
Synchronization mode shall be determined by the Federation Profile (FPID).
5.6. Synchronization Pipeline
Synchronization follows the Canonical Federation Pipeline (CFP).
Synchronization Request
│
▼
Identity Verification
│
▼
Policy Resolution
│
▼
Delegation Validation
│
▼
Synchronization Planning
│
▼
Artifact Exchange
│
▼
Verification
│
▼
Replay Registration
│
▼
Synchronization Confirmation
Every synchronization operation shall be deterministic.
5.7. Constitutional Consistency
Synchronization preserves constitutional consistency.
Consistency includes:
- immutable identifiers;
- preserved provenance;
- preserved lifecycle state;
- preserved replay references;
- preserved trust semantics;
- preserved attestation lineage;
- preserved federation history.
Receiving ECOs may derive local intelligence without affecting synchronized constitutional state.
5.8. Synchronization Scope
Synchronization scope is defined by federation policy.
Representative scopes include:
| Scope | Description |
|---|---|
| Identity | CIA identifiers |
| Trust | Trust Objects, Trust Vectors and assessments |
| Validation | Validation results and evidence |
| Attestation | TG-ATTEST artifacts |
| Replay | Replay Packages and Replay Manifests |
| Intelligence | TG-INTEL references |
| DAL | Integrity anchors |
| Lifecycle | CALM lifecycle state |
Scope shall be explicit for every synchronization session.
5.9. Incremental Synchronization
Implementations should support incremental synchronization.
Incremental synchronization exchanges only constitutional changes since the previous synchronization point.
Synchronization checkpoints may reference:
- FSID;
- Replay identifiers;
- lifecycle transitions;
- synchronization timestamps;
- constitutional sequence numbers.
Incremental synchronization shall preserve deterministic outcomes.
5.10. Synchronization Conflicts
Constitutional synchronization minimizes conflicts through immutable artifacts.
Potential conflicts include:
| Conflict | Resolution |
|---|---|
| Duplicate artifact | Resolve using CIA/CIR identity |
| Policy mismatch | Reject synchronization |
| Delegation violation | Reject synchronization |
| Replay mismatch | Execute replay verification |
| Trust divergence | Preserve both assessments with provenance |
| Lifecycle divergence | Preserve originating lifecycle and record local interpretation |
Synchronization shall never overwrite originating constitutional artifacts.
5.11. Synchronization Verification
Every synchronization operation shall verify:
- constitutional identity;
- federation authority;
- delegation scope;
- replay references;
- trust metadata;
- attestation references;
- DAL integrity;
- synchronization completeness.
Verification shall occur before synchronization is finalized.
5.12. Synchronization Events
Representative synchronization events include:
- Synchronization Requested;
- Synchronization Authorized;
- Artifact Synchronized;
- Replay Registered;
- Synchronization Verified;
- Synchronization Completed;
- Synchronization Rejected.
Each event shall possess a constitutional identifier.
5.13. Relationship to Constitutional Frameworks
Synchronization integrates with:
| Framework | Constitutional Contribution |
|---|---|
| CFP | Synchronization execution |
| CIA | Identity preservation |
| CIR | Canonical identifier resolution |
| CALM | Lifecycle continuity |
| CPA | Persistent synchronization state |
| CRP | Replay verification |
| CRE | Replay equivalence |
| Trust Model | Trust synchronization |
| TrustGate Attestation Catalog | Attestation synchronization |
| TG-INTEL | Intelligence synchronization |
| DAL | Integrity verification |
Synchronization orchestrates these frameworks without redefining them.
5.14. Constitutional Constraints
Synchronization shall satisfy the following requirements.
- Constitutional identifiers shall remain immutable.
- Originating ECO authority shall be preserved.
- Synchronization shall preserve replayability.
- Synchronization shall preserve provenance.
- Synchronization shall preserve lifecycle continuity.
- Synchronization shall preserve trust semantics.
- Synchronization shall remain deterministic.
- Synchronization shall remain implementation independent.
These constraints are normative.
5.15. Summary
The TrustGate Synchronization model governs the deterministic exchange and convergence of constitutional state across federated ECOs.
By synchronizing identity, provenance, lifecycle state, trust, attestation, replay, and integrity metadata—rather than merely replicating data—TrustGate ensures that independent constitutional domains maintain a consistent and verifiable understanding of shared artifacts while preserving sovereignty, replayability, and cryptographic assurance.
The following part defines Trust Delegation, specifying how constitutional authority may be explicitly delegated between participating ECOs while maintaining accountability, governance, and replayable evidence.
APPENDIX to Part 5 - Case Studies
This is one of the places where ZAYAZ is fundamentally different from existing ESG platforms.
Example: Volvo buys batteries from Northvolt
Actors:
- Northvolt = Originating ECO
- Volvo = Receiving ECO
- ZAYAZ Cloud = Constitutional Exchange Platform
- Third-party verifier = TrustGate participant
Northvolt produces a battery.
