TG-VRR-2
TrustGate Validation Rule Registry - 2
Part 6 — Rule Binding Model
131. Purpose
The Rule Binding Model defines how a canonical validation rule is connected to the artifacts, identifiers, engines, policies, evidence, and trust objects that it governs.
Where the Validation Binding Model defines the architectural domains to which validation may bind, the Rule Binding Model specifies the concrete bindings of an individual TG-VAL.
It answers the question:
"Exactly what does this validation rule validate?"
Every published validation rule shall declare its complete binding graph.
132. Binding Philosophy
A validation rule should never rely on implicit assumptions.
Everything required to execute, replay, audit, federate, or explain a rule shall be explicitly declared.
The Rule Binding Model ensures that every TG-VAL is:
- self-describing;
- machine-readable;
- deterministic;
- replayable;
- explainable;
- portable.
133. Rule Binding Object (TG-RBIND)
Every published validation rule shall have an associated Rule Binding Object.
The Rule Binding Object represents the complete set of relationships between a validation rule and the architectural artifacts it governs.
Example:
TG-VAL-000247
↓
TG-RBIND
TG-RBIND is a canonical metadata object.
It contains no executable logic.
134. Rule Binding Identifier
Each Rule Binding Object receives its own identifier.
Format:
RBID-ZYZ-000001
Example:
RBID-ZYZ-000247
This identifier uniquely identifies a binding definition.
A new RBID is created whenever the binding graph changes.
135. Rule Binding Structure
Every Rule Binding Object shall contain:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| RBID | Rule Binding Identifier |
| TG-VAL | Validation Rule |
| Rule Version | Applicable rule version |
| Binding Version | Binding version |
| Effective Date | Activation timestamp |
| Status | Draft, Active, Deprecated, Retired |
| Owner | Governance owner |
| Replay Compatible | Boolean |
| Federation Compatible | Boolean |
136. Canonical Binding Categories
Bindings are organised into canonical categories.
| Category | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Identity Bindings | CIA identifiers |
| Trust Bindings | Trust Objects and Trust Vectors |
| Execution Bindings | Engines and runtime |
| Governance Bindings | Policies and invariants |
| Evidence Bindings | Input/output artifacts |
| Federation Bindings | Cross-ECO exchange |
| Replay Bindings | Replay compatibility |
| Intelligence Bindings | AI and TG-INTEL |
Each category is independently governed.
137. Identity Bindings
Identity bindings connect a rule to the Canonical Identifier Architecture (CIA).
Supported identifiers include:
- CMID
- CSI
- USO
- CMI
Example:
TG-VAL
↓
CSI
↓
USO
↓
CMID
Identity bindings define what canonical artifact is being validated, not where it is stored.
138. Metric Bindings (CMID)
Rules may validate one or more canonical metrics.
Examples include:
- required metric exists;
- metric datatype;
- allowed range;
- computational consistency;
- reporting completeness.
Example:
TG-VAL-000142
↓
CMID-ZYZ-000183
CMID-ZYZ-000442
CMID-ZYZ-000591
Metric bindings may reference:
- single metrics;
- metric groups;
- metric families;
- row-level CMIDs.
139. Signal Bindings (CSI)
Signal bindings specify the canonical signal definitions required by the rule.
Bindings may define:
- required signals;
- optional signals;
- produced signals;
- derived signals.
Example:
CSI
↓
Invoice Signal
↓
Emission Signal
↓
Supplier Signal
Rules consume CSI—not raw payload formats.
140. Runtime Signal Bindings (USO)
Runtime bindings connect validation to individual signal instances.
Example:
USO
↓
Runtime Signal
↓
Validation
USO bindings provide:
- lineage;
- replay reconstruction;
- duplicate detection;
- execution traceability.
141. Trust Object Bindings (TOID)
Rules may validate Trust Objects.
Typical bindings include:
- Trust State;
- lifecycle;
- ownership;
- evidence completeness;
- operational flags.
