# AI verification proposal A proposal built with the Proposal Explorer of the AI Verification Tech Map (https://trustbutveri.fyi/), from its records of 2026-10-08. Interactive version: https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0007&hide=weights,io 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 readiness and open flaws. Readiness levels R0 to R4 describe one record's public evidence for its assessed use and are never combined. Definitions: https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/methodology/ (roles, properties and flaws) and https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/readiness/ (readiness levels). ## Filters Filters apply to mechanisms only and describe the setting the proposal is for. - **Keep hidden from the verifier: model weights, inputs and outputs.** 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. 23 of 25 mechanisms on the map pass these filters. ## Overview One row per mechanism, read from its record. Open flaws: critical / significant / minor. The last three columns are the editors' reading of what the verifier sees. | Mechanism | Readiness | Prover | Attack testing | Hardware | Open flaws | Weights | Inputs and outputs | Training data | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting | R1 | Adversarial | Analysis | None | 0 / 3 / 0 | depends | depends | not involved | ## Claims No claims chosen. ## Mechanisms ### Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting Cryptographic evidence that a given amount of matrix-multiplication work was completed, proposed as one input to accounting for spare capacity on declared hardware. ([Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/proofs-of-useful-work/)) - Assessment: mechanism family. - Readiness: R1 Proposed, assessed for bounding the spare capacity of declared hardware that could run training. - Claims in this proposal: none of them. - Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: none. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Cryptographic & computational. - What the verifier sees: model weights depends; inputs and outputs depends; training data not involved. Checking a sampled tile of a matrix multiplication reveals that tile, which may hold model or input data; the authors suggest a zero-knowledge proof when the matrices must stay private. - Filter note: May show model weights, depending on the design. Checking a sampled tile of a matrix multiplication reveals that tile, which may hold model or input data; the authors suggest a zero-knowledge proof when the matrices must stay private. - Filter note: May show inputs and outputs, depending on the design. Checking a sampled tile of a matrix multiplication reveals that tile, which may hold model or input data; the authors suggest a zero-knowledge proof when the matrices must stay private. ## Properties **Built for an adversarial prover** - Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting **No new hardware needed** - Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting ## Attack testing Published attempts to break a system, including those that found failures. Testing history does not establish that open flaws are resolved. **Testing history** - Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting: Analysis ## Limits **Open significant flaws** - Proves that work was done, not that no capacity remains (theoretical argument, in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/proofs-of-useful-work/#flaw-1) [1]. 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". Related mechanism: Chip registries and manufacturing records (R1, not in the proposal). A registry of chips is one basis for the estimate of available compute that the flaw's source says the verifier needs. Related mechanism: Remote detection of data centres (R1, not in the proposal). Looks for data centres that were never declared, which a proof cannot discover. - Security rests on new hardness assumptions (open question, in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/proofs-of-useful-work/#flaw-2) [3][4]. 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. - Known shortcuts let a miner claim somewhat more work than it did (theoretical argument, in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/proofs-of-useful-work/#flaw-3) [4]. 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. **Not yet demonstrated** - Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting: R1 Proposed, assessed for bounding the spare capacity of declared hardware that could run training ## 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. Pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and flaws, and none is claimed to close a flaw. - **Chip registries and manufacturing records** (R1 Proposed, assessed for a checkable record of which chips were made and who declared owning them) - 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. - **Remote detection of data centres** (R1 Proposed, assessed for finding undeclared data centres above an agreed compute threshold) - 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. ## Dependencies **Blockers** - 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 useful work for capacity accounting: Proofs of work cannot find facilities that were never declared. (coverage & hidden compute) [1] - Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting: As of September 2026 no implementation, demonstration or independent evaluation of proofs of work for capacity bounding has been published. (adversarial validation) ## What the verifier sees - Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting; hidden by none; not involved in none; unspecified for none. - Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting; hidden by none; not involved in none; unspecified for none. - Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting; unspecified for none. ## Implementations - Proofs of useful work for capacity accounting: [Pearl proof-of-useful-work blockchain](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/pearl-proof-of-useful-work/) (R3, open-source project) ## Sources 1. Pacing AI Requires Proof, Attestable (2026). https://attestable.com/blog/pacing-ai-requires-proof 2. Mechanisms to Verify International Agreements About AI Development, A. Scher & L. Thiergart (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.15867 3. Proofs of Useful Work from Arbitrary Matrix Multiplication, I. Komargodski & O. Weinstein (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09971 4. Pearl Floating Point Scheme Specification, Pearl Research Team (2026). https://pearlresearch.ai/Pearl_Whitepaper.pdf 5. pearl: Monorepo for the Pearl network, Pearl Research Labs (2026). https://github.com/pearl-research-labs/pearl