# AI verification proposal

A proposal built with the Proposal Explorer of the AI Verification Tech Map (https://trustbutveri.fyi/), from its records of 2026-10-09. Interactive version: https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0023,M-0022,M-0013&hide=training

How to read it: a claim is something one party wants to verify about another's AI hardware or software. A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims; it is "aimed at" a claim when that is its direct purpose, and "supporting" when it contributes without being aimed at it. A claim is addressed when a mechanism in the proposal is aimed at it and is not excluded by the filters; addressed does not mean verified, so check that mechanism's development status, security evidence and findings. Definitions: https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/methodology/ (roles, properties and findings) and https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/readiness/ (development status).

## Filters

Filters apply to mechanisms only and describe the setting the proposal is for.

- **Keep hidden from the verifier: training data.** Removes mechanisms that show the asset to the verifier. Conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note and needs checking against the privacy requirement. 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.

24 of 25 mechanisms on the map pass these filters.

## Overview

One row per mechanism, read from its record. Open failures: critical / significant / minor. The last three columns are the editors' reading of what the verifier sees. 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.

| Mechanism | Development | Security evidence | Prover | Attack testing | Hardware | Open failures | Weights | Inputs and outputs | Training data |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Safeguard attestation | Research demonstration | Published security analysis | Semi-trusted | Analysis | Existing features | 0 / 2 / 0 | depends | depends | not involved |
| Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 0 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |
| Network taps and certifiers | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 2 / 0 | depends | depends | depends |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Safeguard attestation

Hardware-signed evidence that an AI service sent a given response through its declared safeguard path, such as a wrapper that calls a guardrail classifier. ([Safeguard attestation](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/safeguard-attestation/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for attesting that a declared safeguard mediated a service's responses.
- Security evidence: Published security analysis. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: semi-trusted prover. Hardware: existing features. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Cryptographic & computational.
- What the verifier sees: model weights depends; inputs and outputs depends; training data not involved. The enclave route signs hashes of the safeguard, request and response; a low-trust design has the verifier re-run and screen sampled requests itself.

### Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities

Shielding, filtering, jamming and inspecting an AI facility to limit hidden physical communication around monitored network links. ([Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure.
- Security evidence: Published security analysis. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: retrofit device. Prover cooperation: partial. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Off-chip devices & sensors.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Shields and filters a facility; it does not handle model data.

### Network taps and certifiers

Devices on a cluster's network links that copy and hash all traffic, so a verifier can later check sampled records against declared work. ([Network taps and certifiers](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked.
- Security evidence: Published security analysis. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: retrofit device. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Off-chip devices & sensors.
- What the verifier sees: model weights depends; inputs and outputs depends; training data depends. Only hashes leave the site; records picked for a challenge are opened for replay at a verification facility.
- Filter note: May show training data, depending on the design. Only hashes leave the site; records picked for a challenge are opened for replay at a verification facility.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
- Network taps and certifiers

**No new hardware needed**

- Safeguard attestation

**Failures since mitigated**

- Verifier dictionary attacks on hashes (in Network taps and certifiers) [15]


## Attack 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.

**Testing history**

- Safeguard attestation: Analysis
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Analysis
- Network taps and certifiers: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant failures**

- Components outside the attested boundary (known failure, theoretical argument, in Safeguard attestation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/safeguard-attestation/evidence/flaws/4/) [1][2]. In the proof-of-guardrail experiments, the guardrail model and the agent's backend model were both reached through external APIs, and the authors leave the decision to trust those APIs to the verifier. The measured wrapper must also have no vulnerability that lets the unmeasured agent bypass the guardrail, for example by executing arbitrary commands inside the enclave. The code's README states that the enclave does not currently restrict the agent's arbitrary command execution, which could be used to bypass guardrails.
- Memory-bus interposition extracts attestation keys and forges attestations (known failure, demonstrated attack, in Safeguard attestation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/safeguard-attestation/evidence/flaws/5/) [1][4][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Inherited finding. Applies to variants using the affected Intel or AMD trust roots. PAL*M excludes physical attacks. A TDX-backed safeguard claim against a physical host attacker would be defeated, but these studies do not demonstrate a break of the AWS Nitro proof-of-guardrail prototype or of verifier-side recomputation. The TEE findings cover DDR5 attacks on Intel TDX, the H100 relay demonstration, DDR4 attacks on AMD SEV-SNP, and software-only SEV-SNP forgery before AMD's fixes. These are inherited hardware limits; a governance analysis explains why physical access matters in a treaty setting. Related finding: https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tee-remote-attestation/evidence/flaws/1/.

