Proposal Explorer
ResetA verification proposal from the AI Verification Tech Map, from its records of 2026-10-09. https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0001,M-0009&implementations=M-0001:I-0011&chips=existing
Analysis
Applied filters: Chips: Existing chips only. Not set (Any): Prover, Verifier devices on site, Prover cooperation, Minimum development status, Attack testing, Keep hidden from the verifier.
Overview
| Mechanism | Development | Security evidence | Open failures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sampled inference recomputationAI 2040 inference-only verification stack | Proposed | No published adversarial analysis recorded | 1 significantFamily context below |
| Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors ⚠ excluded by your filters: needs new chips | Proposed | Published security analysis | 3 significant |
- Open failures: n critical n significant n minor
- ⚠ Dimmed: excluded by your filters
Claim coverageNo claims yet
Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.
Properties1 built for an adversarial prover
- Built for an adversarial prover
- Sampled inference recomputation
- Not counted
- Excluded by your filters: Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
Attack testing1 mechanism with published testing
Attack testing records published testing for this use. It does not by itself show independent review, a formal proof or that a deployed system is secure.
- Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors: Analysis · excluded by filters
Limits1 family with findings to check · 4 scope limitations · 1 open question · 1 excluded by filters · 2 not yet demonstrated · 2 mechanisms with open significant failures
- Excluded by your filters
- Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors Needs changes to future chip designs; the filter allows existing chips only.
- Family findings
- Sampled inference recomputation
Context for AI 2040 inference-only verification stack. Findings from the mechanism family appear here as context. They apply to an implementation only when its own record lists them, under the conditions stated there.
Tolerance for numerical noise leaves a covert channel in Sampled inference recomputation
Schemes that accept approximate matches can put an upper bound on an adversary's covert bandwidth, but they cannot close the channel. The weight-exfiltration detector cut exfiltratable information to under 0.5%, not to zero, on a 30-billion-parameter mixture-of-experts model under benign prompt traffic. Its authors called the channel's size under adversarial prompts an open empirical question. An independent study showed that an adversary who controls the prompts roughly doubles the bits leaked per token. Across six models, that cut the slowdown from 146–254 times under benign prompts to 60–118 times. The attack widens the exfiltration bound. It does not target the check that outputs match the declared model. 6 7 8
Known failure · Demonstrated attack · Significant · Open. On the record
Related mechanism Operational use Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Bit-exact inference would remove the numerical tolerance if exact replay can be deployed with the required weights and configuration. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add
Only recorded traffic is checked in Sampled inference recomputation
Recomputation checks that recorded, declared workloads are correct. It cannot show that the record is complete. The published schemes do not cover hidden workloads run on the same compute, or substituted work. Rinberg et al. say their exfiltration-detection scheme cannot stand alone. 6 9
Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record
Related mechanism Proposed Network taps and certifiers: Taps copy and hash all traffic on the monitored links, which bears on whether the traffic record is complete. They do not show what else ran on the same chips. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add
Some inference optimizations are not covered in Sampled inference recomputation
TOPLOC's authors state that it cannot detect speculative decoding in which a cheaper model does the decoding. They did not test whether it distinguishes types of key-value (KV) cache compression. DiFR was evaluated only on sampling from a single model. Its authors sketch an extension to one speculative-decoding algorithm but do not test it. 10 11
Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
Mixed hardware widens the honest baseline in Sampled inference recomputation
When honest reference runs span different GPU types, the spread of benign scores grows. In DiFR's tests on Qwen3-30B-A3B, pooling A100 and H200 runs left Token-DiFR unable to separate the two smallest tested changes, a temperature of 1.1 instead of 1.0 and a simulated top-2 sampling bug, at the target false-positive rate, while cross-entropy separated them. Matched provider and verifier environments, or pooling that weights rare large deviations, restored detection. 11
Known failure · Open question · Minor · Open. On the record
- Sampled inference recomputation
- Open significant failures
4 failures in 2 mechanisms
A recomputation family degrades against prompt-controlling adversaries in AI 2040 inference-only verification stack
