TG-SC-2
TrustGate Signal Catalog
Part 6 — Attestation Integration
116. Purpose
Attestation Integration defines how canonical TrustGate signals participate in the constitutional assurance publication process.
While the Trust Model determines the confidence that may be placed in a signal and its associated evidence, the Trust Attestation Model publishes that confidence as a governed, immutable, cryptographically verifiable assurance artifact.
Signals therefore contribute to attestations without ever becoming attestations themselves.
117. Constitutional Principle
Attestations reference signals.
Attestations never replace signals.
Signals remain immutable constitutional observations.
Attestations represent governed assurance statements derived from those observations.
118. Position within the Constitutional Assurance Chain
Attestation extends the TrustGate assurance architecture.
Canonical Signal
│
▼
Validation
│
▼
Validation Result (TG-VRES)
│
▼
Validation Evidence (VEVID)
│
▼
Trust Assessment
│
▼
Trust Object (TOID)
│
▼
Trust Vector (TVID)
│
▼
Trust Attestation (TAID)
Each layer contributes additional assurance while preserving previous constitutional artifacts.
119. Relationship to the TrustGate Attestation Catalog
The TrustGate Attestation Catalog is the constitutional authority governing attestation artifacts.
It defines:
- TAIDs;
- attestation lifecycle;
- attestation taxonomy;
- cryptographic trust model;
- federation exchange;
- replay;
- persistence;
- conformance.
The Signal Catalog supplies governed evidence.
The Attestation Catalog governs assurance publication.
120. TrustGate Attestations (TG-ATTEST)
A TrustGate Attestation (TG-ATTEST) represents a published assurance statement.
An attestation may certify:
- signal validity;
- computational integrity;
- trustworthiness;
- regulatory compliance;
- federation readiness;
- governance conformance.
Attestations shall be immutable after publication.
121. Trust Attestation Identifier (TAID)
Every published attestation possesses a globally unique Trust Attestation Identifier (TAID).
Example:
TAID:
TG.ATT.CSRD.2026.00001873
TAIDs provide constitutional identity for assurance artifacts.
Signals reference TAIDs only indirectly through their associated trust assessments.
122. Attestation Inputs
Attestations are constructed from governed evidence.
Typical inputs include:
| Input | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Canonical Signal (CSI) | Semantic identity |
| USO Instance | Runtime observation |
| Validation Results (TG-VRES) | Validation outcomes |
| Validation Evidence (VEVID) | Supporting evidence |
| Trust Objects (TOIDs) | Trust entities |
| Trust Vectors (TVIDs) | Multidimensional trust |
| Governance Policies | Applicable constitutional policies |
No individual input alone constitutes an attestation.
123. Attestation Types
TrustGate supports multiple constitutional attestation types.
Examples include:
- Validation Attestation
- Trust Attestation
- Compliance Attestation
- Replay Attestation
- Federation Attestation
- AI Assurance Attestation
- Operational Attestation
- Regulatory Attestation
Additional types may be introduced without affecting existing semantics.
124. Assurance Levels
Every attestation communicates an assurance level.
Typical levels include:
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| Informational | Informational assurance |
| Basic | Limited assurance |
| Standard | Normal operational assurance |
| Enhanced | High confidence |
| Verified | Independent verification completed |
| Federated | Approved for federation |
Assurance levels are defined by the Attestation Catalog.
125. Attestation Scope
Attestations may apply to different constitutional scopes.
Examples include:
- individual signal;
- signal collection;
- computational workflow;
- reporting package;
- organizational disclosure;
- federated exchange;
- AI-generated intelligence.
Scope does not alter attestation identity.
126. Attestation Provenance
Every attestation preserves complete provenance.
Minimum provenance includes:
- originating signals;
- validation evidence;
- trust assessments;
- producing CMI;
- executing MEID/EID;
- issuing organization (E-C-O™ Number);
- publication timestamp.
Provenance shall remain immutable.
127. Attestation Lineage
Attestations extend the constitutional lineage chain.
Signal
↓
Validation
↓
Evidence
↓
Trust
↓
Attestation
Replay shall reproduce the complete assurance lineage.
128. Attestation Publication
Attestations become authoritative only after publication.
Publication records:
- TAID;
- publication timestamp;
- lifecycle state;
- assurance level;
- cryptographic signature;
- issuing authority.