They generate:
- Product Carbon Footprint
- Digital Product Passport
- REACH compliance
- Conflict minerals declaration
- ISO 14001 certificate
- Validation results
- Trust Score
- Attestation
- Replay Package
- DAL anchor
These are all constitutional artifacts.
Day 1
Northvolt publishes Battery #84721.
Internally they have
Battery
│
├── Signal
├── Validation
├── Trust
├── Attestation
├── Replay
├── DAL Anchor
└── TG-INTEL
Volvo receives the constitutional package.
Now both companies agree on:
Battery ID
Trust Score
Attestation
Replay Package
DAL hash
Synchronization complete.
Two weeks later…
A supplier discovers an error.
The carbon factor used for nickel was wrong.
Northvolt recomputes.
That starts a completely new constitutional execution.
Not just:
UPDATE Carbon = 53.4
Instead:
Signal V2
│
Validation V2
│
Trust V2
│
Attestation V2
│
Replay V2
│
DAL V2
Every artifact gets new identities.
Nothing is overwritten.
Constitutional Synchronization starts
Northvolt sends
Synchronization Request
containing
Changed constitutional state
not
Changed database row
The request might say
Battery 84721
Trust changed
Replay updated
Attestation superseded
DAL anchor updated
Lifecycle changed
Previous version preserved
Volvo receives this.
Instead of blindly updating the database it performs
Replay verification
using the Replay Package.
If Replay reproduces the exact Trust result,
Volvo now knows
This is constitutionally equivalent to what Northvolt claims.
Then Synchronization completes
Now Volvo has
Northvolt Version 2
registered.
Notice something important.
Volvo never became responsible for recalculating the battery.
Northvolt remains constitutional authority.
Volvo merely synchronized constitutional state.
Another example
A verifier withdraws an attestation.
Imagine SGS discovers fraud.
Yesterday:
Attestation
VALID
Today:
Attestation
WITHDRAWN
Synchronization distributes
NOT
Attestation PDF
but
Constitutional lifecycle changed
ACTIVE
↓
WITHDRAWN
Every downstream ECO now knows
This attestation is no longer valid.
without exchanging every underlying document again.
Regulatory example
Imagine CSRD.
Company submits report.
Regulator receives
Report
Replay
Trust
Attestation
DAL
Six months later
Auditor discovers a problem.
The regulator receives
Synchronization
Report lifecycle
SUPERSEDED
Replay Package updated
Attestation revoked
Every system in Europe now has the same constitutional understanding of the report.
ZAYAZ as a constitutional clearinghouse.
Thousands of organizations exchange
- invoices
- purchase orders
- ESG evidence
- AI model certifications
- supplier declarations
- quality inspections
- cybersecurity attestations
A supplier updates a certificate.
Without constitutional synchronization
every ERP must ask
“Has something changed?”
With CFP
the synchronization says
Object
Trust changed
Replay changed
Lifecycle changed
Everything else identical
-
No manual comparison.
-
No polling.
-
No duplicated logic.
Synchronization isn’t really between systems.
It’s between Constitutional State Vectors (CSV).
Imagine every artifact has a constitutional state like this:
| State | Version |
|---|---|
| Identity | 1 |
| Validation | 3 |
| Trust | 5 |
| Attestation | 4 |
| Replay | 5 |
| DAL | 5 |
| Lifecycle | 2 |
Synchronization becomes:
CSV v15
↓
CSV v16
Instead of synchronizing thousands of fields, TrustGate synchronizes a single, well-defined constitutional representation of an artifact’s state. The receiving ECO can immediately determine:
- what changed,
- what remained unchanged,
- what requires replay,
- what requires re-attestation,
- whether trust has changed,
- and whether regulatory obligations are affected.
This is one of ZAYAZ’s defining innovations. Most platforms synchronize records or events; ZAYAZ synchronize constitutional understanding. That aligns perfectly with our long-term vision of the platform as a trusted clearinghouse for obligations, evidence, and enterprise intelligence rather than just another data integration hub.
Part 6 — Trust Delegation
6.1. Purpose
This part defines the constitutional delegation model governing the transfer of explicitly authorized constitutional responsibilities between participating ECOs.
Trust Delegation enables an ECO to authorize another constitutional domain to perform defined responsibilities on its behalf while preserving sovereignty, accountability, provenance, replayability, and cryptographic integrity.
Delegation never transfers constitutional ownership.
It transfers only explicitly defined constitutional authority.
6.2. Constitutional Principles
Trust Delegation shall satisfy the following principles.
- originating ECO sovereignty;
- explicit authorization;
- least constitutional privilege;
- accountability preservation;
- deterministic verification;
- replayability;
- revocability;
- implementation independence.
Delegation shall always be intentional, explicit, and auditable.
6.3. Constitutional Delegation Model
Trust Delegation is governed by a Constitutional Delegation Agreement (CDA).
Originating ECO
│
▼
Constitutional Delegation Agreement (CDA)
│
▼
Delegated Constitutional Responsibilities
│
▼
Delegated ECO
The CDA defines the complete constitutional scope of delegated authority.
