TG-VRR-1
TrustGate Validation Rule Registry
The TrustGate Validation Rule Registry (TVRR) is the canonical governance and execution specification for validation within TrustGate. While centered around the registry of validation rules, it also defines the lifecycle, execution model, bindings, runtime artifacts, replay model, and governance required for deterministic, explainable, and federated validation across the ZAYAZ platform.
The complete TrustGate documentation is separated into three layers:
| Layer | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Normative Specifications | TrustGate MIB, Trust Model, Validation Rule Registry, Replay Specification, Federation Profiles |
| Canonical Catalogs | CSI Catalog, Signal Catalog, Micro-Engine Catalog, Attestation Catalog, Decision Catalog, Event Catalog |
| Implementation Specifications | DAL, EGFS, DSAIL, Scheduler, SQL models, APIs |
The normative specifications define how TrustGate must behave, the catalogs define what exists, and the implementation specifications define how it is realized.
This separation should make the platform easier to evolve while keeping governance and interoperability consistent.
Part 1 — Foundation
1. Purpose
The TrustGate Validation Rule Registry (TVRR) defines the canonical executable validation rules used throughout the ZAYAZ platform.
It serves as the authoritative registry for all TrustGate validation logic and provides the bridge between:
- constitutional invariants (CIR);
- semantic definitions (CSI);
- runtime execution;
- replay;
- federation;
- AI explainability.
Unlike the Canonical Invariant Registry, which specifies what must always be true, the Validation Rule Registry specifies how those truths are evaluated.
2. Scope
This specification governs validation rules executed by:
- TrustGate;
- Validation Engines;
- Runtime Validators;
- Replay Engine;
- Federation Validators;
- DAL Validation;
- Scheduler;
- Runtime Configuration Engine;
- Micro-engines (MEID);
- Major engines (EID).
The registry applies to both synchronous and asynchronous validation.
3. Objectives
The Validation Rule Registry shall:
- define executable validation rules;
- ensure deterministic execution;
- support replay;
- support explainability;
- support federation;
- support telemetry;
- support AI learning;
- support governance;
- support versioning;
- support backward compatibility.
4. Architectural Position
The registry occupies the executable layer of the TrustGate constitutional stack.
CIA
│
▼
CIR
│
▼
Validation Rule Registry
│
▼
Validation Engine
│
▼
Runtime Decision
│
▼
Telemetry
│
▼
Replay
│
▼
Trust Object
5. Relationship to CIR
Every executable validation rule shall evaluate one or more registered invariants.
Example:
INVID-ZYZ-000031
↓
TG-VAL-00412
↓
Executed by
↓
MEID-TRUST-VALIDATOR-001
↓
Result
PASS
Validation rules never replace invariants.
They operationalize them.
6. Validation Philosophy
Validation shall be:
- deterministic;
- reproducible;
- explainable;
- replayable;
- version-controlled;
- telemetry-visible;
- machine-readable;
- auditable.
The same input shall always produce the same validation result when evaluated using identical rule versions and runtime configuration.
7. Constitutional Role
Validation rules constitute the executable implementation of architectural governance.
A validation rule:
- evaluates evidence;
- measures compliance;
- produces outcomes;
- emits telemetry;
- supports replay;
- contributes to trust.
Validation rules never define architecture.
Architecture is defined by:
- CIA;
- CIR;
- CSI;
- Trust Model.
8. Canonical Validation Flow
Artifact
│
▼
Applicable Invariants
│
▼
Applicable Validation Rules
│
▼
Validation Execution
│
▼
Validation Result
│
▼
Telemetry
│
▼
Trust Assessment
│
▼
Replay Evidence
│
▼
DAL
│
▼
Federation
│
▼
TG-INTEL
9. Validation Rule Identifier
Every canonical validation rule shall possess a permanent Validation Rule Identifier.
Format:
TG-VAL-000001
Structure:
| Segment | Meaning |
|---|---|
| TG | TrustGate |
| VAL | Validation Rule |
| 000001 | Sequential immutable identifier |
Validation Rule Identifiers:
- are immutable;
- are globally unique;
- are version-independent;
- are never reused.
10. Validation Rule vs Invariant
| Canonical Invariant | Validation Rule |
|---|---|
| Constitutional truth | Executable evaluation |
| Declares what must always be true | Determines whether it is true |
| Stable | Evolves with implementation |
| INVID | TG-VAL |
| Architecture | Execution |
One invariant may have multiple validation rules.
One validation rule may evaluate multiple invariants.
11. Relationship to CIA
Validation rules reference canonical identifiers but do not replace them.
Typical execution:
CMID
│
▼
CSI
│
▼
USO Instance
│
▼
Validation Rule
│
▼
Trust Result
The Validation Rule Registry is identifier-aware but does not mint identifiers.
12. Relationship to Trust Model
Validation contributes directly to:
- Trust Objects (TOID);
- Trust Vectors (TVID);
- Trust Intelligence (TG-INTEL);
- Trust Operational Flags;
- Trust Lifecycle States.
Validation is therefore one of the primary producers of trust evidence.
13. Relationship to Micro-Engines
Validation rules are executed by micro-engines.
Example:
TG-VAL-00117
↓
MEID-VERIFY-TOID
↓
Result
PASS
A micro-engine may execute:
- one rule;
- several rules;
- rule groups.
14. Relationship to Major Engines
Major engines coordinate validation execution.
Example:
EID-TRUSTGATE
↓
Validation Coordinator
↓
MEID-001
MEID-002
MEID-003
↓
TG-VAL execution
Major engines orchestrate validation.
Micro-engines execute validation.
15. Relationship to Runtime Configuration
Validation shall always execute against a resolved runtime configuration.