Publication does not alter previously published signals or trust assessments.
129. Cryptographic Integrity
Published attestations shall support cryptographic verification.
Typical mechanisms include:
- digital signatures;
- certificate chains;
- cryptographic hashes;
- Distributed Assurance Ledger (DAL) anchoring.
Cryptographic mechanisms remain implementation dependent.
130. Attestation Lifecycle
Attestations are governed through CALM.
Typical lifecycle stages include:
Draft
↓
Generated
↓
Reviewed
↓
Published
↓
Federated
↓
Superseded
↓
Archived
Historical attestations remain immutable.
131. Attestation and Federation
Attestations are the preferred constitutional exchange artifact between independent ZAYAZ Domains.
Federated exchanges communicate:
- assurance;
- evidence references;
- trust;
- replay capability;
- governance status.
Raw runtime signals need not be exchanged.
132. Attestation and Replay
Replay shall reproduce published attestations.
Replay requires preservation of:
- TAID;
- originating trust objects;
- validation evidence;
- signal lineage;
- policy versions;
- cryptographic references.
Replay validates constitutional integrity.
133. Attestation and AI
AI may consume attestations as trusted evidence.
AI may:
- rank assurance;
- identify trust patterns;
- detect inconsistencies;
- recommend governance improvements.
AI shall not autonomously publish or revoke attestations.
Publication remains governed.
134. Runtime Governance
Attestation 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 assurance integrity.
135. Constitutional Constraints
Attestation shall satisfy the following constitutional constraints.
- Attestations shall never alter canonical signals.
- Every attestation shall possess a TAID.
- Published attestations shall be immutable.
- Attestations shall preserve complete provenance.
- Attestations shall support cryptographic verification.
- Attestations shall support deterministic replay.
- Attestations shall satisfy constitutional invariants.
These constraints are normative.
136. Summary
Attestation Integration defines how canonical TrustGate signals participate in governed assurance publication.
By separating immutable signals from published assurance artifacts, introducing TAIDs, preserving complete provenance, supporting cryptographic verification, federation interoperability, deterministic replay, and constitutional governance, the TrustGate architecture enables assurance statements to be exchanged with confidence while maintaining the integrity of every underlying signal.
The following part extends the assurance chain into Replay & Federation, where governed signals, validation evidence, trust assessments, and attestations are reproduced and exchanged across independent ZAYAZ Domains without loss of semantic meaning or constitutional integrity.
Part 7 — Replay & Federation
137. Purpose
Replay and Federation extend the constitutional lifecycle of canonical TrustGate signals beyond their originating runtime environment.
Replay guarantees that the complete assurance chain can be deterministically reproduced.
Federation guarantees that the assurance chain can be exchanged, verified, and trusted across independent ZAYAZ Domains without loss of semantic meaning or constitutional integrity.
Together they ensure that TrustGate is both reproducible and interoperable.
138. Constitutional Principles
Replay reproduces constitutional truth.
Federation exchanges constitutional truth.
Neither Replay nor Federation shall alter:
- canonical signal semantics;
- identifiers;
- provenance;
- lineage;
- trust assessments;
- published attestations.
Both capabilities operate on governed artifacts rather than modifying them.
139. Position within the Constitutional Assurance Chain
Replay and Federation extend the constitutional assurance lifecycle.
Signal
│
▼
Validation
│
▼
Evidence
│
▼
Trust
│
▼
Attestation
│
▼
Replay
│
▼
Federation
│
▼
Trust Intelligence
Replay verifies the chain.
Federation exchanges the chain.
140. Replay
Replay is the constitutional capability to reproduce a previously executed assurance chain.
Replay shall reproduce:
- signal identity;
- validation;
- trust computation;
- attestation generation;
- intelligence derivation.
Replay reproduces constitutional outcomes rather than implementation artifacts.
141. Replay Objectives
Replay exists to guarantee:
- determinism;
- auditability;
- explainability;
- verification;
- regulatory assurance;
- computational reproducibility.
Replay is a constitutional requirement for all governed TrustGate artifacts.
142. Replay Inputs
Replay requires preservation of constitutional references.
