# 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-0012,M-0002&implementations=M-0012:I-0006

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.

None set. Every mechanism on the map was available.

## 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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Model identity attestation / Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap) | R3 | Semi-trusted | Analysis | Existing features | 1 / 2 / 0 | depends | unspecified | not involved |
| Deterministic and bit-exact inference | R3 | Adversarial | Analysis | None | 0 / 1 / 1 | depends | depends | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Model identity attestation

Tinfoil's method for proving which model weights its enclave-hosted inference service runs, by binding a dm-verity hash of the weights into remote attestation. ([Model identity attestation](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/model-identity-attestation/))

- Assessment: selected implementation [Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap)](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/tinfoil-model-identity/).
- Readiness: R3 In production, assessed for showing clients that the served weights match a committed hash.
- 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 unspecified; training data not involved. Tinfoil describes downloaded weights for public-model verification and hash consistency for private models. This model-identity description does not specify input/output exposure.

### Deterministic and bit-exact inference

Making model inference reproducible bit for bit, so that a verifier's re-run must match the provider's output exactly rather than approximately. ([Deterministic and bit-exact inference](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/deterministic-inference/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Readiness: R3 In production, assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service.
- 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. 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.


## Properties

**In production**

- Model identity attestation: R3 In production, assessed for showing clients that the served weights match a committed hash
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference: R3 In production, assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Deterministic and bit-exact inference

**No new hardware needed**

- Model identity attestation
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference


## 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**

- Model identity attestation / Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap): Analysis
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Analysis


## Limits

**Open critical flaws**

- Inherits attacks on the underlying TEEs (demonstrated attack, in Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap); https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/tinfoil-model-identity/#flaw-1) [2][3][6][7][8][9]. Inherited finding. Critical when model identity must hold against an operator with physical access to an affected host. Tinfoil documents physical attacks as an enclave limitation. These are hardware-class demonstrations, not a published break of Modelwrap or Tinfoil's deployed verification chain. Tinfoil's model commitment and boot-time GPU check depend on the CPU attestation. The TEE findings distinguish Intel TDX forgery on DDR5, AMD SEV-SNP forgery on DDR4 in Battering RAM, and software-only RMPocalypse on platforms lacking AMD's fixes. TEE.fail recovered a guest OpenSSL key on AMD, not an AMD attestation key. Its GPU relay demonstration used an H100 with forged TDX evidence; it does not establish the same result for Tinfoil's H200 or B200 configurations. Related finding: https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tee-remote-attestation/#flaw-1.

  Response: Tinfoil acknowledges the physical-access boundary. The TEE.fail authors report that Intel and AMD treat interposer attacks as outside their threat models and recommend physically secure servers. AMD reports firmware fixes for RMPocalypse.

**Open significant flaws**

- Side channels, I/O leakage and denial of service are outside enclave protection (theoretical argument, in Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap); https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/tinfoil-model-identity/#flaw-2) [2]. Tinfoil's documentation lists timing, power and electromagnetic side channels, host observation of access patterns and I/O, denial of service, supply-chain compromise and rollback as limitations.
- Private models can be checked only for consistency (open question, in Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap); https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/tinfoil-model-identity/#flaw-3) [1]. For unpublished weights, the root hash appears in the attestation without the weights being exposed. Users can then confirm only that they get the same model each time.
- Cross-hardware replay relies on reverse-engineered, closed behaviour (open question, in Deterministic and bit-exact inference; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/deterministic-inference/#flaw-2) [15][17]. 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.