  Response: Intel and AMD place the physical attack class outside their threat models, according to the researchers. AMD reports firmware fixes for RMPocalypse.

  Related mechanism: Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors (R1, not in the proposal). A tamper-protected enclosure around the chip is the proposed answer when the party that holds the hardware may attack it physically.
- Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity (known failure, theoretical argument, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/evidence/flaws/1/) [15][22]. 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.

  Related mechanism: Deterministic and bit-exact inference (R3, not in the proposal). Deterministic replay is one of the two remedies the flaw's source names.

  Related mechanism: Bounding unexplained information in outputs (R2, not in the proposal). Bounds the hidden information outputs can carry by measuring what the declared computation fails to predict.
- Residual side channels in simple passive setups (known failure, theoretical argument, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/evidence/flaws/4/) [18]. 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.

**Scope limitations**

- Attestation shows a safeguard ran, not that it is effective (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Safeguard attestation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/safeguard-attestation/evidence/flaws/1/) [1]. Proof of guardrail ensures that the guardrail executed, but the guardrail can still err or be jailbroken. Because the guardrail must be open source, a malicious developer can attack it with jailbreaks while still presenting a valid proof. In the authors' evaluation, Llama Guard 3 reached an F1 score of 0.56 on the unsafe class of the ToxicChat dataset. The authors state that proof of guardrail should not be interpreted or advertised as proof of safety.
- Selective attestation leaves traffic uncovered (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Safeguard attestation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/safeguard-attestation/evidence/flaws/2/) [1][4][9]. Attestations are issued per response. In the prototype, the agent offers them when it receives high-stakes questions, so nothing shows that unattested traffic went through the same path. PAL*M's authors note that a prover could cherry-pick favourable executions, and suggest verifier-published nonces or requesting only session-level proofs. A governance analysis notes that auditors also need assurance that all activity is accounted for, since a host could start a second confidential virtual machine that bypasses monitoring.

  Related mechanism: On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters (R2, not in the proposal). On-chip counters are a proposed route to evidence about everything a chip runs, including a second virtual machine that skips the safeguard.
- Measurements may omit behaviour-relevant configuration or runtime changes (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Safeguard attestation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/safeguard-attestation/evidence/flaws/3/) [9]. Every component that influences inference behaviour must be covered by the launch measurement, including feature flags, environment variables and invocation arguments. A launch measurement also does not show that a program keeps running as measured if the kernel is later compromised.
- Openings for airflow, power and optics weaken shielding (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/evidence/flaws/2/) [14]. Cankaya notes that keeping attenuation high while passing high-power airflow, cabling and optical links adds complexity beyond existing shielded-enclosure specifications.
- Some links cannot be passively tapped (scope limitation, open question, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/evidence/flaws/2/) [16][23]. 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.
- Encrypted fabrics hide plaintext from both parties (scope limitation, open question, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/evidence/flaws/3/) [16]. 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.
- Completeness rests on physical monitoring left out of scope (scope limitation, open question, in Network taps and certifiers; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/network-taps-and-certifiers/evidence/flaws/5/) [15]. 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.

  Related mechanism: Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities (R1, in the proposal). Addresses the radio, power-line and thermal channels that network-level designs leave out.

**Open questions**

- Supply-chain implants may evade inspection (open question, theoretical argument, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/evidence/flaws/1/) [14]. 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.
- Inspection assumptions may not hold (open question, open question, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/evidence/flaws/3/) [14]. 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.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure
- Network taps and certifiers: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked


## 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. Pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and findings, and none is claimed to close a failure.