Minimum replay inputs include:
| Artifact | Purpose |
|---|---|
| CSI | Signal semantics |
| USO ID | Runtime instance |
| VRIDs | Validation rules |
| TG-VRES | Validation results |
| VEVIDs | Validation evidence |
| TOIDs | Trust Objects |
| TVIDs | Trust Vectors |
| TAIDs | Trust Attestations |
| Policy versions | Governance context |
| CALM states | Lifecycle context |
143. Replay Execution
Replay executes the constitutional assurance chain in its original order.
Restore Runtime Context
↓
Restore Signal
↓
Replay Validation
↓
Replay Trust
↓
Replay Attestation
↓
Compare Outcomes
↓
Produce Replay Report
Replay engines shall remain deterministic.
144. Replay Verification
Replay compares reproduced outcomes with historical outcomes.
Verification may confirm:
- identical results;
- acceptable variance;
- policy changes;
- computational drift;
- governance inconsistencies.
Replay verification produces governed telemetry.
145. Replay Integrity
Replay integrity depends upon immutable constitutional artifacts.
Replay shall verify:
- identifiers;
- timestamps;
- cryptographic references;
- evidence lineage;
- policy versions;
- lifecycle states.
Integrity failures shall generate constitutional events.
146. Replay Lineage
Replay extends rather than replaces lineage.
Original Execution
↓
Replay Execution
↓
Replay Verification
↓
Replay Evidence
Replay lineage remains permanently auditable.
147. Replay Telemetry
Replay generates constitutional telemetry.
Typical telemetry includes:
- replay requested;
- replay started;
- replay completed;
- replay failed;
- replay verified;
- replay drift detected.
Telemetry shall be persisted within:
zar.trustgate_telemetry_event
148. Replay Governance
Replay is governed by:
- CALM;
- CIR;
- Replay Specification;
- Validation Rule Registry;
- Trust Model;
- Attestation Catalog.
Replay shall satisfy all constitutional invariants.
149. Federation
Federation enables constitutional assurance exchange between independent ZAYAZ Domains.
Federation exchanges governed assurance artifacts rather than implementation-specific runtime objects.
Federation preserves:
- semantics;
- trust;
- provenance;
- replay capability;
- cryptographic assurance.
150. Federation Objectives
Federation exists to support:
- interoperability;
- cross-domain trust;
- distributed assurance;
- regulatory collaboration;
- supply-chain transparency;
- ecosystem intelligence.
151. Federated Exchange Model
TrustGate exchanges assurance artifacts rather than raw runtime state.
Typical exchange objects include:
| Artifact | Exchange Purpose |
|---|---|
| CSI | Semantic reference |
| TAID | Assurance statement |
| TG-ATTEST | Cryptographic attestation |
| TG-VRES | Validation outcome |
| VEVID | Evidence reference |
| TIID | Intelligence reference |
Receiving domains reconstruct trust from governed artifacts.
152. Federation Trust
Trust is exchanged through attestations rather than assumptions.
Receiving domains may:
- trust directly;
- replay;
- revalidate;
- extend trust;
- reject.
Trust decisions remain locally governed.
153. Federation Profiles
Federation behaviour is governed through TrustGate Federation Profiles.
Profiles define:
- supported protocols;
- accepted assurance levels;
- cryptographic requirements;
- replay requirements;
- governance policies;
- interoperability capabilities.
Profiles ensure predictable federation.
154. Cross-Domain Identity
Canonical identifiers remain globally stable across federation.
Typical identifiers include:
| Identifier | Scope |
|---|---|
| CSI | Global semantic identity |
| CMID | Global metric identity |
| CMI | Managed artifact identity |
| USO ID | Runtime identity |
| VRID | Validation identity |
| TOID | Trust identity |
| TVID | Trust Vector identity |
| TAID | Attestation identity |
| TIID | Intelligence identity |
Identifiers shall never be reissued during federation.
155. Federation Provenance
Federation extends provenance.
Additional provenance includes:
- originating E-C-O ™ Number;
- receiving E-C-O™ Number;
- federation profile;
- exchange timestamp;
- exchange policy;
- exchange outcome.
Federation provenance remains immutable.
156. Federation Security
Federated exchanges shall preserve constitutional integrity.
Typical protections include:
- authenticated endpoints;
- cryptographic signatures;
- certificate validation;
- assurance verification;
- replay protection;
- policy enforcement.
Security mechanisms remain implementation dependent.
157. Federation and Replay
Federation and Replay complement one another.