The plan's companion page names DiFR among the recomputation schemes being tested. An independent study found that Gumbel-based inference verification, the family that includes Token-DiFR, leaks roughly twice as many bits per token when the adversary chooses prompts that disrupt the text's structure, across six models of 1 to 32 billion parameters. The slowdown it imposes on a hidden-signalling adversary falls from 146–254 times under benign prompts to 60–118 times. The attack weakens the bound on hidden information in outputs, which the plan relies on to keep undeclared results from leaving. 1 2 6 7
Known failure · Demonstrated attack · Significant · Open. On the record
State attackers can likely defeat current secure enclosures in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
The flexHEG authors write that "nation-state attackers can likely compromise the best current secure enclosures", and that the marginal cost of circumvention per device is hard to estimate. RAND similarly judges that anti-tamper measures "would not be insurmountable for a determined and well-resourced adversary", although they raise costs and can reveal tampering. 13 15
Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
Firmware-only retrofits rely on Secure Boot, which fault injection can bypass in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
Part II notes that the most common attack on Secure Boot replaces the firmware and applies a voltage glitch while the signature is being checked. It also notes that sophisticated actors may use microprobing or laser voltage probing to read key registers. 13
Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
FLOP accounting can be laundered through external data in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
Results of earlier or parallel workloads could be hidden in the "external data" fed to a device, which would falsify the total FLOP count unless the inputs are explained or time delays are imposed. 13
Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
- Scope limitations
The recomputation server must be trusted in AI 2040 inference-only verification stack
The plan calls the integrity of the recomputation server an extremely important aspect, and its argument that sampling verifies all outputs assumes that the server's computations and outputs can be trusted. The companion page notes that the server sits inside the prover's facility, possibly under the prover's physical control, and that hardening it against integrity attacks needs significant research. Amodo rates recomputation-server security as not on track. 1 2 4
Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record
Spare compute is not verified in AI 2040 inference-only verification stack
The plan states that it does not verify that spare compute is unused for unapproved workloads, because this seems very challenging. It relies instead on side-channel bounds and memory wipes, so that the only results that persist are verified inference outputs. 1
Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record
Many important rules cannot be checked on-chip in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
Malicious intent "is not a technical property observable on-chip", and misuse depends on what is done with a computation's results. A guarantee processor cannot easily tell whether a network is the whole system or one expert in a mixture-of-experts system. Part III judges that a fully local ruleset "may not be entirely feasible" for the same reason. 12 14
Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record
Coverage stops at flexHEG-equipped chips in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
Motivated actors will always be able to use some compute that is not flexHEG-equipped. Recalling existing consumer GPUs would likely be impractical, and reaching perfect coverage, or conclusively proving that no secret government data centres exist, would be "practically quite difficult". 12 14
Scope limitation · Open question. On the record
Related mechanism Proposed Chip registries and manufacturing records: Accounts for which chips exist and who holds them. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add
Related mechanism Proposed Remote detection of data centres: Looks for undeclared facilities that hold other chips. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add
- Open questions
Supply-chain diversion and hidden backdoors in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
Components could be diverted before a guarantee processor is added, and backdoors could be introduced during design or manufacturing. Open-source designs and physical scans of randomly selected chips are proposed as countermeasures. Part III proposes international oversight of production and extensive testing of a random sample of finished devices. 13 14
Open question · Open question. On the record
Related mechanism Proposed Chip registries and manufacturing records: Records each chip's identity and owner from the fab onwards, which bears on diversion before a guarantee processor is fitted. It does not address hidden backdoors. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add
- Not yet demonstrated
- Proposed Sampled inference recomputation and Proposed Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
- Need new chip designs
- Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
Possible additions7 for dependencies
Mechanisms on the map that are not in the proposal. Pointers, not recommendations.
-
- Sampled inference recomputation waits on it. Checking that taps are correctly installed and stay in place at scale is not a solved problem, and hardening the recomputation server inside the prover's facility needs significant research.
- Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors waits on it. State-level attackers who hold the hardware can likely compromise the best current secure enclosures.
-
- Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors waits on it. Governing all relevant chips depends on knowing where they are, through chip registries and detection of undeclared facilities.
-
- Sampled inference recomputation waits on it. Memory wiping may use existing algorithms, but hardware testing is at an early stage.
-
- Sampled inference recomputation waits on it. Passive optical taps work at 400G, but the 800G and 1600G line rates now arriving in data centres are undemonstrated.
-
- Sampled inference recomputation waits on it. There is no plan yet for quickly scaling side-channel defences on a frontier cluster; only early theoretical pieces exist.
-
- Sampled inference recomputation waits on it. A fully reproducible inference stack needs substantial software and tooling, and per-packet network reproducibility may need considerable software, firmware and possibly hardware work.
-
- Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors depends on it.
Dependencies3 missing prerequisites · 1 shared foundation · 11 blockers
- Missing prerequisites
- Proposed Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets) needed by Sampled inference recomputation Add
- Operational use TEE remote attestation for AI workloads needed by Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors Add
- Proposed Chip registries and manufacturing records needed by Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors Add
- Shared foundations
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices relied on by Sampled inference recomputation and Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
- Blockers
11 blockers recorded
- Sampled inference recomputation
- A fully reproducible inference stack needs substantial software and tooling, and per-packet network reproducibility may need considerable software, firmware and possibly hardware work. Performance & compatibility. Waits on Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets) 2
- Passive optical taps work at 400G, but the 800G and 1600G line rates now arriving in data centres are undemonstrated. Performance & compatibility. Waits on Network taps and certifiers 2
- Checking that taps are correctly installed and stay in place at scale is not a solved problem, and hardening the recomputation server inside the prover's facility needs significant research. Hardware trust. Waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices 2 4
- There is no plan yet for quickly scaling side-channel defences on a frontier cluster; only early theoretical pieces exist. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities 2
- Memory wiping may use existing algorithms, but hardware testing is at an early stage. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure 2
- Robust red-teaming of recomputation schemes has not started, and most algorithm development remains academic. Adversarial validation 2 4
- Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
- Integrated flexHEG needs substantial help from the accelerator manufacturer, and the authors estimate 3.7–7.9 years, from when the manufacturer starts work, for such hardware to displace other accelerators in frontier development. Access & governance 13
- State-level attackers who hold the hardware can likely compromise the best current secure enclosures. Hardware trust. Waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices 13 15
- Rival states would need to trust the design and manufacture of guarantee processors and enclosures, for example through open design, redundant processors from each side or oversight of production. Hardware trust 12 14
- Restricting future rule updates would need a formal language for rules, which the authors judge most likely infeasible for early flexHEG versions. Protocol soundness 12
- Governing all relevant chips depends on knowing where they are, through chip registries and detection of undeclared facilities. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Chip registries and manufacturing records 14
- Sampled inference recomputation
What the verifier sees1 unspecified
From the family or selected implementation's record.
- Model weights
Hidden by Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors.
Unspecified for Sampled inference recomputation. Check the implementation record.
- Inputs and outputs
Hidden by Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors.
Unspecified for Sampled inference recomputation. Check the implementation record.
- Training data
Hidden by Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors.
Unspecified for Sampled inference recomputation. Check the implementation record.
Exposure notes
- Sampled inference recomputation, AI 2040 inference-only verification stack: This Explorer has no asset-specific exposure assessment for this implementation. Check its source and deployment assumptions.
- Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors: The guarantee processor sees the chip's traffic inside a sealed enclosure and reports only whether rules were kept.