Evaluation therefore depends on:
- rule version;
- runtime configuration version;
- policy version;
- feature flags;
- deployment profile.
Historical replay shall resolve the historical configuration snapshot.
16. Relationship to Replay
Replay shall execute historical validation rules without substitution.
Replay therefore reconstructs:
- rule version;
- runtime configuration;
- invariant version;
- artifact version;
- telemetry context.
Replay correctness depends upon deterministic validation.
17. Relationship to Federation
Federation exchanges validation evidence rather than executable rules.
Partners may:
- verify outcomes;
- verify lineage;
- verify attestations;
- verify signatures.
Partners shall not assume identical local validation implementations unless explicitly agreed through Federation Profiles.
18. Relationship to DSAIL
Validation results provide one of the richest sources of learning evidence.
DSAIL may consume:
- validation failures;
- rule frequencies;
- false positives;
- false negatives;
- drift indicators;
- replay discrepancies;
- TG-INTEL outcomes.
DSAIL shall never modify canonical validation rules directly.
Any proposed optimisation shall follow governance and publication workflows.
19. Canonical Principles
The Validation Rule Registry is governed by the following principles:
- constitutional alignment;
- deterministic execution;
- explainability;
- replayability;
- telemetry-first design;
- versioned governance;
- federation compatibility;
- AI transparency;
- implementation independence.
These principles guide every subsequent chapter of this specification.
Part 2 — Canonical Validation Model
20. Purpose
The Canonical Validation Model defines the fundamental runtime objects, relationships, and execution semantics of validation within TrustGate.
It establishes a deterministic, replayable, and explainable model for evaluating constitutional invariants, producing trust evidence, and contributing to operational assurance.
Unlike the Canonical Invariant Registry (CIR), which defines what must always be true, the Canonical Validation Model defines how invariants are evaluated, how outcomes are represented, and how validation evidence propagates through the TrustGate ecosystem.
21. Canonical Validation Object Family
The Validation Rule Registry defines the following canonical object family.
| Object | Purpose |
|---|---|
| TG-VAL | Canonical Validation Rule |
| TG-VCTX | Validation Execution Context |
| TG-VRES | Validation Result |
| TG-VEVID | Validation Evidence |
| TG-VTRACE | Validation Trace |
| TG-VSET | Validation Rule Set |
Together these objects describe every aspect of validation execution.
22. TG-VAL — Canonical Validation Rule
TG-VAL represents the executable definition of a validation rule.
It is the primary executable artifact within the Validation Rule Registry.
Each TG-VAL:
- evaluates one or more CIR invariants;
- executes deterministic logic;
- produces one or more validation results;
- may consume one or more canonical signals (CSI);
- may execute within one or more micro-engines (MEID);
- may contribute to Trust Objects and Trust Vectors.
TG-VAL is immutable once published.
New behaviour requires a new version.
23. TG-VAL Identifier
Every validation rule shall possess a globally unique Validation Rule Identifier.
Format:
TG-VAL-000001
Characteristics:
- immutable;
- globally unique;
- version-independent;
- replay-safe;
- permanently assigned.
24. TG-VCTX — Validation Execution Context
Validation never executes in isolation.
Every execution occurs inside a Validation Execution Context (TG-VCTX).
The context records:
- runtime configuration;
- policy snapshot;
- configuration profile;
- execution timestamp;
- triggering artifact;
- producing engine;
- executing micro-engine;
- replay mode;
- federation context;
- security context.
The Validation Execution Context guarantees deterministic replay.
25. TG-VRES — Validation Result
TG-VRES represents the canonical outcome produced by a validation rule.
Every TG-VAL execution produces one or more TG-VRES objects.
Validation Results become permanent assurance artifacts.
Typical contents include:
- rule identifier;
- execution timestamp;
- outcome;
- confidence;
- evaluated invariant(s);
- execution duration;
- supporting evidence;
- telemetry reference.
26. TG-VRES Identifier
Each Validation Result receives a globally unique runtime identifier.
Example:
VRES-ZYZ-20260704-000000123
Unlike TG-VAL identifiers, Validation Result identifiers represent runtime instances.
27. TG-VEVID — Validation Evidence
Validation Evidence represents the factual basis used during evaluation.
Evidence may include:
- canonical signals;
- Trust Objects;
- Trust Vectors;
- replay artifacts;
- external attestations;
- telemetry;
- configuration snapshots;
- federation evidence;
- DAL proofs.
Evidence shall remain immutable.
28. TG-VTRACE — Validation Trace
Every validation execution produces a Validation Trace.
The trace records:
- executed rules;
- execution order;
- dependency graph;
- evaluated artifacts;
- referenced identifiers;
- telemetry events;
- replay metadata;
- produced trust evidence.
Validation traces enable:
- replay;
- debugging;
- explainability;
- auditing;
- AI learning.
29. TG-VSET — Validation Rule Set
Validation rules may be grouped into Validation Rule Sets.
Examples include:
- Trust Object Rules;
- Replay Rules;
- Federation Rules;
- Identity Rules;
- DAL Rules;
- AI Rules.
Rule Sets simplify orchestration and version management.
30. Validation Relationships
The canonical validation relationships are illustrated below.
INVID
│
▼
TG-VAL
│
▼
TG-VCTX
│
▼
TG-VRES
│
▼
TG-VEVID
│
▼
TG-VTRACE
│
▼
Trust Object
│
▼
Trust Vector
│
▼
TG-INTEL
This chain defines the complete lifecycle of validation.
31. Validation Outcome Taxonomy
Every Validation Result shall belong to one canonical outcome.
| Outcome | Meaning |
|---|---|
| PASS | Rule satisfied |
| FAIL | Rule violated |
| WARNING | Potential issue detected |
| INFO | Informational outcome |
| SKIPPED | Evaluation intentionally skipped |
| QUARANTINED | Awaiting additional evidence |
| INDETERMINATE | Unable to reach deterministic conclusion |
| ERROR | Execution failure |
Outcome semantics shall remain stable across versions.