A receiving ZAYAZ Domain may:
Receive TG-ATTEST
↓
Verify Signature
↓
Replay Validation
↓
Replay Trust
↓
Verify Attestation
↓
Accept or Reject
Replay strengthens federation trust.
Federation extends replay beyond organizational boundaries.
158. Runtime Governance
Replay and Federation are governed collectively by:
| Framework | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| CIA | Identity |
| CALM | Lifecycle |
| CIR | Constitutional invariants |
| Replay Specification | Deterministic replay |
| Federation Profiles | Cross-domain interoperability |
| Trust Model | Trust computation |
| Attestation Catalog | Assurance publication |
Together these frameworks preserve constitutional continuity.
159. Constitutional Constraints
Replay and Federation shall satisfy the following constitutional constraints.
- Replay shall reproduce constitutional outcomes.
- Federation shall preserve canonical semantics.
- Identifiers shall remain immutable.
- Provenance shall remain complete.
- Assurance artifacts shall remain verifiable.
- Replay shall support deterministic verification.
- Federation shall preserve replay capability.
- Constitutional invariants shall always be enforced.
These constraints are normative.
160. Summary
Replay and Federation ensure that canonical TrustGate signals remain trustworthy beyond their original execution context.
Replay guarantees deterministic reproduction of the complete assurance chain.
Federation enables independent ZAYAZ Domains to exchange governed assurance artifacts without sacrificing semantic consistency, trust, provenance, or replay capability.
Together they transform TrustGate from a runtime assurance framework into a distributed constitutional trust ecosystem capable of supporting long-term governance, regulatory assurance, and federated sustainability intelligence.
The following part extends this architecture into AI & Trust Intelligence, where governed signals and assurance artifacts become inputs for explainable intelligence while preserving constitutional integrity.
Part 8 — AI & Trust Intelligence
161. Purpose
Trust Intelligence extends the constitutional TrustGate architecture by transforming governed observations and assurance artifacts into explainable knowledge.
Unlike validation, trust assessment, or attestation, Trust Intelligence does not determine whether something is valid or trustworthy.
Instead, it interprets governed constitutional evidence to generate insights, recommendations, predictions, and intelligence while preserving complete explainability and provenance.
Trust Intelligence represents the highest constitutional layer within the TrustGate assurance architecture.
162. Constitutional Principle
Trust Intelligence interprets constitutional truth.
It never changes constitutional truth.
Trust Intelligence shall never modify:
- canonical signals;
- validation results;
- validation evidence;
- trust assessments;
- published attestations.
Instead, it produces new governed intelligence artifacts that reference existing constitutional artifacts.
163. Position within the Constitutional Architecture
Trust Intelligence consumes governed constitutional artifacts.
Signal
│
▼
Validation
│
▼
Trust
│
▼
Attestation
│
▼
Replay
│
▼
Federation
│
▼
Trust Intelligence (TIID)
Trust Intelligence builds upon constitutional evidence.
It never replaces it.
164. Trust Intelligence
Trust Intelligence represents explainable knowledge derived from governed constitutional artifacts.
Typical outputs include:
- anomaly detection;
- behavioural analysis;
- governance recommendations;
- trend identification;
- predictive assessment;
- confidence estimation;
- optimization recommendations;
- ecosystem intelligence.
Trust Intelligence is always evidence-based.
165. Trust Intelligence Identifier (TIID)
Every governed intelligence artifact possesses a globally unique Trust Intelligence Identifier (TIID).
Example:
TIID:
TG.INTEL.ESG.2026.00008194
The TIID represents the constitutional identity of an intelligence artifact.
166. Intelligence Inputs
Trust Intelligence may consume multiple constitutional artifact classes.
Typical inputs include:
| Artifact | Purpose |
|---|---|
| CSI | Signal semantics |
| USO ID | Runtime observations |
| TG-VRES | Validation outcomes |
| VEVID | Validation evidence |
| TOID | Trust Objects |
| TVID | Trust Vectors |
| TAID | Published attestations |
| Replay Results | Verification outcomes |
| Federation Metadata | Cross-domain evidence |
Intelligence is always traceable to governed inputs.
167. Intelligence Producers
Trust Intelligence may be generated by different computational approaches.