Example:
TOID
↓
TG-VAL
142. Trust Vector Bindings (TVID)
Rules may evaluate one or more Trust Vector dimensions.
Examples:
- Integrity
- Authenticity
- Completeness
- Consistency
- Timeliness
- Provenance
- Confidence
- Federation Readiness
A rule may contribute to one or several Trust Vector dimensions simultaneously.
143. Trust Intelligence Bindings (TG-INTEL)
Rules may generate intelligence candidates.
Bindings define:
- anomaly detection;
- recommendation generation;
- optimisation opportunities;
- drift detection.
Rules never write TG-INTEL directly.
They emit intelligence candidates for governance review.
144. Invariant Bindings (INVID)
Every constitutional validation rule should bind to one or more CIR invariants.
Example:
INVID
↓
TG-VAL
Bindings specify:
- invariant;
- enforcement level;
- constitutional impact;
- violation severity.
145. Engine Bindings (EID)
Rules declare which major engine owns orchestration.
Examples:
EID-TRUSTGATE
EID-VERA
EID-ZARA
EID identifies architectural ownership.
146. Micro-Engine Bindings (MEID)
Rules bind to executable Micro-Engines.
Example:
TG-VAL
↓
MEID-VERIFY-CSI
↓
MEID-CHECK-CMID
↓
MEID-VERIFY-TOID
Multiple MEIDs may satisfy a single validation rule.
147. Managed Component Bindings (CMI)
Rules reference executable implementations.
Example:
TG-VAL
↓
CMI
↓
Implementation
CMI bindings preserve implementation lineage.
148. Execution Bindings
Execution bindings define runtime behaviour.
Typical bindings include:
- execution mode;
- scheduler policy;
- timeout policy;
- retry policy;
- priority;
- concurrency profile.
These bindings are interpreted by the Scheduler.
149. Validation Plan Bindings (VPLAN)
Rules may participate in multiple Validation Plans.
Example:
TG-VAL
↓
Supplier Assessment
↓
CSRD Report
↓
ESRS Validation
↓
Federation Export
Plans determine execution context.
150. Dependency Bindings (VCHAIN)
Dependency bindings specify execution order.
Example:
Schema Validation
↓
Identity Validation
↓
Trust Validation
↓
Federation Validation
Dependencies shall remain acyclic.
151. Configuration Bindings
Rules may bind to runtime configuration parameters.
Examples:
- thresholds;
- feature flags;
- retry limits;
- warning levels;
- execution profiles.
Configuration is resolved dynamically without changing rule identity.
152. Policy Bindings
Rules may reference policy artifacts.
Examples:
- CSRD;
- ESRS;
- ISSB;
- GRI;
- Internal Policy;
- Tenant Policy;
- Federation Policy.
Policy bindings determine applicability.
153. Evidence Bindings
Rules define required evidence.
Evidence may include:
- documents;
- signals;
- calculations;
- signatures;
- attestations;
- provenance records.
Evidence bindings specify:
- mandatory evidence;
- optional evidence;
- acceptable alternatives.
154. Result Bindings
Rules define produced validation artifacts.
Examples include:
- TG-VRES;
- TG-VEVID;
- Trust Decision;
- Operational Trust Flag;
- TG-INTEL Candidate.
Every execution shall produce deterministic outputs.
155. Replay Bindings
Replay bindings define:
- replay requirements;
- historical version resolution;
- deterministic execution guarantees;
- replay exclusions.
Replay shall preserve original bindings.
156. Federation Bindings
Rules declare federation compatibility.
Bindings define:
- exportability;
- trust propagation;
- evidence packages;
- federation profile compatibility;
- confidentiality level.
Internal execution metadata need not be exported.
157. DAL Bindings
Rules may determine ledger eligibility.
Bindings specify:
- anchoring requirements;
- signature validation;
- completeness checks;
- trust thresholds.
DAL anchoring shall only occur after successful validation.
158. Security Bindings
Rules may require security controls.