Implementations5 systems
- Sampled inference recomputation
- Proposed AI 2040 inference-only verification stack Proposed architecture, AI Futures Project
- Research demo DiFR (Divergence From Reference) Research prototype
- Proposed Low-trust AI compute verification system overview Proposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
- Proposed SASH confidential network logger Research prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH)
- Operational use TOPLOC Open-source project, Prime Intellect
- Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
- None on the map
Sources17 cited
- Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). Original
- Get Involved in Verification, AI Futures Project (2026). Original
- Verifying international AI deals: Plan A, the state-of-play, and what you can do to help, T. Milton et al. (2026). Original
- AI 2040 Plan A — Verification SITREP, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- Fitting a Network TAP to our Inference Verification Prototype, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- Verifying LLM Inference to Detect Model Weight Exfiltration, R. Rinberg et al. (2025). Original
- Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). Original
- Bit-Exact AI Inference Verification Without Performance Tradeoffs, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
- Example Schemes for Verifying High-Stakes AI Agreements, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- TOPLOC: A Locality Sensitive Hashing Scheme for Trustless Verifiable Inference, J. M. Ong et al. (2025). Original
- DiFR: Inference Verification Despite Nondeterminism, A. Karvonen et al. (2025). Original
- Flexible Hardware-Enabled Guarantees for AI Compute, J. Petrie et al. (2025). Original
- Technical Options for Flexible Hardware-Enabled Guarantees, J. Petrie & O. Aarne (2025). Original
- International Security Applications of Flexible Hardware-Enabled Guarantees, O. Aarne & J. Petrie (2025). Original
- Hardware-Enabled Governance Mechanisms: Developing Technical Solutions to Exempt Items Otherwise Classified Under Export Control Classification Numbers 3A090 and 4A090, G. Kulp et al. (2024). Original
- Secure, Governable Chips: Using On-Chip Mechanisms to Manage National Security Risks from AI & Advanced Computing, O. Aarne et al. (2024). Original
- Hardware-Enabled Mechanisms for Verifying Responsible AI Development, A. O'Gara et al. (2025). Original
Share the link to this proposal. This proposal is also available as plain text and JSON.
Filter mechanisms
Filters apply to mechanisms only. They describe the setting a proposal is for, and all are off by default. A mechanism that a filter rules out is flagged and does not count towards claim coverage. Selected implementations use their own record fields. A match means not excluded; conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note. Passing a filter does not establish that the assumptions hold in a deployment.
23 of 25 mechanisms match · Clear all
Prover
How far can the party being checked be trusted?
The prover is the party being checked. Semi-trusted designs rely on part of its stack: usually the chip vendor's hardware root of trust, its firmware or counters, or its supply-chain records. Adversarial designs aim to hold even if it cheats wherever the checks allow, within their stated assumptions.
Keeps mechanisms whose threat model holds against at least this prover. Adversarial is the strongest assumption. Definitions
Verifier devices on site
May the verifier install its own hardware at the prover's sites?
Some mechanisms need a device the verifier owns or trusts at the prover's facility, such as a network tap, a bandwidth limiter or a sealed sensor. Choose Not allowed when the setting rules that out. Inspectors are not covered.
"Not allowed" removes mechanisms that need a retrofit device, such as a network tap or a sealed sensor. Definitions
Prover cooperation
How much must the prover take part?
Required: the prover takes part, for example by logging requests, producing proofs or opening records. Partial: some access, such as installing a device. Not required: works from outside, such as satellite imagery.
"Partial at most" removes mechanisms that need the prover's active participation. "Not required" keeps only those that work without it. Definitions
Chips
May the proposal depend on new chip designs?
New chip features take years to reach a deployed fleet and cover only chips made after they ship. Mechanisms that use shipping features, such as trusted execution environments or performance counters, stay.
"Existing chips only" removes mechanisms that need changes to future chip designs. Definitions
Minimum development status
Development status
A level describes the public evidence for a mechanism's stated use, not its cost or feasibility. R3 can still have open critical flaws.
Keeps mechanisms whose readiness level is at least this one. Definitions
Attack testing
How hard has each mechanism been attacked in public?