Examples include:
| Producer | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Rule Engines | Deterministic reasoning |
| Statistical Models | Quantitative analysis |
| Bayesian Models | Probabilistic reasoning |
| Monte Carlo Simulation | Risk estimation |
| Optimization Engines | Decision support |
| Graph Analytics | Relationship discovery |
| Machine Learning | Pattern recognition |
| Generative AI | Explainable recommendations |
| Future Computational Models | Emerging techniques |
The producing method does not alter constitutional governance.
168. Explainability
Every intelligence artifact shall remain explainable.
Explainability shall include:
- originating evidence;
- computational method;
- governing policies;
- producing engine;
- confidence;
- assumptions;
- limitations.
Explainability is mandatory.
169. Intelligence Provenance
Every TIID shall preserve complete provenance.
Minimum provenance includes:
- originating constitutional artifacts;
- producing CMI;
- executing MEID/EID;
- computational method;
- model version;
- execution timestamp;
- policy references.
Intelligence provenance shall remain immutable.
170. Intelligence Lineage
Trust Intelligence extends constitutional lineage.
Signal
↓
Validation
↓
Trust
↓
Attestation
↓
Replay
↓
Federation
↓
Trust Intelligence
Complete lineage shall remain replayable.
171. Intelligence Categories
Trust Intelligence may be classified into constitutional categories.
Examples include:
| Category | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Descriptive | Explain current state |
| Diagnostic | Explain causes |
| Predictive | Estimate future behaviour |
| Prescriptive | Recommend actions |
| Comparative | Compare organizations |
| Strategic | Long-term planning |
| Regulatory | Compliance insights |
| Ecosystem | Cross-domain intelligence |
Categories improve discoverability.
172. Confidence
Every intelligence artifact shall include a confidence assessment.
Confidence may consider:
- evidence quality;
- validation completeness;
- trust level;
- computational certainty;
- historical consistency.
Confidence supports interpretation rather than governance.
173. Intelligence Lifecycle
Trust Intelligence artifacts are governed through CALM.
Typical lifecycle includes:
Generated
↓
Reviewed
↓
Published
↓
Observed
↓
Superseded
↓
Archived
Historical intelligence remains immutable.
174. Intelligence Replay
Trust Intelligence shall be reproducible.
Replay requires preservation of:
- originating artifacts;
- computational models;
- policy versions;
- execution parameters;
- producing engine versions.
Replay reproduces constitutional intelligence.
175. Intelligence Federation
Trust Intelligence may be exchanged between trusted ZAYAZ Domains.
Federated intelligence shall preserve:
- provenance;
- confidence;
- lineage;
- replay capability;
- constitutional references.
Receiving domains remain responsible for local interpretation.
176. AI Governance
Artificial Intelligence is governed as a computational producer rather than a constitutional authority.
AI may:
- analyse;
- recommend;
- summarize;
- prioritize;
- predict;
- explain.
AI shall not autonomously:
- redefine canonical semantics;
- publish attestations;
- modify trust;
- alter validation outcomes;
- violate constitutional invariants.
Governance remains constitutional.
177. Runtime Governance
Trust Intelligence is governed collectively by:
| Framework | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| CIA | Identity |
| CALM | Lifecycle |
| CIR | Constitutional invariants |
| Validation Rule Registry | Evidence |
| Trust Model | Trust computation |
| Attestation Catalog | Assurance publication |
| Replay Specification | Deterministic replay |
| Federation Profiles | Cross-domain interoperability |
These frameworks preserve constitutional intelligence integrity.
178. Constitutional Constraints
Trust Intelligence shall satisfy the following constitutional constraints.
- Intelligence shall never modify constitutional artifacts.
- Every intelligence artifact shall possess a TIID.
- Intelligence shall remain explainable.
- Intelligence shall preserve provenance.
- Intelligence shall support replay.
- Intelligence shall preserve lineage.
- Intelligence shall satisfy constitutional invariants.
These constraints are normative.
179. Summary
Trust Intelligence represents the constitutional knowledge layer of the TrustGate architecture.
By transforming governed observations, validation evidence, trust assessments, attestations, replay results, and federated assurance into explainable, reproducible intelligence artifacts, Trust Intelligence enables organizations to move beyond compliance toward continuous governance, predictive insight, and ecosystem-wide sustainability intelligence.
The following part defines the Persistence, SQL, APIs, registries, and constitutional relationships that enable Trust Intelligence and every preceding assurance layer to operate as a coherent, scalable, and replayable platform.
