Proposal Explorer
ResetA verification proposal from the AI Verification Tech Map, from its records of 2026-10-08. https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0013,M-0022,M-0002&cols=prover
Analysis
Applied filters: none. Every filter is set to Any.
Overview
| Mechanism | Readiness | Open flaws | Prover |
|---|---|---|---|
| Network taps and certifiers | R1 | 5 significant | Adversarial |
| Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities | R1 | 3 significant | Adversarial |
| Deterministic and bit-exact inference | R3 | 1 significant1 minor | Adversarial |
- Open flaws: n critical n significant n minor
Claim coverageNo claims yet
Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.
Properties1 in production · 3 built for an adversarial prover
- In production
- R3 Deterministic and bit-exact inference for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service
- Built for an adversarial prover
- Network taps and certifiers, Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities and Deterministic and bit-exact inference
- No new hardware needed
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference
- Flaws since mitigated
- Verifier dictionary attacks on hashes in Network taps and certifiers 1
Attack testing3 mechanisms with published testing
Published attempts to break a system, including those that found failures. Testing history does not show that open flaws are resolved.
- Network taps and certifiers: Analysis
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Analysis
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Analysis
Limits2 not yet demonstrated · 3 mechanisms with open significant findings
- Open significant flaws
9 flaws in 3 mechanisms
Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity in Network taps and certifiers
Hashing cannot remove information hidden in the outputs themselves. The Secure Gateway Device paper estimates that about 0.1 bit per token remains even with seed-synchronized replay checks. For a 200k-GPU inference cluster at full load (2,000 tokens per GPU per second), that is about 40 Mbit/s of covert egress, enough to move a 1 TB model in under three days. The paper names this the core remaining challenge and points to deterministic replay or active scrubbing of hardware-induced entropy. An independent study found that an adversary who chooses the prompts roughly doubles the bits leaked per token under Gumbel-based inference verification; see Bounding unexplained information in outputs. 1 9
Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
Related mechanism R3 Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Deterministic replay is one of the two remedies the flaw's source names. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. In the proposal.
Related mechanism R2 Bounding unexplained information in outputs: Bounds the hidden information outputs can carry by measuring what the declared computation fails to predict. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. Add
Some links cannot be passively tapped in Network taps and certifiers
Cankaya notes that copper-connected scale-up domains (for example NVL72 racks and TPU v7 cubes) are much harder to tap than fibre, and that optical budgets make passive taps impractical on 400GBASE-SR8 multimode links. Amodo found no taps advertised for 53 GBaud links as of May 2026. 2 10
Open question · Significant · Open. On the record
Encrypted fabrics hide plaintext from both parties in Network taps and certifiers
Cankaya notes that with TEE-protected sessions whose keys are ephemeral and managed inside the TEE, neither the operator nor the manufacturer can recover session keys after the session, so tapped traffic could not be opened for recomputation. For other encrypted fabrics, the operator can retain keys. 2
Open question · Significant · Open. On the record
Residual side channels in simple passive setups in Network taps and certifiers
Amodo's analysis of its own tapped prototype lists unvalidated header fields, timing of permitted traffic and variation in response formatting as residual channels, and concludes that the passive tap must be replaced by an active one. 5
Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
Completeness rests on physical monitoring left out of scope in Network taps and certifiers
The Secure Gateway Device paper assumes the facility is physically monitored, and states that the whole architecture depends on the device being the only communication channel. It names radio emanation, power-line signalling and thermal channels as covert channels beyond that scope. 1
Open question · Significant · Open. On the record
Related mechanism R1 Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Addresses the radio, power-line and thermal channels that network-level designs leave out. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. In the proposal.
Supply-chain implants may evade inspection in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
Cankaya identifies malicious hardware embedded deep in purchased components as a residual risk that visual inspection and disassembly may not catch. He notes that radiographic examination under high-security standards could mitigate it. 11
Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
Openings for airflow, power and optics weaken shielding in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
Cankaya notes that keeping attenuation high while passing high-power airflow, cabling and optical links adds complexity beyond existing shielded-enclosure specifications. 11
Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
Inspection assumptions may not hold in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
The design's statistical argument assumes that visual or disassembly inspection catches every flaw that is present in a sampled unit. Cankaya is unsure whether destructive teardowns are defence-dominant or offence-dominant. 11
Open question · Significant · Open. On the record
Cross-hardware replay relies on reverse-engineered, closed behaviour in Deterministic and bit-exact inference
Emulating one GPU's rounding on another requires reverse-engineering tensor-core arithmetic and modelling proprietary kernel choices. Hawkeye covers a subset of NVIDIA architectures and states that attention and other higher-level operations need further reverse engineering. For the bit-exact emulator, a proprietary Hopper kernel family is an open edge case. 12 14
Open question · Significant · Open. On the record
- Open minor flaws
1 mechanism with minor findings
Some kernels remain genuinely nondeterministic in Deterministic and bit-exact inference
The bit-exact work separates kernels that are deterministic but not batch-invariant from truly nondeterministic ones that use atomic functions. Some integer de-quantization kernels use atomic additions and remain nondeterministic, so exact replay needs backends that avoid them. 12
Open question · Minor · Open. On the record
- Not yet demonstrated
- R1 Network taps and certifiers and R1 Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
Possible additions1 for open flaws · 2 for dependencies
Mechanisms on the map that are not in the proposal. Pointers, not recommendations.
-
- Bears on the open significant flaw “Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity” in Network taps and certifiers. Bounds the hidden information outputs can carry by measuring what the declared computation fails to predict.
-
- Network taps and certifiers waits on it. Taps and gateway devices need tamper-evident housing and physical monitoring so that traffic cannot bypass them.