Examples:
- digital signatures;
- DID verification;
- certificate validation;
- encryption requirements;
- key provenance.
Security bindings are evaluated prior to trust computation.
159. AI Bindings
Rules expose metadata for DSAIL.
Bindings include:
- learning eligibility;
- explainability level;
- optimisation candidates;
- confidence reporting;
- drift monitoring.
AI recommendations never modify published rules.
160. Explainability Bindings
Every rule shall expose explainability metadata.
Including:
- purpose;
- rationale;
- evaluated invariants;
- evidence references;
- remediation guidance;
- constitutional impact.
Explainability bindings support:
- audit;
- dashboards;
- federation;
- AI.
161. Binding Resolution Order
During execution TrustGate resolves bindings in a deterministic sequence.
TG-VAL
↓
Rule Binding
↓
Configuration
↓
Policy
↓
Identity
↓
Trust
↓
Execution
↓
Evidence
↓
Replay
↓
Federation
↓
AI
Every replay shall resolve the identical binding sequence.
162. Binding Graph
A Rule Binding Object forms a canonical graph.
TG-VAL
│
┌──────────────┼──────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
INVID CMID CSI
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
TOID TVID USO
│ │ │
└──────────────┼──────────────┘
▼
TG-RBIND
│
┌─────────────┼──────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
EID MEID CMI
│ │ │
└─────────────┼──────────────┘
▼
Scheduler
│
▼
VRID
This graph is replayable, queryable, and fully traceable.
163. Binding Invariants
TVRR-RBIND-001
Every published validation rule shall possess exactly one active Rule Binding Object.
TVRR-RBIND-002
Rule bindings shall reference only canonical identifiers.
TVRR-RBIND-003
Bindings shall be immutable within a published version.
TVRR-RBIND-004
Binding graphs shall remain acyclic.
TVRR-RBIND-005
Replay shall resolve historical bindings exactly as originally executed.
TVRR-RBIND-006
Every constitutional rule shall reference one or more CIR invariants.
TVRR-RBIND-007
Every executable rule shall reference at least one MEID.
TVRR-RBIND-008
Every replay-critical rule shall reference one or more CMIs.
TVRR-RBIND-009
Every production rule shall expose explainability bindings.
164. Relationship to the ZAYAZ Architecture
The Rule Binding Model is the connective tissue between the Validation Rule Registry and the rest of the platform.
It integrates directly with:
| Component | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Canonical Identifier Architecture (CIA) | Canonical identity bindings (CMID, CSI, USO, CMI) |
| Canonical Invariant Registry (CIR) | Constitutional invariant bindings (INVID) |
| TrustGate Trust Model | Trust Object, Trust Vector, and TG-INTEL bindings |
| TrustGate Scheduler / Orchestrator Engine | Execution planning and orchestration |
| Runtime Configuration Engine | Dynamic configuration and policy resolution |
| Replay Specification | Historical binding reconstruction |
| Federation Profiles | Cross-ECO trust exchange |
| Distributed Assurance Ledger (DAL) | Assurance anchoring eligibility |
| DSAIL | Learning, explainability, and optimisation |
165. Summary
The Rule Binding Model transforms a validation rule from an isolated executable artifact into a fully governed architectural contract.
By introducing the Rule Binding Object (TG-RBIND) and the Rule Binding Identifier (RBID), every TG-VAL explicitly declares its relationships to canonical identifiers, trust artifacts, engines, runtime execution, replay, federation, governance, and AI. This explicit binding graph ensures deterministic execution, complete traceability, replay fidelity, and long-term architectural integrity across the ZAYAZ platform.
Part 7 — Validation Orchestration Model
166. Purpose
The Validation Orchestration Model defines how canonical validation rules are assembled into executable validation workflows.
Where the Validation Rule Model defines individual validation rules, and the Runtime Validation Model defines individual executions (VRIDs), the Orchestration Model defines how multiple rules cooperate to evaluate an artifact, workflow, report, or transaction.