Part 9 — Persistence, SQL & APIs
180. Purpose
Persistence defines how canonical TrustGate signals are stored, identified, queried, and exchanged within the ZAYAZ platform.
Persistence shall preserve constitutional identity, provenance, lineage, replayability, and interoperability while remaining independent of any specific database technology or implementation.
The Signal Catalog specifies the canonical persistence model rather than a particular storage engine.
181. Constitutional Principle
Persistence stores constitutional artifacts.
Persistence never changes constitutional artifacts.
Stored signals shall preserve:
- identity;
- semantics;
- provenance;
- lineage;
- lifecycle;
- replay compatibility.
Persistence is therefore a preservation mechanism rather than a computational mechanism.
182. Canonical Persistence Architecture
Signal persistence follows the constitutional TrustGate architecture.
CSI Registry
│
▼
USO Type Registry
│
▼
USO Instance
│
▼
Validation
│
▼
Trust
│
▼
Attestation
│
▼
Trust Intelligence
Each constitutional layer persists its own governed artifacts.
183. Primary Signal Registries
The canonical Signal Catalog is persisted through dedicated registries.
| Registry | Purpose |
|---|---|
zar.canonical_signal_registry | Canonical Signal Identifiers (CSI) |
zar.uso_type_registry | Canonical USO Types |
zar.uso_type_level_registry | Controlled ontology vocabulary |
zar.uso_instance | Runtime signal instances |
These registries define the constitutional signal layer.
184. Assurance Registries
Signals participate in multiple assurance registries.
| Registry | Purpose |
|---|---|
zar.validation_rule_registry | Validation Rules (VRID) |
zar.trust_object_registry | Trust Objects (TOID) |
zar.trust_vector_registry | Trust Vectors (TVID) |
zar.trust_status | Current trust status |
zar.trust_operational_flag | Runtime operational conditions |
zar.trust_intelligence_registry | Trust Intelligence (TIID) |
Each registry owns its respective constitutional artifacts.
185. Runtime Persistence
Runtime observations are stored independently from canonical definitions.
Every runtime observation shall preserve:
- USO ID;
- CSI;
- producing CMI;
- producing MEID/EID;
- timestamps;
- provenance;
- execution context.
Runtime persistence shall support deterministic replay.
186. Canonical Relationships
Persistence relies on immutable constitutional relationships.
CSI
↓
USO Type
↓
USO Instance
↓
VRID
↓
TG-VRES
↓
VEVID
↓
TOID
↓
TVID
↓
TAID
↓
TIID
Relationships shall remain immutable after publication.
187. Referential Integrity
All constitutional relationships shall preserve referential integrity.
Examples include:
- USO Instance → CSI
- Validation Result → VRID
- Validation Evidence → TG-VRES
- Trust Object → VEVID
- Trust Vector → TOID
- Attestation → TVID
- Trust Intelligence → TAID
Broken constitutional references are prohibited.
188. Constitutional APIs
Signals shall be accessible through governed APIs.
Typical API capabilities include:
- retrieve CSI;
- retrieve USO instances;
- retrieve provenance;
- retrieve lineage;
- retrieve trust;
- retrieve attestations;
- retrieve intelligence.
APIs expose constitutional artifacts without modifying them.
189. API Design Principles
TrustGate APIs shall satisfy the following principles.
- resource-oriented;
- versioned;
- deterministic;
- replay-aware;
- immutable identifiers;
- pagination support;
- explainable responses.
APIs shall expose constitutional state rather than implementation details.
190. API Resources
Typical constitutional resources include:
/csi
/uso-types
/uso-instances
/validation-results
/validation-evidence
/trust-objects
/trust-vectors
/attestations
/trust-intelligence
Additional resources may be introduced without altering existing contracts.
191. SQL Design Principles
SQL persistence shall preserve constitutional governance.
Tables should satisfy:
- immutable primary identifiers;
- normalized relationships;
- foreign-key integrity;
- version awareness;
- replay compatibility;
- auditability.
Implementation remains database independent.
192. Identifier Persistence
Every constitutional identifier shall be persisted exactly once.
Examples include:
| Identifier | Registry |
|---|---|
| CSI | canonical_signal_registry |
| USO ID | uso_instance |
| VRID | validation_rule_registry |
| TOID | trust_object_registry |
| TVID | trust_vector_registry |
| TAID | trust_attestation_registry |
| TIID | trust_intelligence_registry |
Identifiers shall never be reassigned.
