Jira progress: loading…

TG-SC

TrustGate Signal Catalog

Part 1 — Foundations

1. Purpose

The TrustGate Signal Catalog defines the constitutional model governing every canonical TrustGate signal within the ZAYAZ platform.

A TrustGate signal represents a governed semantic observation produced by a computational component, carrying business meaning, computational lineage, and assurance metadata throughout its lifecycle.

The Signal Catalog establishes:

canonical signal definitions;
semantic identity;
signal governance;
lifecycle management;
runtime behavior;
validation integration;
trust relationships;
attestation relationships;
federation semantics;
replay guarantees;
explainability requirements.

It is the constitutional specification for TrustGate signals.

2. Scope

This specification governs every canonical signal participating in the TrustGate architecture, regardless of origin.

Applicable signal sources include:

Micro Engines (MEIDs);
Engines (EIDs);
Computation Hub;
Input Hub;
SIS;
Reports Hub;
MICE;
external integrations;
federated ZAYAZ Domains.

Signals remain constitutionally identical regardless of where they originate.

3. Objectives

The TrustGate Signal Catalog has six constitutional objectives.

Semantic Consistency

Every signal shall possess one and only one canonical semantic definition.

Identity

Every signal shall possess globally stable canonical identifiers.

Traceability

Every signal shall preserve complete computational lineage from creation through federation.

Trust

Every signal shall participate in the constitutional TrustGate assurance model.

Replay

Every signal shall be reproducible through deterministic replay.

Federation

Every signal shall be exchangeable across independent ZAYAZ Domains without semantic loss.

4. Constitutional Principles

The Signal Catalog adopts the following constitutional principles.

Principle 1 — Semantic First

Signals describe business meaning.

Implementation details remain secondary.

Principle 2 — Identity Before Runtime

Every signal shall possess canonical identity before runtime execution.

Principle 3 — Immutable Semantics

Published signal semantics shall never change.

New semantics require a new signal version.

Principle 4 — Explainability

Every signal shall remain explainable.

No signal may exist without identifiable origin and computational lineage.

Principle 5 — Replayability

Every published signal shall support deterministic replay.

Principle 6 — Federation

Signals shall preserve semantic meaning across independent ZAYAZ Domains.

5. Position within the TrustGate Architecture

The Signal Catalog represents the constitutional entry point into the TrustGate assurance chain.

Business Observation
        │
        ▼
Canonical Signal
        │
        ▼
Validation
        │
        ▼
Trust Assessment
        │
        ▼
Trust Attestation
        │
        ▼
Trust Intelligence
        │
        ▼
Federation

Every TrustGate assurance artifact originates from one or more governed signals.

6. Relationship to the Canonical Identifier Architecture (CIA)

The Signal Catalog adopts the Canonical Identifier Architecture (CIA) as the authoritative identity framework.

Every signal participates in the constitutional identifier hierarchy.

Identity Layer	Purpose
CMID	Canonical metric reference (where applicable)
CSI	Canonical semantic identity
USO Type	Canonical ontology classification
USO ID	Runtime signal instance
CMI	Producing governed component

Signals never define alternative identity mechanisms.

7. Relationship to the Universal Signal Ontology (USO)

Every TrustGate signal shall be classified through the Universal Signal Ontology.

USO provides:

semantic origin;
signal category;
computational context;
provenance;
classification.

USO complements—but does not replace—the CSI.

Together they provide:

semantic identity;
runtime lineage;
ontology classification.

8. Relationship to the Canonical Metric Identifier System (CMID)

Where a signal represents a governed sustainability metric, it shall reference one or more Canonical Metric Identifiers (CMIDs).

CMIDs identify:

metrics;
attributes;
dimensions;
calculated values;
reportable disclosures.

The Signal Catalog governs signals.

The CMID System governs metrics.

9. Relationship to the Validation Rule Registry

Signals participate in validation through the TrustGate Validation Rule Registry.

Validation is governed separately through:

VRIDs;
validation functions;
validation categories;
execution contracts;
evidence generation.

Signals reference validation.

They do not embed validation logic.

10. Relationship to the Trust Model

Signals constitute the primary inputs to the Trust Model.

Validated signals contribute to:

Trust Objects (TOIDs);
Trust Vectors (TVIDs);
Trust Status;
Operational Flags;
Trust Intelligence.

Trust is derived from governed signals rather than replacing them.

11. Relationship to the Trust Attestation Catalog

Published trust decisions may produce Trust Attestations (TG-ATTEST).

Signals therefore participate indirectly in:

assurance publication;
federation;
delegated trust;
cryptographic verification.

Signals themselves are not attestations.

Attestations are governed assurance artifacts derived from signals and their associated trust evaluations.

12. Relationship to TG-INTEL

Signals provide foundational evidence for Trust Intelligence.

Trust Intelligence may:

aggregate signals;
identify behavioural patterns;
detect trust drift;
recommend governance actions;
support explainable AI.

Signals remain immutable regardless of AI interpretation.

13. Relationship to Replay

Every published signal shall support deterministic replay.

Replay preserves:

semantic identity;
runtime lineage;
validation history;
trust evaluation;
attestation history;
intelligence provenance.

Replay semantics are governed separately by the TrustGate Replay Specification.

14. Relationship to Federation

Signals may participate in federation through governed TrustGate artifacts.

Federation exchanges:

references;
evidence;
attestations;
trust intelligence.

Rather than exchanging raw runtime signals, federation preserves the constitutional assurance chain built upon those signals.

