# 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-0015,M-0019&implementations=M-0015:I-0012

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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure / Low-trust AI compute verification system overview | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 0 / 1 | unspecified | unspecified | unspecified |
| Chip registries and manufacturing records | Proposed | Published security analysis | Semi-trusted | Analysis | Existing features | 0 / 1 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure

A reference design that existing data centres could add: network taps hash all traffic, and air-gapped, independently sourced checkers later re-run randomly chosen records. ([Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/))

- Assessment: selected implementation [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/).
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for screening challenged records to show declared inference compute is not training.
- 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: 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.

### Chip registries and manufacturing records

Recording each AI chip's identity and owner from the fab onwards, and cryptographically fixing manufacturing records, so that chips can be accounted for later. ([Chip registries and manufacturing records](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-registries-and-manufacturing-records/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for a checkable record of which chips were made and who declared owning them.
- 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: Compute accounting & provenance.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Records chip identities and owners; it does not handle model data.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure

**No new hardware needed**

- Chip registries and manufacturing records


## 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**

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure / Low-trust AI compute verification system overview: Analysis
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant failures**

- Documents and serial numbers can be forged (known failure, theoretical argument, in Chip registries and manufacturing records; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-registries-and-manufacturing-records/evidence/flaws/2/) [7]. Avellar and Grunewald note that export documents can be forged, that companies can hide information behind obscure corporate structures, and that it may be possible to forge serial numbers on chips and racks. They recommend cryptographic attestation of a powered-on chip as an extra check.

**Family finding context**

- Context for Low-trust AI compute verification system overview. 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. Memory the wipe cannot reach (scope limitation, open question, in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/evidence/flaws/1/) [3][4]. Amodo's inventory of a GB200 system lists many memory stores beyond GPU HBM and host DRAM. It notes that SSD controller DRAM sits on a private bus that host commands cannot read or write, and that its optimized algorithm leaves 25 GiB of HBM unattested. It also asks how switch memory could be wiped.
- Context for Low-trust AI compute verification system overview. 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. Outside help during challenges (known failure, theoretical argument, in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/evidence/flaws/2/) [1][5]. Classic proofs of secure erasure assume the device is isolated during the protocol. Bursuc et al. relax this to a bound on how close a helper can be, enforced by round-trip times. In data centres, remote memory access has round trips of about 1–2 µs, against about 70–200 ns for local DRAM. The MIRI overview therefore says verification depends on ruling out RDMA by latency or physical disconnection.

  Related mechanism: Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges (R2, not in the proposal). Timed challenges bound how far away a helper can be by how quickly it must answer.

  Related mechanism: Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization (R2, not in the proposal). Removing or capping links between groups of accelerators limits remote memory access during a challenge.
- Context for Low-trust AI compute verification system overview. 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. Gap between erased and total memory (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/evidence/flaws/3/) [5]. Bursuc et al. note that memory left between the erased region and the device's full memory could hold data, and that their bounds are tighter only against a restricted adversary.

**Open minor failures**

- Deliberate faults leak a bit each (known failure, theoretical argument, in Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/evidence/flaws/2/) [1]. A malicious device can leak one bit by deliberately outputting a wrong result, which blocks a disclosure when the cross-comparison fails. The design therefore needs a pre-agreed budget of tolerated faults.

**Scope limitations**

- Mismatches cannot be attributed to cheating or error (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/evidence/flaws/1/) [1]. A failed hash or replay does not show whether it came from an evasion attempt, a random bit flip or an evaluation error. The author notes that if detected anomalies can plausibly be waved off as malfunctions, deterrence becomes less effective, so the parties need an agreed escalation procedure that ends in attribution.
- Records cover only chips that were recorded (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Chip registries and manufacturing records; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-registries-and-manufacturing-records/evidence/flaws/1/) [8][10]. A registry or commitment accounts only for chips entered into it. Cankaya asks how a verifier would know it had found all chips, or how much "dark compute" remains, and notes that a fraudulent original record would mean unregistered chips had been made in advance. Halstead and Larsen propose reconstructing earlier production by auditing upstream suppliers.