193. Provenance Persistence
Provenance shall remain queryable.
Typical provenance queries include:
- originating organization;
- producing CMI;
- producing MEID;
- execution history;
- policy version;
- federation origin.
Complete provenance supports audit and replay.
194. Lineage Persistence
Lineage shall support traversal in both directions.
Typical queries include:
Forward:
Signal
↓
Validation
↓
Trust
↓
Attestation
↓
Intelligence
Reverse:
Intelligence
↑
Attestation
↑
Trust
↑
Validation
↑
Signal
Bidirectional traversal supports explainability.
195. Replay Support
Persistence shall preserve all information required for deterministic replay.
Replay requires:
- immutable identifiers;
- timestamps;
- versions;
- lineage;
- provenance;
- policy references.
Replay shall not require external reconstruction.
196. Federation Support
Persistence shall preserve constitutional federation metadata.
Examples include:
- issuing E-C-O™ Number;
- receiving E-C-O™ Number;
- federation profile;
- exchange identifiers;
- cryptographic references.
Federation metadata remains immutable.
197. Runtime Governance
Persistence is governed collectively by:
| Framework | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| CIA | Identity |
| CALM | Lifecycle |
| CIR | Constitutional invariants |
| Signal Catalog | Signal persistence |
| Validation Rule Registry | Validation persistence |
| Trust Model | Trust persistence |
| Attestation Catalog | Attestation persistence |
| Replay Specification | Replay persistence |
Together these frameworks preserve constitutional persistence.
198. Constitutional Constraints
Persistence shall satisfy the following constitutional constraints.
- Constitutional identifiers shall remain immutable.
- Referential integrity shall always be preserved.
- Lineage shall remain complete.
- Provenance shall remain queryable.
- APIs shall expose constitutional artifacts.
- Persistence shall support deterministic replay.
- Persistence shall satisfy constitutional invariants.
These constraints are normative.
199. Summary
The Persistence, SQL & APIs model defines how canonical TrustGate signals and their associated assurance artifacts are stored, related, queried, and exchanged while preserving constitutional identity, lineage, provenance, replayability, and interoperability.
By separating persistence responsibilities across dedicated registries, enforcing immutable identifiers and referential integrity, and exposing governed APIs, the architecture ensures that every constitutional artifact remains durable, explainable, scalable, and suitable for federation across the ZAYAZ ecosystem.
The following part defines Conformance & Reference Invariants, specifying the mandatory requirements that implementations must satisfy to be considered compliant with the constitutional TrustGate Signal Catalog.
Part 10 — Constitutional Conformance & Reference Architecture
200. Purpose
This chapter defines the constitutional requirements that every implementation of the TrustGate Signal Catalog shall satisfy.
It also summarizes the foundational architectural frameworks upon which the Signal Catalog depends and provides a reference model for implementers, reviewers, auditors, and federation partners.
Conformance is measured against constitutional behaviour rather than implementation technology.
201. Constitutional Principle
Implementations may differ.
Constitutional behaviour shall not.
Regardless of programming language, database, infrastructure, deployment model, or federation topology, every implementation shall preserve the constitutional guarantees defined by the TrustGate Signal Catalog.
202. Constitutional Foundation Frameworks
The Signal Catalog operates upon four foundational constitutional frameworks.
| Framework | Purpose |
|---|---|
| CIA | Canonical Identity Architecture |
| CPA | Canonical Persistence Architecture |
| CALM | Canonical Artifact Lifecycle Model |
| CIR | Canonical Invariant Registry |
Together these frameworks define identity, persistence, lifecycle, and invariant governance for all constitutional artifacts.
203. CIA — Canonical Identity Architecture
CIA governs the constitutional identity of every artifact.
CIA guarantees:
- globally unique identifiers;
- immutable identity;
- semantic stability;
- canonical naming;
- identity resolution;
- federation-safe references.
Examples include:
- CSI
- USO ID
- VRID
- TOID
- TVID
- TAID
- TIID
- CMI
- CMID
- MEID
- EID
204. CPA — Canonical Persistence Architecture
CPA governs the persistence of constitutional artifacts.