Federation behaviour is governed by the TrustGate Federation Profiles and the Enterprise Green Federation Specification (EGFS).

15. Relationship to Constitutional Frameworks

The Signal Catalog adopts the following constitutional frameworks.

Framework	Responsibility
CIA	Canonical identity
CALM	Lifecycle governance
CIR	Constitutional invariants
Trust Model	Trust computation
Validation Rule Registry	Validation governance
Attestation Catalog	Assurance publication
Replay Specification	Deterministic replay
Federation Profiles	Cross-domain interoperability
DSAIL	Trust Intelligence
DAL	Distributed assurance anchoring

These frameworks collectively govern the complete lifecycle of canonical TrustGate signals.

16. Constitutional Summary

The TrustGate Signal Catalog establishes the constitutional foundation for every governed signal within the ZAYAZ platform.

By defining canonical semantics, identity, ontology, lifecycle, validation relationships, trust integration, replay guarantees, federation interoperability, and AI explainability, the Signal Catalog ensures that every TrustGate signal remains deterministic, traceable, immutable, replayable, and semantically consistent throughout its complete assurance lifecycle.

Subsequent parts of this specification define the canonical signal model, runtime architecture, validation integration, trust relationships, attestation workflows, federation semantics, replay guarantees, persistence, conformance requirements, and reference catalogs.

Part 2 — Canonical Signal Model

17. Purpose

The Canonical Signal Model defines the constitutional structure of every TrustGate signal.

Where Part 1 established the architectural foundations of the Signal Catalog, this part defines what a canonical signal is, how it is identified, how it behaves, and how it participates in the broader TrustGate assurance architecture.

The Canonical Signal Model is normative.

18. What is a Canonical Signal?

A TrustGate signal is a governed semantic observation produced or consumed by a computational component within the ZAYAZ platform.

A signal represents an immutable unit of business meaning.

It is not:

a database row;
an API payload;
a software event;
a message queue record;
an implementation artifact.

Instead, a canonical signal represents the constitutional semantic identity of an observation, independent of implementation.

Signals may be:

measured;
calculated;
inferred;
imported;
validated;
aggregated;
generated by AI;
received from federated ZAYAZ Domains.

Regardless of origin, every signal shall conform to the Canonical Signal Model.

19. Constitutional Characteristics

Every canonical signal shall possess the following characteristics.

Characteristic	Description
Semantic	Represents business meaning rather than implementation
Canonical	Defined once and reused consistently
Immutable	Published semantics cannot change
Identifiable	Governed through the Canonical Identifier Architecture (CIA)
Traceable	Preserves complete computational lineage
Replayable	Supports deterministic replay
Explainable	Origin and processing remain transparent
Governed	Subject to constitutional invariants and lifecycle governance

20. Canonical Signal Lifecycle

A signal progresses through several constitutional stages.

Signal Definition (CSI)
        │
        ▼
Runtime Signal (USO ID)
        │
        ▼
Validation
        │
        ▼
Trust Assessment
        │
        ▼
Attestation
        │
        ▼
Trust Intelligence
        │
        ▼
Federation
        │
        ▼
Replay

Each stage extends the assurance chain while preserving the original signal identity.

21. Signal Identity

Signals participate in the Canonical Identifier Architecture (CIA).

The complete constitutional identity consists of several complementary identifiers.

Identifier	Responsibility
CMID	Metric identity (where applicable)
CSI	Canonical semantic identity
USO Type	Ontology classification
USO ID	Runtime signal instance
CMI	Producing governed artifact
MEID / EID	Producing engine or micro-engine

These identifiers collectively define the identity of a signal across design time and runtime.

22. Canonical Signal Identity Chain

The constitutional identity chain is illustrated below.

Business Metric (CMID)
        │
        ▼
Signal Definition (CSI)
        │
        ▼
Ontology Classification (USO Type)
        │
        ▼
Runtime Instance (USO ID)
        │
        ▼
Produced by CMI
        │
        ▼
Executed by MEID / EID

No identifier replaces another.

Each identifier exists at a distinct architectural layer.

23. Signal Categories

Canonical signals may belong to one or more categories.

Category	Purpose
Observational	Direct measurements
Computational	Calculated values
Derived	Produced from other signals
Validation	Validation outcomes
Trust	Trust-related observations
Operational	Runtime telemetry
Federation	Cross-domain exchange
Intelligence	AI-derived insights

Categories classify signal purpose rather than implementation.

24. Signal Types

Signal types define the constitutional role of a signal.

Typical signal types include:

metric signal;
indicator signal;
validation signal;
evidence signal;
status signal;
lifecycle signal;
trust signal;
telemetry signal;
federation signal;
intelligence signal.

New signal types may be introduced without affecting existing semantics.

25. Signal States

Signals may exist in several runtime states.

State	Description
Created	Signal instantiated
Collected	Observation received
Validated	Validation completed
Assessed	Trust assessment completed
Attested	Included within a Trust Attestation
Federated	Exchanged with another ZAYAZ Domain
Replayed	Successfully reproduced

Signal states describe runtime progression.

Lifecycle governance remains defined by CALM.

26. Signal Semantics

Semantic identity is governed exclusively by the Canonical Signal Identifier (CSI).

The CSI defines:

meaning;
business context;
units;
interpretation;
relationships;
version.

Semantic meaning shall never depend upon:

database schema;
API implementation;
programming language;
execution environment.

27. Signal Versioning

Signal semantics are immutable.

When semantic meaning changes:

a new CSI version shall be created;
previous versions remain valid;
runtime instances retain their original CSI reference.