32. Validation State Model
Validation progresses through defined lifecycle states.
Created
│
▼
Scheduled
│
▼
Executing
│
▼
Completed
│
├─────────────┐
▼ ▼
Archived Replayed
Historical state transitions shall be preserved.
33. Validation Evidence Lineage
Validation preserves complete lineage.
CMID
│
▼
CSI
│
▼
USO
│
▼
TG-VEVID
│
▼
TG-VRES
│
▼
Trust Object
No validation result shall exist without traceable evidence lineage.
34. Relationship to Trust Objects
Validation contributes directly to Trust Objects.
Examples include:
- creating trust assessments;
- updating trust vectors;
- changing operational flags;
- generating TG-INTEL;
- influencing trust lifecycle.
Validation does not own Trust Objects.
It produces evidence consumed by them.
35. Relationship to Micro-Engines
Validation execution is delegated to MEIDs.
Examples:
TG-VAL-000124
↓
MEID-VERIFY-TOID
TG-VAL-000201
↓
MEID-VERIFY-TVID
TG-VAL-000387
↓
MEID-VERIFY-REPLAY
The Validation Rule Registry defines what shall execute.
Micro-engines define how execution is performed.
36. Relationship to Major Engines
Major engines (EIDs) orchestrate validation workflows.
Typical orchestration:
EID-TRUSTGATE
↓
Validation Coordinator
↓
Rule Set
↓
MEIDs
↓
Validation Results
Major engines never replace TG-VAL definitions.
37. Validation Principles
The Canonical Validation Model is governed by the following principles:
- determinism;
- constitutional alignment;
- replayability;
- explainability;
- immutability;
- telemetry-first design;
- implementation independence;
- federation compatibility;
- AI transparency;
- evidence preservation.
These principles apply to every validation rule, execution context, and validation result produced within TrustGate.
Part 3 — Validation Rule Model
38. Purpose
The Validation Rule Model defines the canonical structure, lifecycle, governance, metadata, and semantics of a TrustGate validation rule.
A validation rule is not merely code.
It is a governed executable artifact that operationalizes one or more canonical invariants, evaluates evidence, produces deterministic outcomes, emits telemetry, and contributes to trust, replay, federation, and AI explainability.
39. Canonical Definition
A TrustGate validation rule is defined as:
A versioned, governed, deterministic executable rule that evaluates whether one or more artifacts satisfy one or more canonical invariants under a defined execution context. Every validation rule shall be:
- uniquely identified;
- versioned;
- governed;
- deterministic;
- replay-compatible;
- mapped to applicable invariants;
- mapped to executing engines or micro-engines;
- capable of producing canonical validation results.
40. TG-VAL as Rule Definition
TG-VAL identifies the validation rule definition.
Example:
TG-VAL-000001
TG-VAL represents the stable rule artifact.
It does not represent a runtime execution.
Runtime executions shall be represented separately by VRID, introduced in the Runtime Validation Model.
41. Validation Rule Object
A canonical validation rule shall contain the following metadata.
| Field | Purpose |
|---|---|
tg_val_id | Canonical validation rule identifier |
canonical_name | Human-readable rule name |
description | Normative rule description |
rationale | Why the rule exists |
invid_refs | CIR invariants evaluated |
rule_domain | Primary validation domain |
rule_category | Validation category |
severity | Impact of failure |
enforcement_level | Mandatory, conditional, advisory, informational |
failure_policy | Runtime response on failure |
applicable_artifacts | Artifact types governed by the rule |
input_csi_refs | CSI inputs consumed |
output_csi_refs | CSI outputs produced |
eid_refs | Major engines coordinating the rule |
meid_refs | Micro-engines executing the rule |
cmi_refs | Executable implementations |
status | Draft, active, deprecated, retired |
version | Rule version |
owner | Responsible governance owner |
42. Rule Domains
Validation rules are organized by primary domain.
Examples include:
| Domain | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Identity | Identifier correctness |
| Semantic | Meaning and ontology correctness |
| Structural | Schema and datatype correctness |
| Trust | Trust Object and Trust Vector correctness |
| Replay | Replay compatibility |
| Federation | Cross-ECO validation |
| DAL | Ledger and anchoring checks |
| AI | AI governance checks |
| Security | Signatures, DIDs, authentication |
| Runtime | Operational execution checks |
| Configuration | Runtime configuration validation |
| Governance | Approval, lifecycle, and policy checks |
43. Rule Categories
Rule categories describe the nature of the check.
Examples:
- uniqueness;
- immutability;
- completeness;
- referential integrity;
- datatype validation;
- schema validation;
- semantic consistency;
- cryptographic verification;
- lifecycle transition validation;
- replay determinism;
- federation eligibility;
- AI explainability.
A rule may belong to multiple categories.
44. Severity
Severity defines the architectural impact of failure.
| Severity | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Critical | Trust, replay, security, or governance integrity is compromised |
| High | Major assurance or operational impact |
| Medium | Material validation issue requiring remediation |
| Low | Minor issue or warning |
| Informational | Diagnostic or advisory result |
Severity influences failure handling but does not alone determine runtime outcome.
45. Enforcement Level
Each rule shall define an enforcement level.
| Level | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Mandatory | Must execute when applicable |
| Conditional | Executes only under defined policy conditions |
| Advisory | Produces guidance but does not block |
| Informational | Produces diagnostic information only |
Mandatory rules shall produce telemetry for every applicable execution.
46. Failure Policy
Failure policy defines how TrustGate responds when a rule fails.