- **Deterministic and bit-exact inference** (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service)
  - Bears on the open significant failure "Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity" in Network taps and certifiers. Deterministic replay is one of the two remedies the flaw's source names.
  - Network taps and certifiers waits on it: Nondeterministic inference leaves covert capacity in outputs that hashing cannot remove.
- **Bounding unexplained information in outputs** (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for bounding how much hidden information can leave in checked inference outputs)
  - Bears on the open significant failure "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.
- **Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors** (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for checking and enforcing training-compute limits on chips, against adversaries up to states)
  - Bears on the open significant failure "Memory-bus interposition extracts attestation keys and forges attestations" in Safeguard attestation. A tamper-protected enclosure around the chip is the proposed answer when the party that holds the hardware may attack it physically.
- **Hardware-attested weight binding** (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for hardware-attested weight binding showing users that a service runs its committed weights)
  - Safeguard attestation waits on it: Safeguard evidence must be bound to the model actually served, which depends on model-identity attestation.
- **TEE remote attestation for AI workloads** (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for showing which software ran to a party that distrusts the operator holding the hardware)
  - Safeguard attestation waits on it: Frontier model inference typically needs several GPUs, GPU confidential computing is less mature than CPU support, and CPU inference, which an enclave prototype had to use, ran about 100 times slower than GPU inference.
  - Safeguard attestation waits on it: Trust rests on a small number of hardware vendors, and a per-CPU Intel attestation key has been extracted by physical attack.
- **Tamper evidence for verifier devices** (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence)
  - Network taps and certifiers waits on it: Taps and gateway devices need tamper-evident housing and physical monitoring so that traffic cannot bypass them.
- **Sampled inference recomputation** (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for checking untrusted workers' activations against the declared model, prompt and precision)
  - Network taps and certifiers depends on it.


## Dependencies

**Missing prerequisites**

- TEE remote attestation for AI workloads (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for showing which software ran to a party that distrusts the operator holding the hardware), needed by Safeguard attestation
- Hardware-attested weight binding (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for hardware-attested weight binding showing users that a service runs its committed weights), needed by Safeguard attestation
- Sampled inference recomputation (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for checking untrusted workers' activations against the declared model, prompt and precision), needed by Network taps and certifiers
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service), needed by Network taps and certifiers
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence), needed by Network taps and certifiers

**Blockers**

- Safeguard attestation: No published design shows that all of a provider's traffic passes through the attested safeguard path; current evidence covers individual attested responses. (coverage & hidden compute) [1][9]
- Safeguard attestation: Frontier model inference typically needs several GPUs, GPU confidential computing is less mature than CPU support, and CPU inference, which an enclave prototype had to use, ran about 100 times slower than GPU inference. (performance & compatibility; waits on TEE remote attestation for AI workloads) [9][24]
- Safeguard attestation: Trust rests on a small number of hardware vendors, and a per-CPU Intel attestation key has been extracted by physical attack. (hardware trust; waits on TEE remote attestation for AI workloads) [7][9]
- Safeguard attestation: Safeguard evidence must be bound to the model actually served, which depends on model-identity attestation. (evidence binding; waits on Hardware-attested weight binding) [24][25]
- Safeguard attestation: No independent red-team or audit of a safeguard-attestation system has been published, and the available prototypes are described by their authors as proofs of concept that have not been stress-tested by a counterparty. (adversarial validation) [2][6]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: No prototype or red-team exists; the design is a first-pass viability study. (adversarial validation) [14]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Volume costs of TEMPEST-grade power-line filters are uncertain, because existing products are mostly made to order. (performance & compatibility) [14]
- 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) [23][26]
- Network taps and certifiers: Nondeterministic inference leaves covert capacity in outputs that hashing cannot remove. (evidence binding; waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference) [15]
- Network taps and certifiers: 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) [13][15]
- Network taps and certifiers: Radio, power-line and thermal channels are not addressed by network-level designs. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities) [15]
- Network taps and certifiers: Red-teaming by specialists is called for but has not been reported. (adversarial validation) [15]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for Safeguard attestation and Network taps and certifiers; hidden by none; not involved in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; unspecified for none.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for Safeguard attestation and Network taps and certifiers; hidden by none; not involved in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; unspecified for none.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for Network taps and certifiers; hidden by none; not involved in Safeguard attestation and Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; unspecified for none.