Versioning follows CIA and CALM principles.

28. Signal Relationships

Signals may participate in constitutional relationships with other signals.

Relationship types include:

derives from;
aggregates;
references;
validates;
supports;
replaces;
supersedes.

Relationships preserve lineage without altering signal identity.

29. Signal Dependencies

Signals may depend upon other governed signals.

Dependency relationships shall be:

explicit;
acyclic;
version aware;
replayable.

Dependency graphs form part of the constitutional lineage model.

30. Signal Provenance

Every canonical signal shall preserve complete provenance.

Minimum provenance includes:

producing CMI;
executing MEID or EID;
originating USO instance;
timestamp;
source system;
processing chain.

Provenance is immutable after publication.

31. Signal Lineage

Lineage describes the complete computational history of a signal.

Lineage includes:

origin;
transformations;
validation;
trust assessment;
attestation;
federation;
replay.

Every governed signal shall possess complete lineage.

32. Signal Quality

Signal quality is evaluated independently from signal identity.

Quality attributes may include:

completeness;
accuracy;
consistency;
timeliness;
confidence;
provenance quality.

Quality assessment contributes to TrustGate but does not alter semantic identity.

33. Signal Ownership

Every canonical signal shall possess an accountable owner.

Ownership may include:

originating organization (E-C-O™ Number);
governed domain;
producing engine;
responsible business capability.

Ownership supports governance rather than execution.

34. Signal Visibility

Signals may possess different visibility classifications.

Typical classifications include:

Visibility	Description
Private	Internal to a ZAYAZ Domain
Shared	Available across authorized modules
Federated	Exchangeable between trusted ZAYAZ Domains
Public	Intended for public disclosure

Visibility policies do not alter signal semantics.

35. Signal Governance

Signals are governed through multiple constitutional frameworks.

Framework	Responsibility
CIA	Identity
CALM	Lifecycle
CIR	Invariants
SSSR	Semantic registration
ZAR	Artifact governance
USO	Ontology classification

Together these frameworks ensure constitutional consistency.

36. Constitutional Constraints

Every canonical signal shall satisfy the following constitutional constraints.

One semantic definition.
One canonical CSI.
Immutable published semantics.
Complete provenance.
Deterministic lineage.
Replay capability.
Explainable processing.
Constitutional governance.

These constraints are normative.

37. Relationship to Runtime

The Canonical Signal Model defines signal semantics.

Runtime execution is defined separately.

Part 3 of this specification describes:

signal generation;
runtime instances;
execution flow;
producer behavior;
consumer behavior;
runtime interactions.

The Canonical Signal Model remains implementation independent.

38. Summary

The Canonical Signal Model establishes the constitutional definition of every TrustGate signal.

By separating semantic identity from runtime execution, preserving immutable signal meaning, defining canonical identifiers, lineage, provenance, governance, and constitutional relationships, the model ensures that every signal within the ZAYAZ platform remains consistent, replayable, explainable, and interoperable across validation, trust assessment, attestation, federation, and AI-driven intelligence.

Subsequent parts build upon this model to define how canonical signals are created, processed, validated, trusted, exchanged, and governed throughout the TrustGate architecture.

Part 3 — Runtime Signal Architecture

39. Purpose

The Runtime Signal Architecture defines how canonical signals are instantiated, processed, transported, consumed, and governed during runtime.

While the Canonical Signal Model defines what a signal is, this part defines how signals behave within the operational TrustGate architecture.

The Runtime Signal Architecture is implementation independent.

It specifies constitutional runtime behavior rather than software implementation.

40. Architectural Overview

Canonical signals flow through a governed runtime pipeline.

Signal Definition (CSI)
        │
        ▼
Signal Instance (USO ID)
        │
        ▼
Runtime Validation
        │
        ▼
Trust Assessment
        │
        ▼
Attestation
        │
        ▼
Trust Intelligence
        │
        ▼
Federation
        │
        ▼
Replay

Every runtime stage extends the constitutional assurance chain without altering the original signal semantics.

41. Runtime Principles

Runtime processing shall preserve the constitutional properties established by the Canonical Signal Model.

The runtime architecture shall ensure:

semantic consistency;
deterministic execution;
complete lineage;
replayability;
explainability;
trust preservation;
federation readiness.

Runtime execution shall never modify canonical signal definitions.

42. Signal Birth

A runtime signal begins when a governed component produces a new observation.

Signal birth creates:

a USO Instance;
runtime timestamps;
provenance;
execution metadata;
runtime lineage.

Signal birth never creates a new CSI.

43. Runtime Identity

Each runtime signal consists of multiple constitutional identities.

Identity	Responsibility
CSI	Semantic definition
USO Type	Ontology classification
USO ID	Runtime instance
CMI	Producing governed artifact
MEID / EID	Executing engine
CMID	Referenced metric(s), where applicable

These identities remain immutable throughout runtime.

44. Runtime Producers

Canonical signals may be produced by multiple governed runtime components.

Typical producers include:

Producer	Description
Micro Engine (MEID)	Individual computational service
Engine (EID)	Composite computational engine
Computation Hub	Computational pipelines
Input Hub	Data ingestion
SIS	Sustainability Intelligence System
Reports Hub	Report generation
External Connector	Imported governed signals
Federated ZAYAZ Domain	Cross-domain exchange

Every producer shall possess a governed CMI.

45. Runtime Consumers

Signals may be consumed by multiple downstream components.