Canonical failure policies include:
| Policy | Meaning |
|---|---|
continue | Continue processing |
warn | Emit warning and continue |
retry | Attempt re-execution |
quarantine | Isolate artifact pending review |
reject | Reject artifact |
escalate | Trigger governance escalation |
manual_review | Require human review |
replay_required | Require replay before progression |
dal_hold | Prevent DAL anchoring |
federation_hold | Prevent federation export |
The final outcome may also depend on runtime configuration and policy profile.
- Rule Applicability
A validation rule shall declare where it applies.
Applicability may be defined by:
- artifact type;
- CSI;
- CMID;
- USO Type;
- TOID;
- TVID;
- TG-INTEL;
- EID;
- MEID;
- tenant profile;
- federation profile;
- reporting framework;
- policy context.
Applicability shall be machine-resolvable.
48. Rule Preconditions
A rule may define preconditions.
Examples:
- required input CSI exists;
- runtime configuration is resolved;
- artifact has a TOID;
- evidence is available;
- signature material exists;
- federation profile is active;
- replay context exists.
If preconditions are not satisfied, the rule may return:
SKIPPED
INDETERMINATE
ERROR
depending on policy.
49. Rule Dependencies
Validation rules may depend on other rules.
Example:
TG-VAL-000010
Verify TOID format
│
▼
TG-VAL-000011
Verify TOID uniqueness
│
▼
TG-VAL-000012
Verify TOID immutability
Dependencies shall be explicit.
Implicit execution order is not permitted for replay-critical rules.
50. Rule Groups and Rule Sets
Rules may be grouped into rule sets.
Examples:
| Rule Set | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Trust Object Validation Set | Rules for TOID and Trust Object integrity |
| Trust Vector Validation Set | Rules for TVID and Trust Vector integrity |
| Replay Validation Set | Replay determinism and reproducibility |
| Federation Validation Set | Export/import eligibility |
| DAL Validation Set | Ledger anchoring readiness |
| AI Validation Set | AI explainability and governance |
Rule sets support orchestration, replay, and policy-driven execution.
51. Rule Lifecycle
Every validation rule follows a governed lifecycle.
Draft
│
▼
Proposed
│
▼
Approved
│
▼
Active
│
├───────────────┐
▼ ▼
Deprecated Superseded
│ │
└───────┬───────┘
▼
Retired
Only active rules may be used for mandatory production validation unless explicitly permitted by governance policy.
52. Rule Versioning
Validation rules are versioned independently from their identifiers.
Example:
TG-VAL-000001
version: 1.0.0
The TG-VAL identifier remains stable.
The version changes when rule metadata, execution logic, applicability, or policy behaviour changes.
53. Version Semantics
Major Version
Used when rule semantics change.
Examples:
- changed evaluation logic;
- changed pass/fail criteria;
- changed applicable artifact type;
- changed invariant mapping.
Major version changes may affect replay and federation compatibility.
Minor Version
Used for backward-compatible changes.
Examples:
- additional optional metadata;
- expanded explanation text;
- additional advisory output;
- added non-breaking evidence references.
Patch Version
Used for corrections that do not alter execution behaviour.
Examples:
- typo corrections;
- documentation clarifications;
- metadata formatting.
54. Rule Immutability
A published validation rule shall not change execution semantics in place.
If execution semantics change, a new version shall be created.
Historical executions shall remain replayable using the rule version active at the time of execution.
55. Supersession
A rule may supersede another rule.
Example:
TG-VAL-000087 v1.0.0
│
▼
superseded by
│
▼
TG-VAL-000142 v1.0.0
Supersession shall preserve:
- previous rule;
- replacement rule;
- reason;
- effective date;
- replay compatibility guidance.
56. Rule Ownership
Every validation rule shall have an owner.
Owners may include:
- TrustGate Architecture;
- ZAR Governance;
- CIR Governance;
- Security Architecture;
- Replay Architecture;
- Federation Governance;
- DSAIL Governance;
- DAL Governance.
Ownership defines responsibility for lifecycle, approval, and maintenance.
57. Rule Approval
Rules shall be approved before production activation.
Approval shall verify:
- invariant mapping;
- deterministic behaviour;
- runtime applicability;
- replay compatibility;
- telemetry requirements;
- failure policy;
- security implications;
- governance ownership.
58. Rule-to-Invariant Mapping
Every mandatory validation rule should reference at least one CIR invariant.
Example:
INVID-ZYZ-000001
│
▼
TG-VAL-000001
Rules without invariant mappings may exist for diagnostics, observability, or advisory validation, but they shall not be classified as constitutional enforcement rules.
59. Rule-to-Engine Mapping
A rule may be associated with one or more EIDs.
Example:
TG-VAL-000001
│
▼
EID-TRUSTGATE
EID mapping defines which major engine coordinates or owns execution.
60. Rule-to-Micro-Engine Mapping
A rule may be executed by one or more MEIDs.
Example:
TG-VAL-000001
│
▼
MEID_VALIDATE_TRUST_OBJECT_IDENTITY
MEID mapping defines the operational executor of the rule.
61. Rule-to-CMI Mapping
A rule may also reference one or more CMIs.
CMI references identify the executable implementation version used for production or replay.
Example:
vera.TG-VALIDATE.ENGINE.TOID-CHECK.1_0_0
CMI mapping is required for replay-critical validation.
62. Rule-to-CSI Mapping
Rules may consume or produce canonical signal structures.
Examples:
comp.TG.INPUT.TRUST-OBJECT.v1_0
comp.TG.OUTPUT.VALIDATION-RESULT.v1_0
CSI mappings ensure validation remains semantically governed.