The strongest published attempt to break the mechanism for its verification use: a security analysis, red-teaming by its developers or collaborators, or a red team independent of them.
Keeps mechanisms whose strongest published attack testing is at least this. Definitions
Keep hidden from the verifier
What must the verifier never see? Choose any.
Model weights: the checked model's parameters. Inputs and outputs: the requests a deployed model serves and its responses. Training data: what a model was trained on. Each mechanism's exposure is the editors' reading of its record: shown, depends on the design (kept, with a note), hidden, not involved, or unspecified for a selected implementation. Code and configuration are not covered yet.
Removes mechanisms that show the asset to the verifier. Conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note and needs checking against the privacy requirement.
Claims
A claim is something one party wants to verify about another party's AI hardware or software. Each claim's number shows how the proposal addresses it.
- Addressed. A mechanism in the proposal is aimed at this claim and is not excluded by the filters.
- Partly addressed. Only supporting mechanisms, or mechanisms aimed at it that the filters exclude.
- Unaddressed. No mechanism in the proposal addresses this claim.
Addressed means a mechanism in the proposal is aimed at the claim and is not excluded by your filters. It does not mean the claim is verified: check its assessed use, development status, security evidence, assumptions and findings.
Mechanisms
A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims. Its badge is its development status for its stated use. An optional implementation choice narrows its assumptions, assessed use and claim links to that record. Lines join it to the claims it addresses. Click a line for details.Under its name it lists the claims it is aimed at or supports.
- Aimed at the claim: verifying it is a direct purpose of the mechanism.
- Supports the claim: helps verify it without being aimed at it.
- Faint: excluded by your filters, so it does not count towards claim coverage.
Overview
One row per mechanism in the proposal. Every mark comes from that mechanism's record, as listed in the panels below; what the verifier sees is the editors' reading of the record's text. Failure counts are per mechanism. Summary counts name mechanisms with open failures, not a sum of attacks. Choosing an implementation narrows each row to that record's assessed use; family findings remain as context. Findings are grouped as known failures, scope limitations and open questions. Only known failures count as failures. Counts are an inventory of published findings, not a risk score.
What the verifier sees
For model weights, inputs and outputs, and training data. This is the editors' reading of each mechanism's record (its threat model, how it works and its limitations), not a field of the record. Shown: the verifier sees it. Depends: on the design or variant, or the verifier sees only samples. Hidden: the verifier sees only commitments, hashes, proofs or results. Not involved: the record does not handle it. Unspecified: the selected implementation has no asset-specific assessment here.
Possible additions
Mechanisms on the map, not in the proposal, that the records connect to an unaddressed or partly addressed claim, an open failure or a dependency. They are pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and findings, and none is claimed to close a failure. Links from failures are the editors' reading of the two records.
Start from a goal
A goal is something a rule or agreement about AI sets out to achieve. Choosing one loads the claims it needs verified. Your mechanisms and filters stay as they are.
- Cap frontier training2 direct, 3 supportingKeep every AI training run below an agreed amount of compute.
- Pause frontier AI development2 direct, 3 supportingStop new AI training runs and experiments for an agreed period, while existing models stay in service.
- Deploy only evaluated models2 direct, 3 supportingDeploy powerful AI models widely only after their risks have been evaluated and judged manageable.
- Prevent catastrophic misuse2 direct, 2 supportingKeep capable AI models from helping anyone carry out catastrophic attacks, such as biological or chemical ones.
- Prevent weight theft1 direct, 1 supportingKeep the weights of capable AI models from being copied out of the facilities that hold them.
- Enforce chip export controls1 directKeep export-controlled AI chips at the destinations they were authorised for.
Start from a published design
Choosing a design loads the mechanisms its record realises or depends on. If the proposal has no claims yet, it also loads the claims that record says the design addresses.
- AI 2040 inference-only verification stack7 mechanismsProposed architecture, AI Futures Project
- Low-trust AI compute verification system overview7 mechanismsProposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
- RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design2 mechanismsProposed architecture, RAND