Typical consumers include:

validation engines;
trust engines;
replay engines;
reporting engines;
AI engines;
federation services;
analytics pipelines;
monitoring services.

Consumers shall reference signals without modifying them.

46. Runtime Signal Flow

Signals move through the TrustGate runtime using a governed execution sequence.

Observation

↓

Signal Creation

↓

USO Registration

↓

Validation

↓

Evidence Generation

↓

Trust Evaluation

↓

Attestation

↓

Trust Intelligence

↓

Publication

Each stage produces additional governed artifacts while preserving the original signal.

47. Runtime Registration

Every runtime signal shall be registered within the Universal Signal Ontology.

Registration records:

USO ID;
CSI;
producing CMI;
runtime timestamps;
execution metadata;
originating organization;
provenance references.

Registration occurs immediately after signal creation.

48. Runtime Provenance

Runtime provenance records the complete origin of every signal.

Minimum provenance includes:

producing engine;
producing MEID;
producing CMI;
execution context;
execution timestamp;
source system;
originating E-C-O™ Number.

Additional provenance may be recorded where appropriate.

49. Runtime Lineage

Lineage records every governed transformation experienced by a signal.

Typical lineage events include:

creation;
enrichment;
aggregation;
validation;
trust assessment;
attestation;
federation;
replay.

Lineage shall remain immutable.

50. Runtime Dependencies

Signals may depend upon previously generated signals.

Dependency graphs shall satisfy the following constraints:

explicit;
deterministic;
acyclic;
replayable;
version aware.

Dependencies shall reference CSI and USO IDs.

51. Runtime Relationships

Signals participate in constitutional runtime relationships.

Examples include:

produced by;
derived from;
validates;
supports;
contributes to;
aggregated into;
referenced by.

Relationships preserve computational lineage.

52. Runtime Metadata

Every runtime signal carries operational metadata.

Typical metadata includes:

Metadata	Purpose
Creation Timestamp	Runtime birth
Execution Timestamp	Processing time
Producing MEID	Engine identity
Producing EID	Parent engine
Producing CMI	Managed artifact
Originating E-C-O™ Number	Organizational ownership
Runtime Context	Execution environment
Correlation ID	Cross-process tracking

Metadata supports governance but does not alter semantics.

53. Runtime State Management

Runtime progression is governed by CALM.

Typical runtime states include:

Created

↓

Collected

↓

Registered

↓

Validated

↓

Trusted

↓

Attested

↓

Published

↓

Federated

↓

Archived

State transitions shall follow CALM.

54. Runtime Validation Integration

Signals enter the validation pipeline immediately after registration.

Validation produces:

validation execution;
validation result (TG-VRES);
validation evidence (VEVID);
execution telemetry.

Validation rules are governed separately by the TrustGate Validation Rule Registry.

55. Runtime Trust Integration

Validated signals become inputs to TrustGate trust computation.

Runtime trust processing may generate:

Trust Objects (TOIDs);
Trust Vectors (TVIDs);
Trust Status;
Operational Flags.

Trust computation never alters the originating signal.

56. Runtime Attestation Integration

Signals contributing to completed trust assessments may become part of Trust Attestations.

Attestation processing generates:

TAID;
assurance metadata;
cryptographic signatures;
publication metadata.

Signals remain independent constitutional artifacts.

57. Runtime Intelligence Integration

Signals provide evidence for Trust Intelligence generation.

Trust Intelligence may:

aggregate multiple signals;
detect behavioural trends;
identify anomalies;
recommend governance actions;
support explainable AI.

Generated intelligence shall reference originating signals.

58. Runtime Telemetry

Every significant runtime operation should generate TrustGate telemetry.

Telemetry events may include:

signal creation;
validation execution;
trust computation;
attestation publication;
federation exchange;
replay execution.

Telemetry shall be recorded in:

zar.trustgate_telemetry_event

Telemetry supports observability but does not alter runtime behaviour.

59. Runtime Error Handling

Errors occurring during runtime shall be governed rather than hidden.

Typical runtime outcomes include:

successful execution;
validation failure;
policy violation;
trust degradation;
replay inconsistency;
federation rejection.

Errors themselves may generate governed signals.

60. Runtime Replay Readiness

Every runtime signal shall remain replayable.

Replay requires preservation of:

identifiers;
timestamps;
lineage;
provenance;
execution context;
validation evidence.

Replay shall reproduce constitutional outcomes rather than implementation artifacts.

61. Runtime Federation Readiness

Signals intended for federation shall satisfy additional constitutional requirements.

These include:

globally valid identifiers;
replay support;
complete lineage;
published lifecycle state;
trust assessment;
applicable attestations.

Federation readiness does not require federation to occur.

62. Runtime Security

Runtime processing shall preserve signal integrity.

Typical protections include:

authenticated producers;
immutable identifiers;
controlled lifecycle transitions;
cryptographic attestation;
audit logging;
policy enforcement.

Security mechanisms remain implementation dependent.

63. Runtime Governance

Runtime behaviour is governed collectively by:

Framework	Responsibility
CIA	Identity
CALM	Lifecycle
CIR	Constitutional invariants
Validation Rule Registry	Validation execution
Trust Model	Trust computation
Attestation Catalog	Assurance publication
Replay Specification	Deterministic replay
Federation Profiles	Cross-domain interoperability

These frameworks operate together to preserve constitutional integrity.

64. Constitutional Constraints

Runtime execution shall satisfy the following constitutional constraints.