The orchestration layer is responsible for transforming a collection of independent validation rules into a deterministic, dependency-aware execution graph.
167. Architectural Role
The Validation Orchestration Model sits between the Validation Rule Registry and the TrustGate Scheduler / Orchestrator Engine.
Validation Rule Registry
│
▼
Validation Binding Model
│
▼
Validation Orchestration Model
│
▼
Scheduler / Orchestrator Engine
│
▼
Runtime Validation Engine
│
▼
Validation Results
This separation allows orchestration logic to evolve independently of rule definitions.
168. Core Runtime Objects
The orchestration layer introduces two canonical runtime artifacts.
| Artifact | Purpose |
|---|---|
| TG-VPLAN | Validation Execution Plan |
| TG-VCHAIN | Validation Dependency Chain |
These artifacts are runtime planning objects.
They do not replace TG-VAL or VRID.
Instead they coordinate them.
169. Validation Execution Plan (TG-VPLAN)
A Validation Execution Plan represents the complete validation strategy for a runtime operation.
Example:
Invoice Import
↓
TG-VPLAN
↓
Execute 87 validation rules
↓
Produce Validation Report
Every execution plan is immutable after creation.
170. TG-VPLAN Identifier
Every Validation Execution Plan receives a canonical identifier.
Example:
VPLAN-ZYZ-20260704-000001
The identifier uniquely represents the execution plan.
It is independent from:
- TG-VAL
- VRID
- TOID
- TVID
171. Validation Plan Structure
A Validation Execution Plan shall contain:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| VPLAN ID | Unique execution plan |
| Name | Human-readable name |
| Purpose | Business purpose |
| Artifact Type | Primary artifact being validated |
| Applicable Policy | Governing policy |
| Rule Count | Number of TG-VAL entries |
| Dependency Graph | Validation ordering |
| Scheduler Metadata | Scheduling preferences |
| Execution Strategy | Sequential, parallel, hybrid |
| Replay Support | Replay compatibility |
| Federation Eligibility | Exportability |
172. Validation Dependency Chain (TG-VCHAIN)
Validation rarely consists of isolated rule executions.
Many rules depend on earlier validation results.
TG-VCHAIN represents these ordered dependency relationships.
Example:
Verify Schema
↓
Verify Identity
↓
Verify Trust Object
↓
Verify Trust Vector
↓
Verify Federation Eligibility
↓
Verify DAL Readiness
173. TG-VCHAIN Identifier
Every dependency chain shall possess a canonical identifier.
Example:
VCHAIN-ZYZ-000104
Dependency chains may be reused across multiple execution plans.
174. Dependency Graph Model
Validation chains form a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG).
Schema
/ \
▼ ▼
Identity Metadata
\ /
▼ ▼
Trust Object
│
▼
Trust Vector
│
▼
Trust Decision
Circular dependencies are prohibited.
175. Dependency Resolution
Before execution begins, TrustGate resolves:
- rule prerequisites;
- artifact availability;
- CSI dependencies;
- Trust Objects;
- Trust Vectors;
- configuration;
- federation requirements;
- replay context.
Only resolved graphs may execute.
176. Execution Strategies
Execution Plans may specify one of several execution strategies.
| Strategy | Description |
|---|---|
| Sequential | Strict execution order |
| Parallel | Independent rules execute concurrently |
| Hybrid | Combination of sequential and parallel execution |
| Event-Driven | Triggered by runtime events |
| Incremental | Execute only affected rules |
| Replay | Historical reconstruction |
| Simulation | Non-persistent execution |
177. Scheduler Integration
Execution Plans are submitted to the TrustGate Scheduler / Orchestrator Engine.
The scheduler is responsible for:
- queue management;
- workload balancing;
- dependency resolution;
- retry scheduling;
- prioritisation;
- concurrency management;
- timeout handling.
The Validation Rule Registry never directly invokes execution.
178. Execution Phases
Every execution plan progresses through defined phases.