63. Rule-to-Trust Mapping
Validation rules may contribute to:
- Trust Object lifecycle;
- Trust Vector dimensions;
- Operational Trust Flags;
- Trust Decisions;
- Trust Attestations;
- TG-INTEL generation.
A rule shall declare whether it affects trust computation.
64. Rule Determinism
A validation rule shall produce identical outcomes for identical inputs under identical:
- rule version;
- configuration version;
- policy version;
- runtime context;
- evidence set;
- engine implementation.
Non-deterministic rules shall not be used for replay-critical validation.
65. Rule Explainability
Every validation rule shall define explainability metadata.
This should include:
- human-readable failure message;
- rationale;
- remediation guidance;
- evidence references;
- invariant references;
- severity explanation.
Explainability metadata supports:
- dashboards;
- API responses;
- AI explanations;
- audit reports;
- federation packages.
66. Rule Telemetry Requirements
Every runtime execution of a production rule should emit telemetry.
Telemetry should include:
- TG-VAL identifier;
- rule version;
- VRID;
- result;
- EID;
- MEID;
- CMI;
- evaluated artifact;
- evidence references;
- runtime duration;
- policy version;
- trace identifier.
Telemetry is the operational proof that validation occurred.
67. Rule Replay Requirements
Replay-critical rules shall preserve:
- rule identifier;
- rule version;
- validation context;
- evidence snapshot;
- configuration snapshot;
- execution engine;
- micro-engine implementation;
- validation result;
- telemetry reference.
Replay shall never substitute a newer rule version unless explicitly executed as policy simulation.
68. Rule Federation Requirements
Federation-visible rules shall define:
- exportability;
- redaction profile;
- receiving-party interpretation;
- supported federation profiles;
- evidence package requirements;
- trust propagation effect.
Federation shall exchange validation evidence, not executable rule internals, unless explicitly permitted.
69. Rule AI Requirements
AI may consume validation rule metadata and results.
AI shall not modify validation rules.
AI-generated recommendations for rule improvement shall be recorded as TG-INTEL and routed through governance.
70. Anti-Patterns
The following are prohibited or discouraged:
| Anti-Pattern | Risk |
|---|---|
| Hardcoded validation logic without TG-VAL | Breaks governance and replay |
| Rule changes without versioning | Breaks historical reproducibility |
| Validation without telemetry | Breaks auditability |
| Rule without owner | Breaks lifecycle governance |
| Rule without invariant mapping | Weakens constitutional traceability |
| Rule without MEID mapping | Weakens execution accountability |
| Runtime-only rule definitions | Breaks deterministic replay |
71. Validation Rule Invariants
The Validation Rule Model is governed by its own invariants.
TVRR-RULE-001
Every published validation rule shall have exactly one TG-VAL identifier.
TVRR-RULE-002
TG-VAL identifiers shall never be reused.
TVRR-RULE-003
Published rule semantics shall not change in place.
TVRR-RULE-004
Replay-critical rules shall preserve historical versions.
TVRR-RULE-005
Every mandatory rule shall define a failure policy.
TVRR-RULE-006
Every production rule shall define at least one owning authority.
TVRR-RULE-007
Every runtime rule execution shall be capable of producing telemetry.
TVRR-RULE-008
Every constitutional enforcement rule shall reference at least one INVID.
72. Summary
The Validation Rule Model defines TG-VAL as a governed executable artifact.
A validation rule operationalizes constitutional invariants, executes through engines and micro-engines, produces deterministic validation outcomes, emits telemetry, supports replay, enables federation, and contributes to trust intelligence.
This model establishes the foundation for the next part: the Runtime Validation Model, where each rule execution receives a Validation Runtime Identifier (VRID) and becomes a fully traceable runtime event.
Part 4 — Runtime Validation Model
73. Purpose
The Runtime Validation Model defines how canonical validation rules execute during runtime.
While the Validation Rule Model defines what a validation rule is, the Runtime Validation Model defines how a rule is instantiated, executed, observed, replayed, and traced.
Every runtime validation execution becomes a governed operational artifact within TrustGate.
74. Runtime Philosophy
TrustGate separates validation definitions from validation executions.
| Layer | Artifact | Lifetime |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | TG-VAL | Permanent |
| Runtime | VRID | Per execution |
| Result | TG-VRES | Permanent runtime artifact |
| Evidence | TG-VEVID | Permanent runtime artifact |
| Trace | TG-VTRACE | Permanent runtime artifact |
This mirrors the Canonical Identifier Architecture (CIA):
| Definition | Runtime Instance |
|---|---|
| CSI | USO |
| TG-VAL | VRID |
This separation enables deterministic replay, historical traceability, and runtime observability without altering canonical rule definitions.
75. Validation Runtime Identifier (VRID)
Every execution of a validation rule shall receive a Validation Runtime Identifier (VRID).
The VRID uniquely identifies a single runtime execution of a TG-VAL.
Format:
VRID-ZYZ-20260704-000000001
Example:
TG-VAL-000231
│
▼
VRID-ZYZ-20260704-000000001
Unlike TG-VAL, VRIDs are created dynamically at runtime and shall never be reused.
76. Runtime Execution Lifecycle
Every validation execution follows a canonical lifecycle.
Created
│
▼
Queued
│
▼
Scheduled
│
▼
Executing
│
├─────────────┐
▼ ▼
Completed Failed
│ │
▼ ▼
Persisted Persisted
│
▼
Replay Eligible
│
▼
Archived
Every transition shall be timestamped and recorded.
77. Runtime Validation Context (TG-VCTX)
Every VRID shall execute within a Validation Execution Context.
The context captures the complete execution environment.
Minimum context includes:
- VRID
- TG-VAL
- rule version
- runtime configuration
- policy version
- scheduler execution identifier
- EID
- MEID
- CMI
- TOID
- TVID
- tenant
- federation profile
- execution timestamp
- replay flag
- execution mode
The Validation Execution Context guarantees deterministic replay.