Runtime shall never modify canonical semantics.
Every signal shall possess immutable lineage.
Every runtime instance shall possess a USO ID.
Runtime identifiers shall remain globally stable.
Runtime execution shall remain replayable.
Runtime processing shall remain explainable.
Runtime governance shall preserve constitutional invariants.

These constraints are normative.

65. Summary

The Runtime Signal Architecture defines how canonical TrustGate signals are instantiated, governed, processed, validated, trusted, attested, federated, and replayed throughout the operational ZAYAZ platform.

By separating runtime behaviour from semantic definition while preserving canonical identity, lineage, provenance, lifecycle governance, and constitutional invariants, the architecture ensures that every signal remains deterministic, explainable, replayable, and interoperable across all TrustGate services.

The following part defines how runtime signals enter the TrustGate Validation Model, where governed validation rules, evidence generation, and assurance evaluation transform canonical signals into trusted computational artifacts.

Part 4 — Validation Integration

66. Purpose

Validation is the constitutional mechanism through which TrustGate determines whether a canonical signal satisfies its defined quality, semantic, structural, computational, governance, and trust requirements.

The Signal Catalog does not define validation logic.

Instead, it defines how canonical signals participate in the TrustGate Validation Architecture governed by the TrustGate Validation Rule Registry.

This separation preserves:

immutable signal semantics;
reusable validation rules;
deterministic execution;
replayability;
explainability.

67. Constitutional Principle

Validation evaluates signals.

Validation never changes signals.

A canonical signal remains constitutionally identical regardless of:

validation success;
validation failure;
warning conditions;
trust score;
operational status.

Validation produces new governed artifacts rather than modifying existing ones.

68. Validation Architecture

Every runtime signal enters the constitutional validation pipeline.

Canonical Signal (CSI)
          │
          ▼
Runtime Instance (USO ID)
          │
          ▼
Validation Rule Selection (VRID)
          │
          ▼
Validation Execution
          │
          ▼
Validation Result (TG-VRES)
          │
          ▼
Validation Evidence (VEVID)
          │
          ▼
Trust Assessment

Signals remain immutable throughout the entire validation lifecycle.

69. Relationship to the TrustGate Validation Rule Registry

The TrustGate Validation Rule Registry is the authoritative source for all validation rules.

The registry governs:

Validation Rule Identifiers (VRIDs);
validation categories;
validation functions;
execution contracts;
severity levels;
lifecycle management;
rule versioning;
replay compatibility.

The Signal Catalog references validation rules but does not define them.

70. Validation Rule Binding

Signals are associated with one or more Validation Rules.

Typical relationships include:

Relationship	Description
Required Rule	Must execute
Recommended Rule	Should execute
Conditional Rule	Executes when applicable
Optional Rule	Informational validation

Rule bindings are governed separately from signal definitions.

71. Validation Rule Identifier (VRID)

Every validation rule possesses a globally unique Validation Rule Identifier (VRID).

The VRID represents the constitutional identity of a validation rule.

Example:

VRID:
TG.VAL.CONSISTENCY.NUMERIC_RANGE.v1

Signals reference VRIDs rather than embedding executable validation logic.

72. Validation Domains

Validation rules are organized into constitutional domains.

Typical domains include:

Domain	Purpose
Structural	Schema validation
Semantic	Business meaning
Computational	Mathematical correctness
Lifecycle	CALM compliance
Trust	Trust policy validation
Security	Authorization and integrity
Federation	Cross-domain compatibility
Replay	Deterministic reproducibility

Additional domains may be introduced without affecting signal identity.

73. Validation Categories

Validation categories describe the nature of the validation.

Examples include:

completeness;
correctness;
consistency;
plausibility;
uniqueness;
temporal validity;
referential integrity;
governance compliance;
policy compliance.

Categories improve explainability and reporting.

74. Validation Functions

Validation functions define how a rule evaluates a signal.

Typical functions include:

comparison;
range checking;
aggregation;
dependency verification;
ontology validation;
statistical analysis;
AI-assisted evaluation.

Functions remain implementation independent.

75. Validation Execution

Validation execution evaluates a runtime signal against one or more VRIDs.

Execution shall be:

deterministic;
reproducible;
traceable;
observable;
replayable.

Validation engines shall not alter signal semantics.

76. Validation Results (TG-VRES)

Each validation execution produces a Validation Result.

Validation Results are governed artifacts.

Typical outcomes include:

Result	Meaning
PASS	Validation succeeded
FAIL	Validation failed
WARNING	Potential issue detected
INFO	Informational outcome
NOT_APPLICABLE	Rule not evaluated

Validation Results shall possess immutable lineage.

77. Validation Evidence (VEVID)

Validation execution generates Validation Evidence.

Validation Evidence records:

evaluated rule;
execution metadata;
input references;
calculated values;
decision rationale;
timestamps;
replay references.

Each evidence artifact possesses its own canonical identity (VEVID).

Evidence supports:

audit;
replay;
explainability;
federation.

78. Validation Lineage

Validation extends signal lineage.

Signal

↓

Validation Rule

↓

Execution

↓

Result

↓

Evidence

↓

Trust

The originating signal remains unchanged.

79. Validation Provenance

Every validation execution preserves provenance.

Minimum provenance includes:

VRID;
validation engine;
producing CMI;
executing MEID/EID;
execution timestamp;
execution version;
policy version.

Validation provenance supports deterministic replay.

80. Validation Telemetry

Validation generates constitutional telemetry.

Typical telemetry includes:

execution start;
execution completion;
execution duration;
rule outcome;
exception events;
replay execution.