6.4. Constitutional Delegation Agreement (CDA)
A CDA is a first-class constitutional artifact.
A CDA defines:
- delegating ECO;
- delegated ECO;
- constitutional scope;
- permitted operations;
- prohibited operations;
- Federation Profile (FPID);
- applicable policies;
- validity period;
- lifecycle state;
- revocation conditions;
- replay obligations;
- cryptographic signatures.
Every CDA shall possess a unique constitutional identifier.
6.5. Delegable Constitutional Responsibilities
Representative delegated responsibilities include:
| Responsibility | Description |
|---|---|
| Validation | Execute constitutional validation rules |
| Trust Assessment | Calculate Trust Objects and Trust Vectors |
| Attestation | Generate authorized TG-ATTEST artifacts |
| Replay Registration | Register Replay Packages and manifests |
| Federation Exchange | Exchange constitutional artifacts |
| Synchronization | Synchronize constitutional state |
| DAL Submission | Submit approved artifacts for anchoring |
| TG-INTEL Publication | Publish authorized intelligence artifacts |
Delegation shall always be explicitly authorized by the CDA.
6.6. Non-Delegable Responsibilities
The following responsibilities shall remain exclusively with the originating ECO unless explicitly supported by future constitutional specifications.
- constitutional ownership;
- originating artifact identity;
- provenance;
- historical lineage;
- constitutional issuance;
- constitutional revocation.
Delegation shall never transfer constitutional sovereignty.
6.7. Delegation Scope
Delegation scope shall define constitutional boundaries.
Representative scope dimensions include:
- permitted artifact types;
- permitted lifecycle stages;
- permitted operations;
- permitted Federation Profiles;
- permitted jurisdictions;
- temporal validity;
- confidence thresholds;
- assurance requirements.
Delegation outside the defined scope shall be rejected.
6.8. Delegation Verification
Before performing delegated responsibilities, the receiving ECO shall verify:
- CDA authenticity;
- originating ECO identity;
- delegated ECO identity;
- delegation scope;
- lifecycle validity;
- revocation status;
- policy compatibility;
- cryptographic integrity.
Delegation verification shall precede execution.
6.9. Delegation Lifecycle
Delegation Agreements follow CALM lifecycle governance.
Representative states include:
Draft
│
Approved
│
Active
│
Suspended
│
Revoked
│
Archived
Lifecycle transitions shall preserve constitutional history.
6.10. Delegation and Replay
Every delegated constitutional action shall be replayable.
Replay evidence shall include:
- CDA identifier;
- delegated authority;
- execution context;
- Replay Package reference;
- Federation Session Identifier (FSID);
- execution timestamps;
- verification evidence.
Independent replay shall reproduce the delegated constitutional decision.
6.11. Delegation and Federation
Trust Delegation operates within the Canonical Federation Pipeline (CFP).
Federation Request
│
▼
Identity Verification
│
▼
CDA Verification
│
▼
Policy Evaluation
│
▼
Delegated Execution
│
▼
Replay Registration
│
▼
Synchronization
Delegation is an integral stage of constitutional federation.
6.12. Delegation and Security
Every delegated action shall preserve:
- authenticated identities;
- cryptographic signatures;
- integrity verification;
- non-repudiation;
- provenance;
- auditability.
Security requirements apply equally to delegated and non-delegated operations.
6.13. Relationship to Constitutional Frameworks
Trust Delegation integrates with:
| Framework | Constitutional Contribution |
|---|---|
| CFP | Delegation execution pipeline |
| CIA | Identity preservation |
| CIR | Canonical identifier resolution |
| CALM | Delegation lifecycle |
| CPA | Delegation persistence |
| CRP | Replay verification |
| Trust Model | Trust semantics |
| TrustGate Attestation Catalog | Delegated attestations |
| TG-INTEL | Delegated intelligence |
| DAL | Integrity verification |
Delegation coordinates these frameworks without redefining them.
6.14. Constitutional Constraints
Trust Delegation shall satisfy the following requirements.
- Delegation shall always be explicit.
- Delegation shall preserve originating ECO sovereignty.
- Delegation shall remain replayable.
- Delegation shall remain auditable.
- Delegation shall preserve provenance.
- Delegation shall be revocable.
- Delegation shall remain policy governed.
- Delegation shall remain implementation independent.
These constraints are normative.
6.15. Summary
Trust Delegation defines the constitutional mechanism by which an ECO may authorize another constitutional domain to perform defined responsibilities on its behalf.
Through the Constitutional Delegation Agreement (CDA), TrustGate enables secure, replayable, auditable, and policy-governed delegation while preserving sovereignty, provenance, identity, and accountability. Delegation extends beyond traditional access control by governing constitutional responsibility rather than merely granting technical permissions.
The following part defines Exchange Packages, specifying how constitutional artifacts are assembled, referenced, transported, and verified during federation.