78. Runtime Execution Modes
Validation may execute under different operational modes.
| Mode | Description |
|---|---|
| Live | Normal production execution |
| Replay | Historical reconstruction |
| Simulation | Non-persistent evaluation |
| Dry Run | Execution without enforcement |
| Audit | Governance verification |
| Federation | Cross-ECO verification |
| AI Analysis | Learning-only execution |
Execution mode shall be preserved within TG-VCTX.
79. Runtime Scheduling
Validation executions are scheduled by the TrustGate Scheduler / Orchestrator Engine.
The Scheduler determines:
- execution priority;
- execution timing;
- dependency ordering;
- retry strategy;
- parallelisation;
- workload balancing;
- timeout management.
Validation rules never schedule themselves.
80. Validation Execution Plan (TG-VPLAN)
A Validation Execution Plan defines the ordered set of validations required for a runtime operation.
Example:
Artifact Received
│
▼
Validation Plan
│
├── Identity Validation
├── Schema Validation
├── Trust Validation
├── Replay Validation
├── Federation Validation
└── DAL Validation
A TG-VPLAN may contain one or more TG-VAL executions.
Execution plans are immutable once instantiated.
81. Validation Chains (TG-VCHAIN)
Validation rules may execute as dependency-aware chains.
Example:
Verify TOID
│
▼
Verify TVID
│
▼
Verify Trust State
│
▼
Verify Trust Vector
│
▼
Generate Trust Result
Validation chains preserve execution ordering and dependency integrity.
82. Runtime Dependency Resolution
Before execution, TrustGate resolves:
- prerequisite rules;
- artifact dependencies;
- CSI dependencies;
- Trust Object availability;
- Trust Vector availability;
- configuration dependencies;
- federation dependencies.
Only resolved execution plans may proceed.
83. Runtime State Model
Every VRID maintains an operational state.
Canonical runtime states include:
- Created
- Waiting
- Scheduled
- Running
- Paused
- Retrying
- Completed
- Failed
- Cancelled
- Replayed
- Archived
State transitions shall be immutable once recorded.
84. Retry Model
Retry behaviour is policy-driven.
Supported strategies include:
- none;
- immediate retry;
- exponential backoff;
- scheduled retry;
- dependency retry;
- manual retry.
Retries generate new runtime events while preserving the original VRID lineage.
85. Timeout Handling
Validation executions may define maximum execution durations.
Upon timeout, TrustGate may:
- retry;
- quarantine;
- escalate;
- terminate execution;
- continue with warning.
Timeout policy shall be configurable through the Runtime Configuration Engine.
86. Parallel Execution
Independent validation rules may execute concurrently.
Parallel execution shall never violate declared rule dependencies.
The Scheduler is responsible for dependency-safe parallelisation.
87. Runtime Correlation
Every VRID shall participate in a broader execution context.
Typical correlation identifiers include:
- execution session;
- workflow identifier;
- orchestration identifier;
- replay session;
- federation exchange;
- telemetry trace.
Correlation enables end-to-end operational traceability.
88. Runtime Telemetry
Each validation execution shall emit telemetry.
Typical telemetry fields include:
- VRID;
- TG-VAL;
- execution state;
- execution duration;
- scheduler queue time;
- CPU time;
- memory usage;
- retry count;
- execution mode;
- outcome;
- severity;
- trace identifier.
Telemetry integrates with the TrustGate Runtime Observability Engine.
89. Runtime Metrics
TrustGate shall maintain operational metrics including:
- validation throughput;
- average execution time;
- queue latency;
- retry frequency;
- timeout frequency;
- pass/fail ratio;
- warning ratio;
- execution concurrency;
- replay frequency;
- federation validation rate.
Metrics support operational assurance and capacity planning.
90. Runtime Persistence
Every completed VRID shall persist:
- execution context;
- validation result;
- evidence references;
- telemetry references;
- execution timestamps;
- replay metadata.
Persistence enables historical replay and audit.
91. Runtime Replay
Replay reconstructs historical executions by restoring:
- TG-VAL;
- rule version;
- VRID metadata;
- TG-VCTX;
- configuration snapshot;
- evidence snapshot;
- scheduler context;
- telemetry references.
Replay shall not substitute newer rule versions unless explicitly requested for simulation.
92. Runtime Failure Handling
Validation failures are classified independently from validation outcomes.
Typical runtime failures include:
- timeout;
- engine unavailable;
- dependency missing;
- configuration unavailable;
- evidence unavailable;
- execution error.
These failures affect execution, not necessarily rule correctness.
93. Runtime Explainability
Every VRID shall preserve sufficient information to explain:
- why the rule executed;
- what evidence was evaluated;
- which invariants were assessed;
- why the outcome occurred;
- which engines participated;
- which policies applied.
Explainability metadata supports dashboards, audit reports, federation exchanges, and TG-INTEL.
94. Runtime Security
Runtime validation shall preserve:
- execution integrity;
- authenticated execution;
- authorised configuration;
- immutable telemetry;
- evidence integrity;
- replay integrity.
Security-sensitive executions may require cryptographic attestation.
95. Runtime Relationship to Trust
Validation executions contribute to trust by producing:
- TG-VRES;
- TG-VEVID;
- Trust Object updates;
- Trust Vector updates;
- Trust Operational Flags;
- TG-INTEL candidates.
Runtime validation never modifies Trust Objects directly.
It produces evidence consumed by the Trust Model.
96. Runtime Relationship to Replay
Replay reconstructs VRIDs as historical execution instances.
Historical VRIDs remain immutable.