Telemetry shall be recorded within:

zar.trustgate_telemetry_event

Telemetry supports observability but does not affect validation outcomes.

81. Validation Failure

Validation failures do not invalidate canonical signals.

Instead, failures generate governed outcomes.

Possible consequences include:

Trust degradation;
Operational Flags;
Quarantine;
Attestation restrictions;
Federation restrictions;
Human review.

Signal semantics remain unchanged.

82. Validation Severity

Validation rules define constitutional severity levels.

Typical levels include:

Severity	Description
Informational	No operational impact
Low	Minor issue
Medium	Review recommended
High	Significant concern
Critical	TrustGate intervention required

Severity influences trust computation but not signal identity.

83. Validation Lifecycle

Validation Rules are governed independently through CALM.

Signals always reference the published version of the applicable VRID.

Historical executions remain linked to the rule version used during execution.

This guarantees deterministic replay.

84. Validation Replay

Validation shall be fully reproducible.

Replay requires:

identical VRID;
identical signal;
identical rule version;
identical execution context;
identical policy references.

Replay shall reproduce the constitutional validation outcome.

85. Validation and Trust

Validation contributes evidence to the Trust Model.

Validation itself does not compute trust.

Instead, validation outcomes become inputs for:

Trust Objects (TOIDs);
Trust Vectors (TVIDs);
Trust Status;
Operational Flags.

This separation preserves architectural modularity.

86. Validation and Attestation

Successful validation may contribute to Trust Attestations.

Attestations reference:

validated signals;
validation results;
validation evidence;
trust assessments.

Validation alone does not create attestations.

87. Validation and Federation

Federated exchanges shall preserve validation integrity.

When exchanged between ZAYAZ Domains, signals may include references to:

VRIDs;
Validation Results;
Validation Evidence;
Trust Attestations.

Receiving domains may:

accept;
replay;
verify;
extend

the validation chain.

88. Validation and AI

AI-assisted validation may support constitutional validation.

AI may:

recommend rules;
detect anomalies;
prioritize reviews;
explain failures.

AI shall never override constitutional validation rules autonomously.

Final validation remains governed by the Validation Rule Registry.

89. Runtime Governance

Validation execution is governed collectively by:

Framework	Responsibility
CIA	Identity
CALM	Lifecycle
CIR	Constitutional invariants
Validation Rule Registry	Validation governance
Trust Model	Trust computation
Replay Specification	Deterministic replay
Attestation Catalog	Assurance publication

Together these frameworks preserve constitutional validation integrity.

90. Constitutional Constraints

Validation shall satisfy the following constitutional constraints.

Validation shall never alter canonical signal semantics.
Validation Rules shall be referenced by VRID.
Validation executions shall remain deterministic.
Validation Evidence shall be immutable.
Validation shall preserve complete lineage.
Validation shall support replay.
Validation shall remain explainable.
Validation shall satisfy constitutional invariants.

These constraints are normative.

91. Summary

Validation transforms canonical signals into governed assurance evidence without modifying their semantic identity.

By separating immutable signal definitions from executable validation rules, preserving deterministic execution, immutable evidence, complete provenance, replay compatibility, and constitutional governance, the Validation Integration model enables TrustGate to provide transparent, explainable, and interoperable assurance across the ZAYAZ platform.

The following part describes how validated signals become inputs to the TrustGate Trust Model, where validation outcomes are combined with governance, operational context, and assurance evidence to produce constitutional trust assessments.

Part 5 — Trust Integration

92. Purpose

Trust Integration defines how canonical signals participate in the constitutional TrustGate Trust Model.

While validation determines whether a signal satisfies defined requirements, the Trust Model evaluates the broader confidence that can be placed in the signal, its producing components, its computational lineage, and its operational context.

Trust is therefore derived from evidence, not assigned directly to signals.

Signals remain immutable throughout trust computation.

93. Constitutional Principle

Trust evaluates signals.

Trust never modifies signals.

A canonical signal retains its:

semantic identity;
CSI;
USO identity;
lineage;
provenance;
runtime history.

Trust produces independent governed artifacts that reference signals rather than altering them.

94. Position within the TrustGate Assurance Chain

The Trust Model extends the constitutional assurance chain established by validation.

Canonical Signal
        │
        ▼
Validation
        │
        ▼
Validation Result (TG-VRES)
        │
        ▼
Validation Evidence (VEVID)
        │
        ▼
Trust Assessment
        │
        ▼
Trust Object (TOID)
        │
        ▼
Trust Vector (TVID)
        │
        ▼
Trust Status
        │
        ▼
Operational Flags

Trust computation always builds upon validation evidence.

95. Relationship to the Trust Model

The Trust Model is the constitutional authority governing trust computation.

It defines:

trust objects;
trust vectors;
trust status;
operational flags;
trust intelligence;
trust lifecycle;
trust persistence.

The Signal Catalog supplies governed inputs.

The Trust Model computes governed trust.

96. Trust Assessment

A Trust Assessment evaluates the confidence that may reasonably be placed in a canonical signal.

Trust assessments may consider:

validation outcomes;
evidence quality;
provenance;
producing component;
historical behaviour;
governance policies;
operational telemetry;
federation history.

Trust is therefore contextual rather than binary.

97. Trust Objects (TOIDs)

Every completed trust assessment produces one or more Trust Objects.

A Trust Object represents a governed trust entity.

Typical Trust Objects include:

signal trust;
producer trust;
evidence trust;
validation trust;
federation trust;
attestation trust.

Each Trust Object possesses its own Trust Object Identifier (TOID).