**Family finding context**

- Context for Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap); applicability depends on the finding's scope. Underlying attestation can be forged or relayed (demonstrated attack, in Model identity attestation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/model-identity-attestation/#flaw-1) [2][6][7][8][9][10]. Inherited finding. Critical for the enclave route against an operator with physical access to affected hardware, or control of an unpatched SEV-SNP hypervisor. It does not apply to the recomputation route. PAL*M excludes physical attacks, and Tinfoil acknowledges this boundary. The enclave route inherits the platform-specific TEE attestation failures. Intel TDX forgery and H100 relay were demonstrated with physical access and host control. Battering RAM defeated AMD SEV-SNP attestation on DDR4 servers; RMPocalypse did so from malicious host software on platforms without AMD's fixes. These demonstrate failures of the trust roots, not of each model-commitment protocol. Related finding: https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tee-remote-attestation/#flaw-1.

  Response: The TEE.fail authors report that physical interposer attacks are outside Intel's and AMD's threat models. AMD reports 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.
- Context for Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap); applicability depends on the finding's scope. Launch-state attestation does not by itself cover weights loaded later (theoretical argument, in Model identity attestation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/model-identity-attestation/#flaw-2) [1][11]. Attestation measures launch state, and weights are read from disk after boot. A signature checked at load time does not stop a malicious hypervisor from altering the disk afterwards. Tinfoil reports mitigating this with dm-verity checks on every read. Unmeasured runtime configuration remains a general risk.
- Context for Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap); applicability depends on the finding's scope. For private models, a user can confirm consistency but not content (open question, in Model identity attestation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/model-identity-attestation/#flaw-3) [1][12]. When weights are not published, users can check that the same root hash is served each time, but not what the model is. Pairing the hash with an attested evaluation, as in Attestable Audits, is one proposed remedy.
- Context for Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap); applicability depends on the finding's scope. Recomputation depends on trusted logging and randomness, and its tolerance leaves a covert channel (demonstrated attack, in Model identity attestation; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/model-identity-attestation/#flaw-4) [13][14]. The recomputation variant assumes that every input, output and seed is logged correctly, and that the attacker can neither predict nor manipulate which messages are sampled for verification. Legitimate nondeterminism concentrates at a few token positions, and slow leaks within the tolerated slack remain possible. An independent study showed that an adversary who controls the prompts roughly doubles the bits leaked per token, reducing the exfiltration slowdown from 146–254 times under benign prompts to 60–118 times. The attack targets the exfiltration bound, not the check that outputs match the declared model.

  Related mechanism: Network taps and certifiers (R1, not in the proposal). Taps are proposed to copy and hash traffic on the monitored links, reducing reliance on the prover's own log. This still depends on the monitored boundary and trusted capture.

  Related mechanism: Deterministic and bit-exact inference (R3, in the proposal). Bit-exact inference would remove the numerical tolerance that leaves this channel.

**Open minor flaws**

- Some kernels remain genuinely nondeterministic (open question, in Deterministic and bit-exact inference; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/deterministic-inference/#flaw-1) [15]. 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.


## 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.

- **TEE remote attestation for AI workloads** (R3 In production, assessed for showing which software ran to a party that distrusts the operator holding the hardware)
  - Model identity attestation waits on it: The underlying TEE attestation does not resist attackers with physical access to the host.


## Dependencies

**Missing prerequisites**

- TEE remote attestation for AI workloads (R3 In production, assessed for showing which software ran to a party that distrusts the operator holding the hardware), needed by Model identity attestation

**Blockers**

- Model identity attestation: The underlying TEE attestation does not resist attackers with physical access to the host. (hardware trust; waits on TEE remote attestation for AI workloads) [2][6]
- Model identity attestation: No independent evaluation of the model-identity chain has been published. (adversarial validation)
- 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) [16][18]
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference: 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) [15][19][26]
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Amodo's status page for the AI 2040 verification plan rates a reproducible inference stack for that plan as 'not started'. (performance & compatibility) [27]
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Exact replay requires the prover to disclose weights, software versions, parallelism and batch sizes to whoever recomputes. (privacy & leakage) [15][25]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for Model identity attestation and Deterministic and bit-exact inference; hidden by none; not involved in none; unspecified for none.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for Deterministic and bit-exact inference; hidden by none; not involved in none; unspecified for Model identity attestation.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Model identity attestation and Deterministic and bit-exact inference; unspecified for none.