-
- Network taps and certifiers depends on it.
Dependencies2 missing prerequisites · 11 blockers
- Missing prerequisites
- R3 Sampled inference recomputation needed by Network taps and certifiers Add
- R2 Tamper evidence for verifier devices needed by Network taps and certifiers Add
- Blockers
11 blockers recorded
- Network taps and certifiers
- No complete verification tap has been demonstrated at production frontend link rates, and on the tested CPU no hash algorithm reached line rate with minimum-size frames. Performance & compatibility 10 22
- Nondeterministic inference leaves covert capacity in outputs that hashing cannot remove. Evidence binding. Waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference 1
- Taps and gateway devices need tamper-evident housing and physical monitoring so that traffic cannot bypass them. Hardware trust. Waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices 1 3
- Radio, power-line and thermal channels are not addressed by network-level designs. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities 1
- Red-teaming by specialists is called for but has not been reported. Adversarial validation 1
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference
- Batch-invariant kernels cost throughput: in Thinking Machines' Qwen3-8B test, an improved deterministic build took 42 s against 26 s for vLLM's default, and SGLang reports an average 34.35% slowdown on its FlashInfer and FlashAttention 3 backends. Performance & compatibility 13 15
- Coverage is incomplete: the bit-exact emulator targets dense blocks on NVIDIA GPUs and excludes mixture-of-experts inference and training, and vLLM's batch-invariant mode is in beta, with open work on AMD hardware and speculative decoding. Performance & compatibility 12 16 23
- Amodo's status page for the AI 2040 verification plan rates a reproducible inference stack for that plan as 'not started'. Performance & compatibility 24
- Exact replay requires the prover to disclose weights, software versions, parallelism and batch sizes to whoever recomputes. Privacy & leakage 3 12
- Network taps and certifiers
What the verifier sees2 depend on design
From the family or selected implementation's record.
- Model weights
Depends on the design for Network taps and certifiers and Deterministic and bit-exact inference.
Not involved: Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.
- Inputs and outputs
Depends on the design for Network taps and certifiers and Deterministic and bit-exact inference.
Not involved: Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.
- Training data
Depends on the design for Network taps and certifiers.
Not involved: Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities and Deterministic and bit-exact inference.
Exposure notes
- Network taps and certifiers: Only hashes leave the site; records picked for a challenge are opened for replay at a verification facility.
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Shields and filters a facility; it does not handle model data.
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Exact replay needs the weights, configuration and replayed requests inside the recomputation environment. What the verifier sees depends on whether that environment keeps them confidential. 3 12
Implementations6 systems
- Network taps and certifiers
- R1 AI 2040 inference-only verification stack Proposed architecture, AI Futures Project
- R1 Low-trust AI compute verification system overview Proposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
- R1 SASH confidential network logger Research prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH)
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
- R1 AI 2040 inference-only verification stack Proposed architecture, AI Futures Project
- R1 Low-trust AI compute verification system overview Proposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
- R1 RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design Proposed architecture, RAND
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference
- R2 Batch-invariant inference kernels (Thinking Machines) Open-source project, Thinking Machines Lab
- R3 Verde and RepOps (Gensyn) Product, Gensyn
- R1 Low-trust AI compute verification system overview Proposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
Sources24 cited
- Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). Original
- The Fundamentals and Feasibility of Secure Network Taps for Verifying AI Datacenter Use, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
- A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
- Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). Original
- Fitting a Network TAP to our Inference Verification Prototype, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- Amodo-Design/Inference-Recomputation-Prototype (GitHub repository), Amodo Design (2026). Original
- inference-verification: Inference Verification Prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). Original
- Internationalising AI Verification, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). Original
- Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). Original
- Network Tapping for AI Verification: A Technical Assessment, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- Suppressing Side Channels in an Untrusted Data Center via Retrofitted Defenses, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
- Bit-Exact AI Inference Verification Without Performance Tradeoffs, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
- Defeating Nondeterminism in LLM Inference, H. He & Thinking Machines Lab (2025). Original
- Hawkeye: Reproducing GPU-Level Non-Determinism, E. Badash et al. (2026). Original
- Towards Deterministic Inference in SGLang and Reproducible RL Training, The SGLang Team (2025). Original
- Batch Invariance (vLLM documentation), vLLM project (2026). Original
- gensyn-ai/ree: Gensyn Reproducible Execution Environment (GitHub repository), Gensyn (2026). Original
- EigenCloud Brings Verifiable AI to Mass Market with EigenAI and EigenCompute Launches, EigenCloud (2025). Original
- Building Delphi: Pricing, Settlement, and Agentic Trading, D. Jedamski (2026). Original
- Reproducible Execution Environment (REE) (Gensyn documentation), Gensyn (2026). Original
- What is Delphi? (Delphi documentation), Gensyn (2026). Original
- Network Traffic Hashing, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- [Feature]: Batch Invariant Feature and Performance Optimization (vLLM issue #27433), vLLM project contributors (2025). Original
- AI 2040 Plan A — Verification SITREP, Amodo Design (2026). 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.
All 25 mechanisms match.
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 readiness
How mature must each mechanism be?
- Any (selected)25 match
- R1 Proposed25 match
- R2 Demonstrated15 match
- R3 In production4 match
- R4 Deployment-ready0 match
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, readiness, assumptions and open flaws.
Mechanisms
A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims. Its badge is its readiness level 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. Flaw counts are per mechanism. Summary counts name mechanisms with open findings, not a sum of attacks. Choosing an implementation narrows each row to that record's assessed use; family findings remain as context.
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 flaw or a dependency. They are pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and flaws, and none is claimed to close a flaw. Links from flaws 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) design3 mechanismsProposed architecture, RAND