Trust Objects never replace signals.

98. Trust Vectors (TVIDs)

Trust is multidimensional.

Rather than producing a single score, TrustGate represents trust through Trust Vectors.

Each Trust Vector captures one dimension of trust.

Examples include:

Trust Dimension	Description
Integrity	Confidence in data integrity
Provenance	Confidence in origin
Validation	Confidence in validation outcomes
Consistency	Behaviour over time
Governance	Policy compliance
Federation	Cross-domain confidence
Operational	Runtime reliability

Each vector possesses its own Trust Vector Identifier (TVID).

99. Trust Status

Trust Status summarizes the current constitutional trust condition.

Typical statuses include:

Status	Meaning
Trusted	Fully trusted
Conditionally Trusted	Trust subject to conditions
Under Review	Manual review required
Restricted	Operational restrictions applied
Quarantined	Trust suspended
Revoked	Trust removed

Trust Status reflects governance decisions rather than semantic changes.

100. Operational Flags

Operational Flags communicate runtime conditions affecting trust.

Typical flags include:

quarantine;
replay pending;
federation restricted;
policy violation;
evidence incomplete;
manual review required;
AI recommendation pending.

Operational Flags assist runtime decision-making without altering signal identity.

101. Trust Inputs

Trust computation may consume numerous evidence sources.

Typical inputs include:

canonical signals;
validation results;
validation evidence;
provenance;
telemetry;
historical trust;
federation history;
policy compliance;
replay verification.

TrustGate combines these sources using deterministic trust computation.

102. Trust Lineage

Trust assessments extend computational lineage.

Signal

↓

Validation

↓

Evidence

↓

Trust Assessment

↓

Trust Object

↓

Trust Vector

The lineage chain remains immutable and replayable.

103. Trust Provenance

Every Trust Object shall preserve provenance.

Minimum provenance includes:

originating signal;
producing CMI;
executing MEID/EID;
trust engine version;
policy version;
assessment timestamp;
evidence references.

Trust provenance enables explainability and replay.

104. Trust Lifecycle

Trust artifacts are governed through CALM.

Typical lifecycle stages include:

Created

↓

Evaluated

↓

Published

↓

Observed

↓

Updated

↓

Deprecated

↓

Archived

Trust lifecycle is independent of signal lifecycle.

105. Trust Evolution

Trust may evolve as new evidence becomes available.

Examples include:

additional validation;
replay verification;
federation feedback;
governance decisions;
policy updates.

Evolution creates new Trust Objects.

Historical trust assessments remain immutable.

106. Trust Policies

Trust computation is governed by constitutional policies.

Policies may define:

minimum trust requirements;
evidence thresholds;
federation eligibility;
operational restrictions;
escalation procedures.

Policies influence trust outcomes but never alter signal semantics.

107. Trust Telemetry

Trust computation generates constitutional telemetry.

Typical events include:

assessment started;
assessment completed;
trust updated;
trust degraded;
quarantine applied;
restriction removed.

Telemetry shall be recorded within:

zar.trustgate_telemetry_event

108. Trust Persistence

Trust artifacts are persisted independently from signals.

Typical registries include:

Registry	Purpose
trust_object_registry	Trust Objects (TOIDs)
trust_vector_registry	Trust Vectors (TVIDs)
trust_status	Current trust status
trust_operational_flag	Operational flags
trust_lifecycle_state	Lifecycle state
trust_intelligence_registry	Generated intelligence

This separation preserves architectural independence.

109. Trust and Attestation

Trust assessments may become candidates for Trust Attestations.

Attestations reference:

Trust Objects;
Trust Vectors;
Validation Evidence;
Validation Results;
originating signals.

Trust assessment does not automatically produce an attestation.

110. Trust and Federation

Federated exchanges rely upon trust rather than raw validation.

Receiving ZAYAZ Domains evaluate:

Trust Objects;
Trust Vectors;
Attestations;
replay evidence;
federation policies.

Trust therefore becomes exchangeable across domains.

111. Trust and Replay

Trust shall remain reproducible.

Replay requires preservation of:

originating signals;
validation evidence;
trust policies;
trust engine versions;
computational context.

Replay reproduces constitutional trust outcomes.

112. Trust and AI

AI may assist trust computation.

Examples include:

anomaly detection;
trust drift analysis;
behavioural clustering;
confidence recommendations;
policy recommendations.

AI shall never autonomously replace constitutional trust policies.

AI augments trust assessment but does not govern it.

113. Runtime Governance

Trust computation is governed collectively by:

Framework	Responsibility
CIA	Identity
CALM	Lifecycle
CIR	Constitutional invariants
Validation Rule Registry	Validation evidence
Trust Model	Trust computation
Attestation Catalog	Assurance publication
Replay Specification	Deterministic replay
Federation Profiles	Cross-domain interoperability

Together these frameworks preserve constitutional trust integrity.

114. Constitutional Constraints

Trust computation shall satisfy the following constitutional constraints.

Trust shall never alter canonical signal semantics.
Trust Objects shall remain immutable after publication.
Trust Vectors shall be reproducible.
Trust shall preserve complete provenance.
Trust computation shall remain deterministic.
Trust shall support replay.
Trust shall remain explainable.
Trust shall satisfy constitutional invariants.

These constraints are normative.

115. Summary

Trust Integration transforms validated canonical signals into governed trust artifacts while preserving the immutable identity and semantics of the originating signals.