Replay-generated executions shall receive their own execution context while preserving references to the original runtime execution.
97. Runtime Relationship to Federation
Federation exchanges validation outcomes rather than runtime execution internals.
A Federation Profile determines:
- which VRID metadata may be shared;
- which telemetry may be exported;
- which evidence must be redacted;
- which attestations are required.
Runtime implementation details remain local unless explicitly shared.
98. Runtime Relationship to AI
DSAIL consumes runtime validation information to:
- detect validation drift;
- identify false positives;
- identify false negatives;
- optimise execution ordering;
- recommend rule improvements;
- generate TG-INTEL.
DSAIL shall never alter active runtime executions.
Recommendations shall follow governance workflows.
99. Runtime Invariants
The Runtime Validation Model is governed by the following invariants.
TVRR-RUNTIME-001
Every validation execution shall possess exactly one VRID.
TVRR-RUNTIME-002
VRIDs shall never be reused.
TVRR-RUNTIME-003
Every VRID shall reference exactly one TG-VAL definition.
TVRR-RUNTIME-004
Every completed execution shall produce a TG-VRES.
TVRR-RUNTIME-005
Every production execution shall emit telemetry.
TVRR-RUNTIME-006
Replay shall preserve the historical execution context.
TVRR-RUNTIME-007
Execution dependencies shall be explicitly resolved before runtime.
TVRR-RUNTIME-008
Every persisted execution shall remain traceable through CIA, CIR, and the Trust Model.
100. Summary
The Runtime Validation Model defines the operational execution layer of TrustGate validation.
It introduces the Validation Runtime Identifier (VRID) as the runtime counterpart to TG-VAL, establishes execution plans and validation chains, formalizes runtime lifecycle management, scheduler integration, telemetry, replay, federation, and AI interactions.
Together, TG-VAL and VRID complete the separation between canonical validation definitions and runtime execution, aligning the Validation Rule Registry with the architectural principles of the Canonical Identifier Architecture (CIA) and enabling deterministic, observable, and replayable validation across the ZAYAZ platform.
Part 5 — Validation Binding Model
101. Purpose
The Validation Binding Model defines how canonical validation rules integrate with the broader ZAYAZ architecture.
Validation rules do not exist in isolation.
Every TG-VAL shall explicitly declare the architectural artifacts, identifiers, runtime objects, and governance constructs to which it applies.
The Binding Model establishes deterministic relationships between:
- Canonical Invariants (CIR)
- Canonical Identifier Architecture (CIA)
- Trust Model
- Runtime execution
- Replay
- Federation
- AI
- Engines and Micro-Engines
This chapter effectively serves as the architectural wiring diagram of the Validation Rule Registry.
102. Binding Philosophy
Validation is declarative.
A validation rule declares what it governs, what it consumes, and what it produces.
Execution engines resolve bindings dynamically.
Validation rules shall never contain hardcoded references to implementation-specific services.
103. Canonical Binding Principles
Every binding shall be:
- deterministic;
- immutable once published;
- machine-readable;
- replayable;
- version-aware;
- explainable;
- traceable;
- federation-compatible.
104. Primary Binding Domains
Validation rules may bind to one or more architectural domains.
| Domain | Primary Identifier |
|---|---|
| Canonical Invariants | INVID |
| Canonical Metrics | CMID |
| Canonical Signals | CSI |
| Runtime Signal Instances | USO |
| Trust Objects | TOID |
| Trust Vectors | TVID |
| Trust Intelligence | TG-INTEL |
| Engines | EID |
| Micro-Engines | MEID |
| Managed Components | CMI |
| Runtime Executions | VRID |
| Replay Sessions | Replay ID |
| Federation Profiles | FPID |
| DAL Records | DALID |
105. Binding Architecture
Every validation execution participates in the following relationship model.
CIR
(INVID)
│
▼
TG-VAL Rule
│
┌──────────┼──────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
CIA Trust Runtime
(CMID/CSI) (TOID/TVID) (VRID)
│ │ │
└──────────┼──────────┘
▼
TG-VRES
│
┌─────── ───┼──────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
Replay Federation DSAIL
106. Invariant Binding
Every constitutional validation rule should bind to one or more Canonical Invariants.
Example:
INVID-ZYZ-000124
│
▼
TG-VAL-000382
A rule may evaluate:
- one invariant;
- multiple invariants;
- invariant groups.
Invariant bindings shall be immutable for published rule versions.
107. CMID Binding
Validation rules may bind directly to Canonical Metric Identifiers.
Example:
CMID-ZYZ-000245
│
▼
TG-VAL-000041
CMID bindings enable validation of:
- metric definitions;
- metric values;
- reporting completeness;
- computational consistency.
Validation may also reference row-specific CMIDs (e.g. CMID-ZYZ-000245:128) where applicable.
108. CSI Binding
Rules may consume or validate canonical signal types.
Example:
CSI
│
▼
TG-VAL
CSI bindings define:
- required input signals;
- optional signals;
- produced signals;
- semantic expectations.
Validation shall reference CSI definitions rather than implementation-specific payloads.
109. USO Binding
USO bindings identify runtime signal instances.
Example:
CSI
│
▼
USO
│
▼
TG-VAL
Validation against USO instances enables:
- runtime lineage verification;
- duplicate detection;
- signal integrity;
- replay reconstruction.
110. TOID Binding
Validation rules may govern Trust Objects.
Example:
TOID
│
▼
TG-VAL
Typical validations include:
- identity;
- lifecycle;
- ownership;
- trust status;
- operational flags;
- consistency.
111. TVID Binding
Rules may contribute to Trust Vector computation.
Example:
TVID
│
▼
TG-VAL
Validation may:
- verify vector dimensions;
- validate scores;
- verify weighting;
- validate confidence;
- detect anomalies.
