# 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-0014,M-0016&implementations=M-0014:I-0010

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.

None set. Every mechanism on the map was available.

## 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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization / RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design | Proposed | Published security analysis | Semi-trusted | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 0 / 0 | unspecified | unspecified | unspecified |
| Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges | Research demonstration | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | None | 0 / 1 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

A RAND design for a purpose-built facility that serves already-trained AI models while protecting weights and inference data against state-level attackers. ([Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/))

- Assessment: selected implementation [RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/).
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for the operator's own weight security, with no outside verification described.
- 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: retrofit device. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Isolation & system architectures.
- What the verifier sees: model weights unspecified; inputs and outputs unspecified; training data unspecified. This Explorer has no asset-specific exposure assessment for this implementation. Check its source and deployment assumptions.

### Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges

A verifier times answers to unpredictable questions designed so that answering correctly and in time requires holding specified data locally or dedicating specified resources. ([Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/timed-challenge-response/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting whether a GPU is doing other work.
- 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: none. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Cryptographic & computational.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Uses verifier-chosen challenges; it does not handle model data.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges

**No new hardware needed**

- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges


## 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**

- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization / RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design: Analysis
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant failures**

- Remote memory narrows the timing margin (known failure, theoretical argument, in Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/timed-challenge-response/evidence/flaws/2/) [6]. Data-centre remote memory access returns in about 1–2 µs, against about 70–200 ns for local DRAM. The MIRI overview says verification of memory saturation depends on ruling out remote access by latency or physical disconnection. It names pre-staging data into local memory as the remaining evasion and proposes an unpredictable, capacity-filling challenge to close it.

  Related mechanism: Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization (R1, in the proposal). Physical disconnection is proposed to exclude remote memory between the separated groups during a challenge. It depends on the isolation boundary being enforced.

**Family finding context**

- Context for RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design. Findings from the mechanism family appear here as context. They apply to an implementation only when its own record lists them, under the conditions stated there. Low-communication training reduces the bandwidth training needs (open question, theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/evidence/flaws/1/) [2][3][4]. DiLoCo matched fully synchronous training on 8 workers while communicating 500 times less. Rahman writes that this family of methods theoretically allows large-scale training with less than 100 Mbps. Lucid includes these methods in its bounds, but notes that extreme activation compression, architectures with unusually small inter-layer widths, or modular paradigms could erode the margin.
- Context for RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design. Findings from the mechanism family appear here as context. They apply to an implementation only when its own record lists them, under the conditions stated there. Operator control of pod routing collapses the bound (known failure, theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/evidence/flaws/2/) [4]. Lucid's analysis finds that if the operator can freely assign pods to routers, it could dedicate a whole cell of 100 or more pods to one pipeline stage. The bound then falls to about 90–220x uncompressed and as low as about 25x with compression. The proposed mitigation, auditor-controlled random assignment that is periodically re-randomized, has not been implemented.
- Context for RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design. Findings from the mechanism family appear here as context. They apply to an implementation only when its own record lists them, under the conditions stated there. Undeclared local storage raises per-pod capacity (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/evidence/flaws/3/) [4]. More memory or storage per pod helps an adversary. Lucid requires per-pod storage to be declared, capped and physically inspected.
- Context for RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design. Findings from the mechanism family appear here as context. They apply to an implementation only when its own record lists them, under the conditions stated there. Training within one pod is not covered (scope limitation, open question, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/evidence/flaws/4/) [4]. Lucid's bounds concern pre-training models larger than the pods are sized for. Training models that fit in one pod, fine-tuning and reinforcement-learning post-training within one pod are outside the modelled threat.
- Context for RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design. Findings from the mechanism family appear here as context. They apply to an implementation only when its own record lists them, under the conditions stated there. Parallel scale-up switches are hard enforcement points (known failure, theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/evidence/flaws/5/) [5]. In GB200 topologies, GPUs reach GPUs in other nodes through NVSwitches without a NIC on the path. Amodo notes that limits are hard to enforce there because many switches work in parallel, so compromising one or two would bypass the limit.

