# 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-0018,M-0019&implementations=M-0018:I-0009

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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Chip location verification / Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates | R1 | Semi-trusted | Analysis | Existing features | 0 / 3 / 0 | unspecified | unspecified | unspecified |
| Chip registries and manufacturing records | R1 | Semi-trusted | Analysis | Existing features | 0 / 3 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Chip location verification

A draft specification, hosted by Lucid Computing, for short-lived certificates that bound where a workload runs by timing signed exchanges with fixed anchors. ([Chip location verification](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/))

- Assessment: selected implementation [Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/).
- Readiness: R1 Proposed, assessed for certifying the region where an attested workload ran at a given time.
- 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 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.
- Readiness: R1 Proposed, assessed for a checkable record of which chips were made and who declared owning them.
- 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

**No new hardware needed**

- Chip location verification
- Chip registries and manufacturing records


## 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**

- Chip location verification / Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates: Analysis
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant flaws**

- Physical attacks on the trusted hardware are out of scope (theoretical argument, in Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/#flaw-1) [1]. The specification places the hardware root of trust and the TEE in the trusted computing base. It assumes they resist software attacks, notes that the attacker may have physical access, and leaves sophisticated physical attacks, such as bus probing and side-channel analysis, as a residual risk. It says that future revisions may add requirements for physical tamper evidence.
- On-chip keys may be extractable (theoretical argument, in Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/#flaw-2) [1][5]. Tee and Happel argue that ping-based location protocols backed by keys stored on the chip can be compromised if an adversary with physical access extracts those keys. In this specification, the evidence chain rests on the hardware root of trust's signed quote, whose signing key must be protected by the hardware.
- General delay and landmark attacks apply (theoretical argument, in Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/#flaw-3) [1][6]. Attacks on delay-based location verification in general also apply. Brass and Aarne discuss adding delay, using faster paths such as dark fibre, and compromising landmarks. The specification counters anchor impersonation with a signed anchor directory. Against collusion it recommends anchors in diverse places run by several independent operators, and peer monitoring that temporarily removes anchors whose timings deviate.
- Records cover only chips that were recorded (theoretical argument, in Chip registries and manufacturing records; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-registries-and-manufacturing-records/#flaw-1) [9][11]. 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.
- Documents and serial numbers can be forged (theoretical argument, in Chip registries and manufacturing records; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-registries-and-manufacturing-records/#flaw-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.
- Insiders could alter records before they are fixed (theoretical argument, in Chip registries and manufacturing records; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-registries-and-manufacturing-records/#flaw-3) [9]. 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.

**Family finding context**

- Context for Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Extracting a chip's key lets another device answer for it (theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/#flaw-1) [5][6]. Ping-based protocols rely on cryptographic keys stored on the chip. Tee and Happel argue that an adversary with physical access could extract these keys and so compromise location verification. They propose GPU fingerprints as a mitigation, so far tested on 24 GPUs. Brass and Aarne assume the keys are stored securely, for example in a TPM.
- Context for Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Added delay can shift an estimated position (demonstrated attack, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/#flaw-2) [6][7]. Brass and Aarne cite internet-geolocation research in which artificially increased round-trip times moved the estimated location by up to 1,000 km, with a 74% chance of avoiding detection. Avellar and Grunewald list inflated ping times from circuitous routing as an evasion route. Added delay only loosens a distance bound, and Brass and Aarne propose a hard time limit as the counter: a chip that replies too slowly cannot be ruled out of a restricted location.
- Context for Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Faster-than-assumed network paths (theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/#flaw-3) [6][7]. Brass and Aarne list dark fibre and other private high-speed interconnects as ways to lower measured delays artificially. They judge that leasing dark fibre would probably not be a considerable challenge for covertly or openly adversarial actors. Avellar and Grunewald note that this can make a chip appear to be somewhere else entirely. A limit set at the vacuum speed of light cannot be beaten, but it makes honest chips fail more often.
- Context for Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Compromised landmarks can falsify measurements (theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/#flaw-4) [1][6][7]. A party that controls landmark servers can report false timing. Brass and Aarne cite research in which manipulating a third of the landmarks shifted the estimated location by about 700 km. Avellar and Grunewald note that compromised landmarks let adversaries spoof travel-time measurements directly. The draft specification asks verifiers to require anchors in diverse places, run by several independent operators.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Chip location verification: R1 Proposed, assessed for certifying the region where an attested workload ran at a given time
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: R1 Proposed, 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 flaw or a dependency. Pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and flaws, and none is claimed to close a flaw.

- **Remote detection of data centres** (R1 Proposed, assessed for finding undeclared data centres above an agreed compute threshold)
  - Bears on the open significant flaw "Records cover only chips that were recorded" in Chip registries and manufacturing records. Looks for large data centres that were never declared, which a registry cannot show.
- **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)
  - Chip location verification depends on it.


## 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 Chip location verification

**Blockers**

- Chip location verification: The specification is an unfinished draft with no public implementation or evaluation. (adversarial validation) [1][2]
- Chip location verification: It needs a globally distributed, trusted anchor fleet and an endorser to run the anchor directory. (access & governance) [1]
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: No AI chip registry operates, and covering re-exports would need cooperation from re-exporters and foreign governments that may not be feasible everywhere. (access & governance) [7][8]
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: Linking records to physical chips needs hard-to-spoof unique IDs and inspections. (hardware trust) [7][8][9]
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: Chips produced before a registry starts must be reconstructed from supplier records. (coverage & hidden compute) [9][11]


## 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 Chip location verification.
- 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 Chip location verification.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Chip registries and manufacturing records; unspecified for Chip location verification.

## Implementations

- Chip location verification: [Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/) (R1, standard)
- Chip registries and manufacturing records: none on the map

## Sources

1. Sovereignty Certificates: draft specification, version 0.1.0, Sovereignty Certificates Working Group (2025). https://github.com/Lucid-Computing/sovereignty-certificate-specification
2. Sovereignty Certificates Working Group (2026). https://sovcert.org/
3. Lucid Computing: Verifiable AI. Proven in hardware. (2026). https://lucidcomputing.ai/
4. Lucid Developer Platform documentation (2026). https://docs.lucidcomputing.ai/
5. GPU Fingerprinting for Location Verification, W. Tee & J. Happel (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01930
6. Location Verification for AI Chips, A. Brass & O. Aarne (2024). https://www.iaps.ai/research/location-verification-for-ai-chips
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. 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
9. 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
10. Hardware-Level Governance of AI Compute: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Regulatory Compliance and Treaty Verification, S. Ansari (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04712
11. Covert AI Projects, B. Halstead & T. Larsen (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/covert-ai-projects