## Implementations

- Safeguard attestation: none on the map
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/) (R1, proposed architecture); [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/) (R1, proposed architecture); [RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/) (R1, proposed architecture)
- Network taps and certifiers: [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/) (R1, proposed architecture); [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/) (R1, proposed architecture); [SASH confidential network logger](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/sash-confidential-network-logger/) (R1, research prototype)

## Sources

1. Proof-of-Guardrail in AI Agents and What (Not) to Trust from It, X. Jin et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05786
2. Verifiable-ClawGuard: proof-of-guardrail reference code, SaharaLabsAI (2026). https://github.com/SaharaLabsAI/Verifiable-ClawGuard
3. Safety Without Compromising on Privacy, D. McCann-Sayles et al. (2026). https://tinfoil.sh/blog/2026-09-14-safety-without-compromising-privacy
4. PAL*M: Property Attestation for Large Generative Models, P. Chantasantitam et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16199
5. Enabling Verifiably-Scoped Monitoring through Large Language Models and Trusted Compute, B. Penchas et al. (2026). https://icml.cc/virtual/2026/78630
6. Auditor-in-a-Box: Tools for Third-Party Auditing, R. Rinberg & B. Penchas (2026). https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uWYk7MM9hAf9GEbGe/auditor-in-a-box-tools-for-third-party-auditing
7. TEE.fail: Breaking Trusted Execution Environments via DDR5 Memory Bus Interposition, J. Chuang et al. (2026). https://tee.fail/
8. DDRop: Active Memory Interposer Attacks on Confidential VMs by Dropping DDR5 Writes, J. De Meulemeester et al. (2026). https://ddropattack.eu/
9. On TEEs for Privacy-Preserving Monitoring in AI Governance, Gloria Z (2026). https://techgov.intelligence.org/blog/on-tees-for-privacy-preserving-monitoring-in-ai-governance
10. Battering RAM: Low-Cost Interposer Attacks on Confidential Computing via Dynamic Memory Aliasing, J. De Meulemeester et al. (2026). https://batteringram.eu/
11. RMPocalypse: How a Catch-22 Breaks AMD SEV-SNP, B. Schlüter & S. Shinde (2025). https://rmpocalypse.github.io/
12. SEV-SNP RMP Initialization Vulnerability (AMD-SB-3020), AMD (2025). https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-3020.html
13. A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). https://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/A-system-overview-for-near-term-low-trust-AI-compute-verification.pdf
14. Suppressing Side Channels in an Untrusted Data Center via Retrofitted Defenses, N. Cankaya (2026). https://techgov.intelligence.org/blog/suppressing-side-channels-in-an-untrusted-data-center-via-retrofitted-defenses
15. Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10724
16. The Fundamentals and Feasibility of Secure Network Taps for Verifying AI Datacenter Use, N. Cankaya (2026). https://nacicankaya.substack.com/p/research-note-the-fundamentals-and
17. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/verification-plan
18. Fitting a Network TAP to our Inference Verification Prototype, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-09-15-network-tap-inference-verification/
19. Amodo-Design/Inference-Recomputation-Prototype (GitHub repository), Amodo Design (2026). https://github.com/Amodo-Design/Inference-Recomputation-Prototype
20. inference-verification: Inference Verification Prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). https://github.com/sg-ai-safety-hub/inference-verification
21. Internationalising AI Verification, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). https://www.aisafety.sg/research/internationalising-ai-verification
22. Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23375
23. Network Tapping for AI Verification: A Technical Assessment, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-05-03-network-tapping/
24. Attestable Audits: Verifiable AI Safety Benchmarks Using Trusted Execution Environments, C. Schnabl et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23706
25. How Tinfoil Proves Exactly What Model Is Running, Tinfoil Team (2026). https://tinfoil.sh/blog/2026-02-03-proving-model-identity
26. Network Traffic Hashing, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-07-03-network-traffic-hashing/