Plan Created
↓
Dependency Resolution
↓
Scheduling
↓
Resource Allocation
↓
Execution
↓
Aggregation
↓
Trust Assessment
↓
Persistence
↓
Replay Registration
↓
Completion
Each phase generates telemetry.
179. Rule Selection
Not every TG-VAL executes every time.
Rule selection considers:
- artifact type;
- tenant;
- framework;
- policy;
- Trust Object state;
- federation profile;
- execution mode;
- feature flags.
Selection shall be deterministic.
180. Conditional Execution
Rules may define conditional predicates.
Example:
IF
Country = EU
THEN
Execute CSRD Rule Set
Conditions are resolved before scheduling.
181. Dynamic Expansion
Execution Plans may expand dynamically.
Example:
Supplier Assessment
↓
Supplier Category
↓
Additional Validation Rules
↓
Continue Execution
Dynamic expansion shall preserve replay determinism.
Expansion decisions become part of the replay record.
182. Execution Context Inheritance
Every VRID inherits execution context from the parent Validation Plan.
Inherited metadata includes:
- execution policy;
- scheduler context;
- federation profile;
- configuration snapshot;
- replay session;
- orchestration identifier.
This reduces duplication while preserving lineage.
183. Aggregated Outcomes
Execution Plans aggregate results across multiple validations.
Possible aggregate outcomes include:
| Result | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Passed | All required rules succeeded |
| Passed with Warnings | Mandatory rules passed |
| Failed | One or more mandatory rules failed |
| Inconclusive | Required evidence missing |
| Cancelled | Execution terminated |
| Partial | Incomplete execution |
Aggregate outcomes feed the Trust Model.
184. Trust Integration
Validation Plans contribute evidence to:
- Trust Objects;
- Trust Vectors;
- Operational Trust Flags;
- Trust Decisions;
- TG-INTEL.
Plans do not compute trust directly.
They generate canonical evidence consumed by the Trust Model.
185. Replay Integration
Replay reconstructs:
- Validation Plan;
- Dependency Graph;
- Scheduler Decisions;
- Rule Selection;
- VRIDs;
- Results;
- Telemetry.
Replay shall preserve execution ordering exactly.
186. Federation Integration
Federation exchanges orchestration outcomes—not execution graphs.
Shared information may include:
- validation summary;
- evidence package;
- attestations;
- Trust Vector;
- federation decision.
Internal orchestration remains local unless explicitly exported.
187. AI Integration
DSAIL analyses Validation Plans to identify:
- inefficient execution paths;
- redundant rules;
- dependency optimisation;
- scheduling improvements;
- replay bottlenecks;
- trust prediction.
AI recommendations shall generate TG-INTEL artifacts.
Execution Plans remain governance-controlled.
188. Telemetry
Every Validation Plan emits orchestration telemetry.
Typical events include:
- plan created;
- dependency resolved;
- execution started;
- execution completed;
- retries;
- failures;
- aggregation complete;
- replay initiated.
Telemetry integrates with:
- Runtime Observability Engine;
- Trust Intelligence;
- Replay;
- Scheduler.
189. Performance Metrics
Execution Plans maintain operational metrics.
Examples:
- execution duration;
- dependency resolution time;
- queue latency;
- scheduler wait time;
- parallel execution ratio;
- retry frequency;
- rule throughput;
- success rate.
Metrics support runtime optimisation.
190. Failure Recovery
Execution Plans define recovery policies.
Examples:
- retry failed branch;
- continue with warning;
- abort execution;
- quarantine artifact;
- request manual review;
- rollback trust update.
Recovery strategy is policy-driven.
191. Deterministic Execution
Execution Plans shall remain deterministic.
Given identical:
- TG-VAL versions;
- configuration;
- evidence;
- policies;
- scheduler rules;
- dependency graph;
the execution shall produce identical outcomes.
192. Orchestration Invariants
TVRR-ORCH-001
Every Validation Plan shall possess exactly one VPLAN identifier.