  Related mechanism: Remote detection of data centres (R1, not in the proposal). Looks for large data centres that were never declared, which a registry cannot show.
- Insiders could alter records before they are fixed (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Chip registries and manufacturing records; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-registries-and-manufacturing-records/evidence/flaws/3/) [8]. Cankaya argues that insiders who can photograph process secrets could also tamper with production records. A commitment makes changes after publication detectable, but it cannot show that the records were accurate when committed.

**Open questions**

- Inspector agents may be manipulable (open question, open question, in Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/evidence/flaws/3/) [1]. Automated compliance screening with LLM-based inspector agents must resist prompt-injection attacks. Adversarially trained systems might hide malicious actions with steganography, which makes backdoor detection an open problem.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for screening challenged records to show declared inference compute is not training
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for a checkable record of which chips were made and who declared owning them


## 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)
  - Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure waits on it: Exact replay needs complete hardware and software metadata, and the tolerable slowdown from emulation is an open question.
- **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)
  - Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure waits on it: Tamper-evident, rapidly mass-manufacturable and retrofittable enclosures for side-channel defence are an open research question, and physical security against covert communication in every monitored data centre is challenging.
- **Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges** (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting whether a GPU is doing other work)
  - Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure waits on it: Distinguishing one server's DRAM contents from another's by challenge-response timing, and a general challenge-response protocol for diverse data types, are open.
- **Network taps and certifiers** (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked)
  - Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure waits on it: Empirical feasibility of passive optical splitting at 53–112 GBaud under realistic conditions is an open question.
- **Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities** (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure)
  - Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure waits on it: A mass-manufacturable, good-enough side-channel defence, particularly power-line filtering, has not been constructed or red-teamed.


## Dependencies

**Missing prerequisites**

- Network taps and certifiers (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked), needed by Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure
- 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 Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure

**Blockers**

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Empirical feasibility of passive optical splitting at 53–112 GBaud under realistic conditions is an open question. (performance & compatibility; waits on Network taps and certifiers) [1]
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Exact replay needs complete hardware and software metadata, and the tolerable slowdown from emulation is an open question. (performance & compatibility; waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference) [1]
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Tamper-evident, rapidly mass-manufacturable and retrofittable enclosures for side-channel defence are an open research question, and physical security against covert communication in every monitored data centre is challenging. (hardware trust; waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices) [1]
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: A mass-manufacturable, good-enough side-channel defence, particularly power-line filtering, has not been constructed or red-teamed. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities) [1]
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Distinguishing one server's DRAM contents from another's by challenge-response timing, and a general challenge-response protocol for diverse data types, are open. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges) [1]
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: The threat model is under-developed and needs input from cybersecurity and AI threat-modelling experts. (adversarial validation) [1]
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: No implementation of an AI chip registry has been publicly reported, and covering re-exports would need cooperation from re-exporters and foreign governments that may not be feasible everywhere. (access & governance) [6][7]
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: Linking records to physical chips needs hard-to-spoof unique IDs and inspections. (hardware trust) [6][7][8]
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: Chips produced before a registry starts must be reconstructed from supplier records. (coverage & hidden compute) [8][10]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Chip registries and manufacturing records; unspecified for Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Chip registries and manufacturing records; unspecified for Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Chip registries and manufacturing records; unspecified for Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure.

## Implementations

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: [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)
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: none on the map

## Sources

1. 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
2. Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10724
3. Memory Wipes - Performance Analysis, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-07-01-memory-wiping/
4. Improving Disk Wiping Speed for Memory Wipes, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-09-14-disk-wiping-speed/
5. Software-Based Memory Erasure with Relaxed Isolation Requirements, S. Bursuc et al. (2024). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10664348/
6. Verifying International Agreements on AI: Six Layers of Verification for Rules on Large-Scale AI Development and Deployment, M. Baker et al. (2025). https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA4077-1.html
7. Near-Term Verification Methods for AI Chip Exports, B. Avellar & E. Grunewald (2026). https://www.iaps.ai/research/near-term-verification-methods-for-ai-chip-exports
8. TSMC most definitely has a golden record of all AI chips it made, N. Cankaya (2025). https://nacicankaya.substack.com/p/tsmc-most-definitely-has-a-golden
9. Hardware-Level Governance of AI Compute: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Regulatory Compliance and Treaty Verification, S. Ansari (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04712
10. Covert AI Projects, B. Halstead & T. Larsen (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/covert-ai-projects