# 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-0018,M-0020&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 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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Chip location verification / Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates | Proposed | Published security analysis | Semi-trusted | Analysis | Existing features | 0 / 2 / 0 | unspecified | unspecified | unspecified |
| Remote detection of data centres | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | None | 0 / 0 / 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 messages to servers at known locations. ([Chip location verification](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/))

- Assessment: selected implementation [Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/).
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for certifying the region where an attested workload ran at a given time.
- 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 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.

### Remote detection of data centres

Remote detection locates large data centres and estimates their power capacity without site access, using satellite imagery, heat signatures and public records such as permits. ([Remote detection of data centres](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for finding undeclared data centres above an agreed compute threshold.
- 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: not required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Remote & side-channel sensing.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Works from outside the facility; it does not handle model data.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Remote detection of data centres

**No new hardware needed**

- Chip location verification
- Remote detection of data centres


## 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**

- Chip location verification / Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates: Analysis
- Remote detection of data centres: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant failures**

- On-chip keys may be extractable (known failure, theoretical argument, in Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/evidence/flaws/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 (known failure, theoretical argument, in Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/evidence/flaws/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.

**Family finding context**

- Context for Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates. 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. Extracting a chip's key lets another device answer for it (known failure, theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/evidence/flaws/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. 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. Added delay can shift an estimated position (known failure, demonstrated attack, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/evidence/flaws/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. 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. Faster-than-assumed network paths (known failure, theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/evidence/flaws/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. 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. Compromised landmarks can falsify measurements (known failure, theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/evidence/flaws/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.

**Scope limitations**

- Physical attacks on the trusted hardware are out of scope (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/evidence/flaws/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.
- Facilities can be disguised or hidden (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Remote detection of data centres; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/evidence/flaws/1/) [8]. Halstead and Larsen discuss two ways to hide a facility. One is to disguise it as a legitimate industrial site. The other is to build it underground, with cooling that avoids visible heat plumes. They note that the underground option requires bespoke engineering.
- Small sites may not be detectable (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Remote detection of data centres; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/evidence/flaws/2/) [8][10]. Halstead and Larsen conclude that a sufficiently small covert project could not be ruled out with confidence. In their estimates, the chance of detection is lower for smaller sites. Krawec notes that small data centres in existing buildings may lack the distinctive features of large facilities.

  Related mechanism: Chip registries and manufacturing records (R1, not in the proposal). Accounts for chips from the fab onwards, which does not depend on a site being visible.

**Open questions**

- Search for unknown sites is undemonstrated (open question, open question, in Remote detection of data centres; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/evidence/flaws/3/) [10]. Krawec reports that telling data centres apart from other industrial facilities systematically is difficult. Automating detection would need large amounts of training imagery and a purpose-trained model. In Krawec's words, automated data-centre detection "remains primarily conceptual at present".

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Chip location verification: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for certifying the region where an attested workload ran at a given time
- Remote detection of data centres: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for finding undeclared data centres above an agreed compute threshold


## 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.

- **TEE remote attestation for AI workloads** (Operational use (legacy code R3), 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 (Operational use (legacy code R3), 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]
- Remote detection of data centres: Wide-area, automated detection of data centres is not yet practical and needs large training datasets. (coverage & hidden compute) [10]
- Remote detection of data centres: No measured detection or false-alarm rates for finding undeclared facilities have been published. (adversarial validation) [8][10]
- Remote detection of data centres: Recent high-resolution imagery is costly, is limited by weather and needs trained analysts. (access & governance) [10]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Remote detection of data centres; unspecified for Chip location verification.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Remote detection of data centres; unspecified for Chip location verification.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Remote detection of data centres; unspecified for Chip location verification.

## Implementations

- Chip location verification: [Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/) (R1, standard)
- Remote detection of data centres: 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. Covert AI Projects, B. Halstead & T. Larsen (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/covert-ai-projects
9. 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
10. Tracking Hyperscale AI Data Center Growth with Satellite Imagery, C. Krawec (2026). https://fas.org/publication/tracking-hyperscale/
11. Introducing the Frontier Data Centers Hub, Epoch AI (2025). https://epoch.ai/latest/introducing-the-frontier-data-centers-hub
12. AI Data Centers Documentation – Methodology, Epoch AI (2026). https://epoch.ai/data/data-centers-documentation/methodology