TVRR-ORCH-002
Every Dependency Chain shall possess exactly one VCHAIN identifier.
TVRR-ORCH-003
Execution graphs shall be acyclic.
TVRR-ORCH-004
Dependency resolution shall complete before execution begins.
TVRR-ORCH-005
Every VRID shall belong to exactly one Validation Plan.
TVRR-ORCH-006
Every execution plan shall preserve replay compatibility.
TVRR-ORCH-007
Execution strategies shall be explicitly declared.
TVRR-ORCH-008
Scheduler decisions shall be observable through telemetry.
TVRR-ORCH-009
Validation Plans shall never alter TG-VAL definitions.
193. Relationship to the ZAYAZ Architecture
The Validation Orchestration Model integrates directly with:
| Component | Relationship |
|---|---|
| TrustGate Scheduler / Orchestrator Engine | Executes VPLANs |
| Runtime Configuration Engine | Resolves execution policies |
| Runtime Observability Engine | Collects orchestration telemetry |
| Trust Model | Consumes aggregated validation evidence |
| Replay Specification | Reconstructs execution plans |
| Federation Profiles | Controls cross-ECO validation exchange |
| DSAIL | Learns from execution behaviour |
| DAL | Receives validated assurance outcomes |
| CIR | Governs invariant enforcement |
| CIA | Maintains canonical identifier lineage |
194. Summary
The Validation Orchestration Model elevates validation from isolated rule execution to governed, dependency-aware workflows.
By introducing TG-VPLAN (Validation Execution Plan) and TG-VCHAIN (Validation Dependency Chain), TrustGate gains a canonical orchestration layer that bridges the Validation Rule Registry with the Scheduler / Orchestrator Engine. This enables deterministic execution planning, dependency resolution, replay fidelity, telemetry, federation, and AI-assisted optimisation while preserving the immutability and governance of individual TG-VAL definitions.
Part 8 — Validation Result Model
Canonical validation results, evidence, verdicts, and runtime assurance artifacts for the TrustGate Validation Rule Registry.
195. Purpose
The Validation Result Model defines the canonical output produced by the execution of validation rules.
Every execution of a validation rule produces one or more immutable result artifacts that collectively document:
- what was validated;
- how it was evaluated;
- which evidence was considered;
- what decision was reached;
- why the decision was reached.
The Validation Result Model forms the authoritative runtime evidence layer of TrustGate.
196. Core Runtime Artifacts
The Validation Result Model introduces two primary canonical runtime artifacts.
| Artifact | Purpose |
|---|---|
| TG-VRES | Validation Result |
| TG-VEVID | Validation Evidence Package |
TG-VRES represents the outcome.
TG-VEVID represents the supporting evidence.
197. Validation Result (TG-VRES)
A Validation Result represents the outcome of executing exactly one TG-VAL.
Relationship:
TG-VAL
↓
VRID
↓
TG-VRES
Each TG-VRES is immutable once persisted.
198. Validation Result Identifier
Every Validation Result receives a unique identifier.
Example:
VRES-ZYZ-000001
Identifiers are globally unique.
199. Validation Result Structure
Every TG-VRES shall contain:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| VRES ID | Validation Result Identifier |
| VRID | Runtime execution |
| TG-VAL | Validation Rule |
| Rule Version | Version evaluated |
| Execution Timestamp | UTC |
| Verdict | Pass / Warning / Fail |
| Confidence | Numeric confidence score |
| Severity | Informational → Critical |
| Replay Compatible | Boolean |
| Explainability | Reference |
| Evidence Package | TG-VEVID |
| Trust Impact | Trust contribution |
200. Validation Evidence Package (TG-VEVID)
Every Validation Result references an immutable evidence package.
Example:
TG-VRES
↓
TG-VEVID
↓
Signals
Documents
Calculations
Signatures
Attestations
Evidence is never embedded inside the validation result.