## Implementations

- Model identity attestation: [Attestable Audits](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/attestable-audits/) (R2, research prototype); [PAL*M](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/palm/) (R2, research prototype); [Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap)](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/tinfoil-model-identity/) (R3, product)
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference: [Batch-invariant inference kernels (Thinking Machines)](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/batch-invariant-inference-kernels/) (R2, open-source project); [Verde and RepOps (Gensyn)](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/gensyn-verde-repops/) (R3, product); [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/) (R1, proposed architecture)

## Sources

1. How Tinfoil Proves Exactly What Model Is Running, Tinfoil Team (2026). https://tinfoil.sh/blog/2026-02-03-proving-model-identity
2. A primer on secure enclaves, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/secure-enclave-primer
3. Backend infrastructure, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/attestation-architecture
4. How verification works in Tinfoil, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/verification-in-tinfoil
5. modelwrap: Reproducible dm-verity read-only image of Huggingface models, Tinfoil (2026). https://github.com/tinfoilsh/modelwrap
6. TEE.fail: Breaking Trusted Execution Environments via DDR5 Memory Bus Interposition, J. Chuang et al. (2026). https://tee.fail/
7. Battering RAM: Low-Cost Interposer Attacks on Confidential Computing via Dynamic Memory Aliasing, J. De Meulemeester et al. (2026). https://batteringram.eu/
8. RMPocalypse: How a Catch-22 Breaks AMD SEV-SNP, B. Schlüter & S. Shinde (2025). https://rmpocalypse.github.io/
9. SEV-SNP RMP Initialization Vulnerability (AMD-SB-3020), AMD (2025). https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-3020.html
10. PAL*M: Property Attestation for Large Generative Models, P. Chantasantitam et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16199
11. 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
12. Attestable Audits: Verifiable AI Safety Benchmarks Using Trusted Execution Environments, C. Schnabl et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23706
13. Verifying LLM Inference to Detect Model Weight Exfiltration, R. Rinberg et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02620
14. Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23375
15. Bit-Exact AI Inference Verification Without Performance Tradeoffs, N. Cankaya (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00279
16. Defeating Nondeterminism in LLM Inference, H. He & Thinking Machines Lab (2025). https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in-llm-inference/
17. Hawkeye: Reproducing GPU-Level Non-Determinism, E. Badash et al. (2026). https://proceedings.mlsys.org/paper_files/paper/2026/hash/e217c271a57c365a246b0ad39e668ba8-Abstract-Conference.html
18. Towards Deterministic Inference in SGLang and Reproducible RL Training, The SGLang Team (2025). https://www.lmsys.org/blog/2025-09-22-sglang-deterministic/
19. Batch Invariance (vLLM documentation), vLLM project (2026). https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/blob/main/docs/features/batch_invariance.md
20. gensyn-ai/ree: Gensyn Reproducible Execution Environment (GitHub repository), Gensyn (2026). https://github.com/gensyn-ai/ree
21. EigenCloud Brings Verifiable AI to Mass Market with EigenAI and EigenCompute Launches, EigenCloud (2025). https://www.eigenlabs.org/blog/eigencloud-brings-verifiable-ai-to-mass-market-with-eigenai-and-eigencompute-launches/
22. Building Delphi: Pricing, Settlement, and Agentic Trading, D. Jedamski (2026). https://www.gensyn.ai/blog/building-delphi-pricing-settlement-and-agentic-trading
23. Reproducible Execution Environment (REE) (Gensyn documentation), Gensyn (2026). https://docs.gensyn.ai/tech
24. What is Delphi? (Delphi documentation), Gensyn (2026). https://docs.delphi.fyi/
25. 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
26. [Feature]: Batch Invariant Feature and Performance Optimization (vLLM issue #27433), vLLM project contributors (2025). https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/issues/27433
27. AI 2040 Plan A — Verification SITREP, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/ai-verification/plan-a-sitrep/