CPA guarantees:
- immutable storage;
- referential integrity;
- normalized relationships;
- durable provenance;
- replay compatibility;
- federation-ready persistence.
Persistence technology remains implementation independent.
205. CALM — Canonical Artifact Lifecycle Model
CALM governs lifecycle transitions.
CALM guarantees:
- controlled state transitions;
- immutable historical states;
- lifecycle traceability;
- publication governance;
- retirement governance.
Every constitutional artifact participates in CALM.
206. CIR — Canonical Invariant Registry
CIR governs constitutional invariants.
Invariant families include:
- identity;
- persistence;
- lifecycle;
- provenance;
- lineage;
- validation;
- trust;
- replay;
- federation;
- explainability.
Every implementation shall satisfy all applicable invariants.
207. Constitutional Artifact Classes
The TrustGate architecture classifies artifacts into four constitutional classes.
| Artifact Class | Purpose | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Observational | Describe reality | CSI, USO |
| Assurance | Verify reality | TG-VRES, VEVID, TOID, TVID, TAID |
| Knowledge | Interpret reality | TIID, TG-INTEL |
| Exchange | Transport constitutional truth | TG-ATTEST, Replay Packages, Federation Packages |
Artifact classes clarify governance responsibilities without affecting artifact identity.
208. Required Registries
Conforming implementations shall preserve the constitutional registries defined by the TrustGate architecture.
Minimum registries include:
- Canonical Signal Registry
- USO Type Registry
- USO Instance Registry
- Validation Rule Registry
- Trust Object Registry
- Trust Vector Registry
- Trust Status Registry
- Operational Flag Registry
- Trust Intelligence Registry
Equivalent implementations are permitted provided constitutional behaviour is preserved.
209. Required Constitutional Capabilities
A conforming implementation shall support the complete constitutional lifecycle.
Collect
↓
Observe
↓
Assure
↓
Understand
↓
Treat
↓
Exchange
These capabilities define the operational philosophy of the ZAYAZ platform.
210. Constitutional Relationships
The following constitutional dependency chain shall be preserved.
Signal
↓
Validation
↓
Trust
↓
Attestation
↓
Replay
↓
Federation
↓
Trust Intelligence
Each layer extends the previous layer without modifying it.
211. Conformance Levels
Implementations may declare conformance at different maturity levels.
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| Level 1 | Identity & Signal conformance |
| Level 2 | Validation conformance |
| Level 3 | Trust conformance |
| Level 4 | Attestation conformance |
| Level 5 | Replay & Federation conformance |
| Level 6 | Trust Intelligence conformance |
Higher levels include all lower levels.
212. Implementation Independence
Nothing within this specification mandates:
- database platform;
- programming language;
- cloud provider;
- deployment architecture;
- API framework;
- cryptographic implementation.
Only constitutional behaviour is normative.
213. Constitutional Constraints
A conforming implementation shall satisfy the following constitutional requirements.
- Preserve immutable identifiers.
- Preserve semantic stability.
- Preserve complete provenance.
- Preserve complete lineage.
- Support deterministic replay.
- Preserve replay compatibility.
- Preserve federation interoperability.
- Preserve explainability.
- Preserve constitutional invariants.
These requirements are mandatory.
214. Reference Architecture
The constitutional TrustGate Signal architecture may be summarized as follows.
Collect
│
▼
Observe
│
▼
Assure
│
▼
Understand
│
▼
Treat
│
▼
Exchange
Supporting constitutional frameworks:
CIA
CPA
CALM
CIR
Supporting TrustGate architecture:
Signal Catalog
↓
Validation Rule Registry
↓
Trust Model
↓
Attestation Catalog
↓
Replay Specification
↓
Federation Profiles
↓
Trust Intelligence
Together these components constitute the constitutional TrustGate architecture.
215. Summary
The TrustGate Signal Catalog defines the constitutional foundation for governed sustainability observations within the ZAYAZ platform.
By combining immutable identity (CIA), governed persistence (CPA), controlled lifecycle management (CALM), constitutional invariants (CIR), and the layered TrustGate assurance architecture, the specification enables organizations to build interoperable, deterministic, explainable, and federated sustainability intelligence systems.
Implementations that conform to this specification become constitutionally compatible participants within the broader ZAYAZ ecosystem, supporting trusted observation, assurance, intelligence, and exchange across independent ZAYAZ Domains.