201. TG-VEVID Identifier
Example:
VEVID-ZYZ-000001
Evidence identifiers remain stable for replay.
202. Evidence Categories
Evidence may include:
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| Canonical Signals | CSI / USO |
| Metrics | CMID |
| Documents | Uploaded evidence |
| Trust Objects | TOID |
| Trust Vectors | TVID |
| Policies | Policy IDs |
| Replay Metadata | Replay IDs |
| Federation Evidence | Attestations |
| Cryptographic Proof | Signatures |
203. Validation Verdicts
TrustGate defines the following canonical verdicts.
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
| PASS | Validation satisfied |
| WARNING | Minor deviation |
| FAIL | Mandatory condition violated |
| INCONCLUSIVE | Insufficient evidence |
| SKIPPED | Rule intentionally not executed |
| ERROR | Validation engine failure |
204. Severity Levels
Every result carries a severity.
| Level | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Informational | No operational impact |
| Low | Minor deviation |
| Medium | Review recommended |
| High | Significant issue |
| Critical | Immediate action required |
Severity and verdict are independent concepts.
205. Confidence Assessment
Each result includes a confidence value indicating the reliability of the validation outcome.
Confidence may be influenced by:
- evidence quality;
- provenance;
- signal completeness;
- cryptographic verification;
- replay consistency.
Confidence contributes to the Trust Vector but does not replace it.
206. Explainability
Every validation result shall expose an explanation.
The explanation shall include:
- evaluated rule;
- evidence used;
- invariant references;
- decision rationale;
- remediation guidance.
Explainability shall be both machine-readable and human-readable.
207. Trust Impact
Validation results contribute evidence to the Trust Model.
A TG-VRES may:
- increase trust;
- decrease trust;
- leave trust unchanged;
- trigger operational flags;
- generate TG-INTEL candidates.
The result itself does not compute trust.
208. Replay Compatibility
Every TG-VRES shall support deterministic replay.
Replay requires preservation of:
- TG-VAL version;
- RBID;
- VRID;
- evidence package;
- execution context;
- verdict.
209. Federation Compatibility
Validation results may be exchanged across ECO boundaries.
Federation exchanges:
- verdict;
- evidence references;
- attestations;
- trust contribution.
Internal execution details remain local unless explicitly permitted.
210. AI Integration
DSAIL analyses validation results to identify:
- recurring failures;
- anomalous behaviour;
- evidence gaps;
- optimisation opportunities;
- predictive risks.
AI outputs are recorded as TG-INTEL artifacts.
211. Lifecycle
Validation results progress through a controlled lifecycle.
Created
↓
Verified
↓
Persisted
↓
Referenced
↓
Replayed
↓
Archived
Results are never modified after persistence.
212. Validation Result Invariants
TVRR-VRES-001
Every VRID shall produce exactly one TG-VRES.
TVRR-VRES-002
Every TG-VRES shall reference exactly one TG-VEVID.
TVRR-VRES-003
Validation results shall be immutable.
TVRR-VRES-004
Evidence packages shall remain replayable.
TVRR-VRES-005
Validation verdicts shall be deterministic for identical inputs.
TVRR-VRES-006
Every production validation result shall expose explainability metadata.
213. Relationship to the ZAYAZ Architecture
The Validation Result Model integrates directly with:
| Component | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Trust Model | Provides trust evidence |
| CIR | Records invariant compliance |
| CIA | Maintains canonical identifier lineage |
| Replay Specification | Reconstructs historical validation |
| Federation Profiles | Exchanges validation evidence |
| DAL | Anchors assurance outcomes |
| DSAIL | Learns from validation results |
214. Summary
The Validation Result Model establishes TG-VRES and TG-VEVID as the canonical runtime evidence artifacts of TrustGate.
By separating validation outcomes from supporting evidence, the model ensures immutability, explainability, replay fidelity, federation compatibility, and seamless integration with the Trust Model, Canonical Identifier Architecture, Canonical Invariant Registry, DAL, and DSAIL.