**Scope limitations**

- Everything rests on the trusted setup (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/evidence/flaws/1/) [1]. Reference measurements for model weights and reference data are established in a trusted setup phase. The report states that the system cannot detect compromise that happened before ingestion if the trusted setup itself is compromised.
- Security weakens over long operation (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/evidence/flaws/2/) [1]. The authors claim that the facility can withstand attacks at the OC5 level for a five-year operational period. They expect its ability to withstand long OC5 campaigns to become less robust the longer the facility remains in operation.

**Open questions**

- Error rates not quantified (open question, open question, in Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/timed-challenge-response/evidence/flaws/3/) [8]. Monfared et al. show separable timing distributions. Their acceptance rule passes a GPU when its mean time per round stays at or below a chosen maximum, and an appendix outlines statistical tests for the proof-of-work puzzle. They leave hardware-specific threshold values to future work and report no false-positive or false-negative rates.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for the operator's own weight security, with no outside verification described


## 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.

None found.



## Dependencies

**Blockers**

- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: No prototype exists; RAND recommends prototyping key security features and integration now. (adversarial validation) [1]
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: The report describes internal integrity checks, audit logging and accreditation, but no way for a party outside the operator to verify the facility's properties. (access & governance) [1]
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: Human review of every prompt and response makes each request take three to five minutes, with the review steps as the rate-limiting factor. (performance & compatibility) [1]
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: Detailed design information is withheld from the public report and is to be evaluated privately with stakeholders, which limits independent public scrutiny. (access & governance) [1]
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges: No network-level memory challenge across data-centre servers has been demonstrated. (adversarial validation) [6]
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges: Challenges that fill memory displace workloads; filling a pod's volatile memory takes tens of minutes and SSDs take hours. (performance & compatibility) [6][8]
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges: Outside help, such as remote memory, must be excluded during challenges. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization) [6]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges; unspecified for Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges; unspecified for Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges; unspecified for Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization.

## Implementations

- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/) (R1, proposed architecture); [RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/) (R1, proposed architecture)
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges: [Data-centre memory challenging](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/data-centre-memory-challenging/) (R1, proposed architecture); [GPU contention probes](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/gpu-contention-probes/) (R2, research prototype); [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/) (R1, proposed architecture); [SAGE](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/sage-gpu-attestation/) (R2, research prototype); [VRAM-residency challenge](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/vram-residency-challenge/) (R2, research prototype)

## Sources

1. Highly Secure Inference Data Centers: A Vertically Integrated Strategy for Security Engineering, S. F. Comer et al. (2026). https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4827-1.html
2. DiLoCo: Distributed Low-Communication Training of Language Models, A. Douillard et al. (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08105
3. Does Distributed Training Undermine Compute Governance?, R. Rahman (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29359
4. Traffic Shaping for Workload Classification, Lucid Computing (2026). https://lucidcomputing.substack.com/p/traffic-shaping-for-workload-classification
5. The Tray as a Bandwidth Boundary, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-03-16-dpu-bandwidth-limiter/
6. 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
7. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/verification-plan
8. Timing and Memory Telemetry on GPUs for AI Governance, S. K. Monfared et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09369
9. SAGE: Software-based Attestation for GPU Execution, A. Ivanov et al. (2023). https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc23/presentation/ivanov
10. SWATT: SoftWare-based ATTestation for Embedded Devices, A. Seshadri et al. (2004). https://netsec.ethz.ch/publications/papers/swatt.pdf
11. Proofs of Space, S. Dziembowski et al. (2015). https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/796
12. Secure Code Update for Embedded Devices via Proofs of Secure Erasure, D. Perito & G. Tsudik (2010). https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-15497-3_39
13. Software-Based Memory Erasure with Relaxed Isolation Requirements, S. Bursuc et al. (2024). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10664348/
14. On the Difficulty of Software-Based Attestation of Embedded Devices, C. Castelluccia et al. (2009). https://s3.eurecom.fr/docs/ccs09_Castelluccia.pdf
15. Refutation of "On the Difficulty of Software-Based Attestation of Embedded Devices", A. Perrig & L. van Doorn (2010). https://netsec.ethz.ch/publications/papers/perrig-ccs-refutation.pdf