Proposal Explorer

For the goal Enforce chip export controls. Each of its claims is marked direct or supporting.

1. Chips are where they are declared to be Direct

Unaddressed

No mechanism in the proposal addresses it.

Outside this map

• End-user and end-use verification. Avellar and Grunewald also cover end-user verification, such as know-your-customer checks, and end-use verification, such as audits of compute provisioning. This map has no records for these compliance processes. B. Avellar & E. Grunewald 2026

Built for an adversarial prover

Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

No new hardware needed

Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

Published attempts to break a system, including those that found failures. Testing history does not show that open flaws are resolved.

• Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting: Analysis

Claims not fully addressed

• Chips are where they are declared to be No mechanism in the proposal addresses it.

Not linked to your claims

Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

Open significant flaws

3 flaws in 1 mechanism

• Proves that work was done, not that no capacity remains in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

  Proof-of-work accounting bounds unmonitored compute only relative to an estimate of what the actor has. Attestable states that the verifier "needs a credible estimate of the compute available" to the actor, and that a proof "cannot discover a datacenter that was never declared". ¹

  Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

  Related mechanism R1 Chip registries and manufacturing records: A registry of chips is one basis for the estimate of available compute that the flaw's source says the verifier needs. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. Add

  Related mechanism R1 Remote detection of data centres: Looks for data centres that were never declared, which a proof cannot discover. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. Add

• Security rests on new hardness assumptions in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

  Komargodski and Weinstein base security on hardness assumptions about batches of low-rank random linear equations, and list PoUW "from more standard or well-studied assumptions" as an open problem. Pearl's floating-point variant introduces a further "quantized-subspace hardness" assumption. ^{3 4}

  Open question · Significant · Open. On the record

• Known shortcuts let a miner claim somewhat more work than it did in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

  Pearl's specification lists known mining speedups: crafted inputs, precision shortcuts, seed grinding, work reuse, and faster kernels or hardware. A policy check caps the summands a miner may skip at one-sixteenth of those in a tile. For capacity bounding, any gap between work proven and work possible leaves spare capacity. ⁴

  Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

Not yet demonstrated

R1 Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

Mechanisms on the map that are not in the proposal. Pointers, not recommendations. ?

• R1 Chip location verification Add
  • Aimed at claim 1, Chips are where they are declared to be, which is unaddressed.
• R1 Chip registries and manufacturing records Add
  • Bears on the open significant flaw “Proves that work was done, not that no capacity remains” in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting. A registry of chips is one basis for the estimate of available compute that the flaw's source says the verifier needs.
• R1 Remote detection of data centres Add
  • Bears on the open significant flaw “Proves that work was done, not that no capacity remains” in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting. Looks for data centres that were never declared, which a proof cannot discover.

Blockers

3 blockers recorded

• Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting
  • Bounding spare capacity needs a credible estimate of the compute available to the actor, including third-party access. Capacity bounds ¹
  • Proofs of work cannot find facilities that were never declared. Coverage & hidden compute ¹
  • As of September 2026 no implementation, demonstration or independent evaluation of proofs of work for capacity bounding has been published. Adversarial validation

From the family or selected implementation's record. ?

Model weights

Depends on the design for Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting.

Inputs and outputs

Depends on the design for Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting.

Training data

Not involved: Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting.

Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting

• R3 Pearl proof-of-useful-work blockchain Open-source project, Pearl Research Labs

1. Pacing AI Requires Proof, Attestable (2026). Original
2. Mechanisms to Verify International Agreements About AI Development, A. Scher & L. Thiergart (2025). Original
3. Proofs of Useful Work from Arbitrary Matrix Multiplication, I. Komargodski & O. Weinstein (2025). Original
4. Pearl Floating Point Scheme Specification, Pearl Research Team (2026). Original
5. pearl: Monorepo for the Pearl network, Pearl Research Labs (2026). Original