By separating trust computation from validation, introducing Trust Objects (TOIDs), Trust Vectors (TVIDs), Trust Status, Operational Flags, and governed persistence, the Trust Model enables TrustGate to provide transparent, explainable, deterministic, and replayable trust assessments across the ZAYAZ platform.

The following part extends this assurance chain into the TrustGate Attestation Model, where trust assessments become cryptographically verifiable Trust Attestations (TG-ATTEST) suitable for publication, federation, and long-term assurance.

GitHub Repo Request for Change (RFC)

Part 1 — Foundations​

1. Purpose​

2. Scope​

3. Objectives​

4. Constitutional Principles​

Principle 1 — Semantic First​

Principle 2 — Identity Before Runtime​

Principle 3 — Immutable Semantics​

Principle 4 — Explainability​

Principle 5 — Replayability​

Principle 6 — Federation​

5. Position within the TrustGate Architecture​

6. Relationship to the Canonical Identifier Architecture (CIA)​

7. Relationship to the Universal Signal Ontology (USO)​

8. Relationship to the Canonical Metric Identifier System (CMID)​

9. Relationship to the Validation Rule Registry​

10. Relationship to the Trust Model​

11. Relationship to the Trust Attestation Catalog​

12. Relationship to TG-INTEL​

13. Relationship to Replay​

14. Relationship to Federation​

15. Relationship to Constitutional Frameworks​

16. Constitutional Summary​

Part 2 — Canonical Signal Model​

17. Purpose​

18. What is a Canonical Signal?​

19. Constitutional Characteristics​

20. Canonical Signal Lifecycle​

21. Signal Identity​

22. Canonical Signal Identity Chain​

23. Signal Categories​

24. Signal Types​

25. Signal States​

26. Signal Semantics​

27. Signal Versioning​

28. Signal Relationships​

29. Signal Dependencies​

30. Signal Provenance​

31. Signal Lineage​

32. Signal Quality​

33. Signal Ownership​

34. Signal Visibility​

35. Signal Governance​

36. Constitutional Constraints​

37. Relationship to Runtime​

38. Summary​

Part 3 — Runtime Signal Architecture

39. Purpose​

40. Architectural Overview​

41. Runtime Principles​

42. Signal Birth​

43. Runtime Identity​

44. Runtime Producers​

45. Runtime Consumers​

46. Runtime Signal Flow​

47. Runtime Registration​

48. Runtime Provenance​

49. Runtime Lineage​

50. Runtime Dependencies​

51. Runtime Relationships​

52. Runtime Metadata​

53. Runtime State Management​

54. Runtime Validation Integration​

55. Runtime Trust Integration​

56. Runtime Attestation Integration​

57. Runtime Intelligence Integration​

58. Runtime Telemetry​

59. Runtime Error Handling​

60. Runtime Replay Readiness​

61. Runtime Federation Readiness​

62. Runtime Security​

63. Runtime Governance​

64. Constitutional Constraints​

65. Summary​

Part 4 — Validation Integration​

66. Purpose​

67. Constitutional Principle​

68. Validation Architecture​

69. Relationship to the TrustGate Validation Rule Registry​

70. Validation Rule Binding​

Part 1 — Foundations

1. Purpose

2. Scope

3. Objectives

4. Constitutional Principles

Principle 1 — Semantic First

Principle 2 — Identity Before Runtime

Principle 3 — Immutable Semantics

Principle 4 — Explainability

Principle 5 — Replayability

Principle 6 — Federation

5. Position within the TrustGate Architecture

6. Relationship to the Canonical Identifier Architecture (CIA)

7. Relationship to the Universal Signal Ontology (USO)

8. Relationship to the Canonical Metric Identifier System (CMID)

9. Relationship to the Validation Rule Registry

10. Relationship to the Trust Model

11. Relationship to the Trust Attestation Catalog

12. Relationship to TG-INTEL

13. Relationship to Replay

14. Relationship to Federation

15. Relationship to Constitutional Frameworks

16. Constitutional Summary

Part 2 — Canonical Signal Model

17. Purpose

18. What is a Canonical Signal?

19. Constitutional Characteristics

20. Canonical Signal Lifecycle

21. Signal Identity

22. Canonical Signal Identity Chain

23. Signal Categories

24. Signal Types

25. Signal States

26. Signal Semantics

27. Signal Versioning

28. Signal Relationships

29. Signal Dependencies

30. Signal Provenance

31. Signal Lineage

32. Signal Quality

33. Signal Ownership

34. Signal Visibility

35. Signal Governance

36. Constitutional Constraints

37. Relationship to Runtime

38. Summary

39. Purpose

40. Architectural Overview

41. Runtime Principles

42. Signal Birth

43. Runtime Identity

44. Runtime Producers

45. Runtime Consumers

46. Runtime Signal Flow

47. Runtime Registration

48. Runtime Provenance

49. Runtime Lineage

50. Runtime Dependencies

51. Runtime Relationships

52. Runtime Metadata

53. Runtime State Management

54. Runtime Validation Integration

55. Runtime Trust Integration

56. Runtime Attestation Integration

57. Runtime Intelligence Integration

58. Runtime Telemetry

59. Runtime Error Handling

60. Runtime Replay Readiness

61. Runtime Federation Readiness

62. Runtime Security

63. Runtime Governance

64. Constitutional Constraints

65. Summary

Part 4 — Validation Integration

66. Purpose

67. Constitutional Principle

68. Validation Architecture

69. Relationship to the TrustGate Validation Rule Registry

70. Validation Rule Binding

71. Validation Rule Identifier (VRID)