112. TG-INTEL Binding
Validation contributes to operational intelligence.
Rules may declare:
- intelligence generation;
- anomaly reporting;
- recommendation production;
- learning eligibility.
Validation never modifies intelligence directly.
It generates evidence consumed by TG-INTEL.
113. Engine Binding (EID)
Every validation rule may declare one or more coordinating engines.
Example:
TG-VAL
│
▼
EID-TRUSTGATE
EIDs coordinate execution but do not implement validation logic.
114. Micro-Engine Binding (MEID)
Validation execution is delegated to Micro-Engines.
Example:
TG-VAL
│
▼
MEID-VERIFY-TOID
MEID bindings define executable behavior.
Multiple MEIDs may implement the same validation rule for different contexts.
115. Managed Component Binding (CMI)
CMIs identify the executable implementation.
Example:
TG-VAL
│
▼
CMI
CMI bindings enable:
- implementation traceability;
- deployment governance;
- replay compatibility;
- version resolution.
116. VRID Binding
During execution every validation rule produces one or more VRIDs.
Relationship:
TG-VAL
│
▼
VRID
VRIDs preserve:
- execution lineage;
- runtime telemetry;
- scheduler context;
- replay references.
117. Replay Binding
Validation rules declare replay compatibility.
Replay bindings specify:
- replay requirements;
- replay exclusions;
- deterministic guarantees;
- configuration dependencies;
- historical version resolution.
Replay always references the original TG-VAL version.
118. Federation Binding
Validation rules may participate in federation.
Bindings define:
- export eligibility;
- import validation;
- evidence requirements;
- federation profile compatibility;
- cross-ECO trust propagation.
Federation exchanges validation evidence—not executable rule implementations.
119. DAL Binding
Validation rules may determine whether artifacts are eligible for Distributed Assurance Ledger (DAL) anchoring.
Typical bindings include:
- anchoring prerequisites;
- signature validation;
- completeness checks;
- trust thresholds.
DAL eligibility shall be policy-driven.
120. Policy Binding
Validation rules execute under policy governance.
Bindings may reference:
- policy identifiers;
- regulatory frameworks;
- tenant policies;
- sector profiles;
- assurance levels.
Policy resolution occurs at runtime through the Runtime Configuration Engine.
121. Configuration Binding
Rules may depend on runtime configuration values.
Bindings may include:
- feature flags;
- thresholds;
- execution limits;
- timeout policies;
- retry strategies.
Configuration values shall not alter rule identity.
Only execution behaviour may vary.
122. Scheduler Binding
Validation rules are scheduled through Validation Plans.
Relationship:
TG-VAL
│
▼
TG-VPLAN
│
▼
Scheduler
Scheduling metadata remains external to rule definitions.
123. Validation Chain Binding
Rules may declare execution dependencies.
Example:
TG-VAL-001
│
▼
TG-VAL-002
│
▼
TG-VAL-003
Dependency graphs shall be acyclic.
Circular validation dependencies are prohibited.
124. Telemetry Binding
Every production validation shall emit telemetry.
Bindings include:
- telemetry schema;
- event identifiers;
- observability metrics;
- logging policy;
- trace identifiers.
Telemetry bindings integrate with the TrustGate Runtime Observability Engine.
125. Explainability Binding
Validation rules shall expose explainability metadata.
Bindings include:
- rationale;
- evidence references;
- invariant references;
- remediation guidance;
- confidence explanation.
Explainability bindings support:
- dashboards;
- audit reports;
- federation;
- DSAIL.
126. Binding Resolution
Binding resolution occurs dynamically at runtime.
Resolution order:
TG-VAL
│
▼
Configuration
│
▼
Policy
│
▼
Artifact Resolution
│
▼
Engine Resolution
│
▼
Execution
Resolution shall be deterministic and reproducible.
127. Binding Constraints
Canonical bindings shall satisfy the following constraints:
- every binding references a valid canonical identifier;
- bindings are version-aware;
- bindings are immutable within a published rule version;
- bindings shall not reference deprecated artifacts unless explicitly permitted;
- runtime bindings shall remain replayable.
128. Binding Anti-Patterns
The following practices are prohibited:
| Anti-Pattern | Reason |
|---|---|
| Hardcoded database table references | Breaks portability |
| Direct service URLs | Breaks abstraction |
| Engine-specific logic in TG-VAL | Violates separation of concerns |
| Runtime-generated bindings | Breaks determinism |
| Circular dependencies | Prevents orchestration |
| Unversioned bindings | Breaks replay |
| Binding to implementation instead of canonical identifiers | Weakens governance |
129. Binding Invariants
TVRR-BIND-001
Every constitutional validation rule shall reference at least one canonical identifier.
TVRR-BIND-002
Published bindings shall remain immutable.
TVRR-BIND-003
Every runtime execution shall resolve bindings deterministically.
TVRR-BIND-004
Bindings shall reference canonical identifiers rather than implementation-specific resources.
TVRR-BIND-005
Every replay execution shall resolve the historical binding graph.
TVRR-BIND-006
Validation bindings shall preserve complete lineage across CIR, CIA, Trust Model, Replay, Federation, and DSAIL.
130. Summary
The Validation Binding Model defines how TrustGate validation rules integrate with every major architectural domain within ZAYAZ.
By establishing explicit, immutable, and deterministic bindings to canonical identifiers, trust artifacts, runtime executions, replay contexts, federation profiles, and AI intelligence, the Binding Model transforms the Validation Rule Registry into the central integration layer of TrustGate.
Every TG-VAL becomes a governed constitutional contract that not only defines what must be validated, but also how that validation participates in the platform's broader ecosystem of traceability, replayability, federation, observability, and continuous assurance.