# 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-0020,M-0022&implementations=M-0022: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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Remote detection of data centres | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | None | 0 / 0 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |
| Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities / Low-trust AI compute verification system overview | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 0 / 1 | unspecified | unspecified | unspecified |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### 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.

### Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities

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. ([Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/))

- 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.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Remote detection of data centres
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities

**No new hardware needed**

- 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**

- Remote detection of data centres: Analysis
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities / Low-trust AI compute verification system overview: Analysis


## Limits

**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. Supply-chain implants may evade inspection (open question, theoretical argument, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/evidence/flaws/1/) [8]. Cankaya identifies malicious hardware embedded deep in purchased components as a residual risk that visual inspection and disassembly may not catch. He notes that radiographic examination under high-security standards could mitigate it.
- 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. Openings for airflow, power and optics weaken shielding (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/evidence/flaws/2/) [8]. Cankaya notes that keeping attenuation high while passing high-power airflow, cabling and optical links adds complexity beyond existing shielded-enclosure specifications.
- 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. Inspection assumptions may not hold (open question, open question, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/evidence/flaws/3/) [8]. The design's statistical argument assumes that visual or disassembly inspection catches every flaw that is present in a sampled unit. Cankaya is unsure whether destructive teardowns are defence-dominant or offence-dominant.

**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/) [6]. 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**

- 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/) [1]. 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/) [1][3]. 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.
- 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/) [6]. 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.

**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/) [3]. 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".
- 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/) [6]. 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**

- Remote detection of data centres: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for finding undeclared data centres above an agreed compute threshold
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for screening challenged records to show declared inference compute is not training


## 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)
  - Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities 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)
  - Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities 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)
  - Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities 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)
  - Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities waits on it: Empirical feasibility of passive optical splitting at 53–112 GBaud under realistic conditions is an open question.


## 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 Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
- 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 Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities

**Blockers**

- Remote detection of data centres: Wide-area, automated detection of data centres is not yet practical and needs large training datasets. (coverage & hidden compute) [3]
- Remote detection of data centres: No measured detection or false-alarm rates for finding undeclared facilities have been published. (adversarial validation) [1][3]
- Remote detection of data centres: Recent high-resolution imagery is costly, is limited by weather and needs trained analysts. (access & governance) [3]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: 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) [6]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: 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) [6]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: 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) [6]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: 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) [6]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: 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) [6]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: The threat model is under-developed and needs input from cybersecurity and AI threat-modelling experts. (adversarial validation) [6]


## 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 Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.
- 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 Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Remote detection of data centres; unspecified for Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.

## Implementations

- Remote detection of data centres: none on the map
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: [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); [RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/) (R1, proposed architecture)

## Sources

1. Covert AI Projects, B. Halstead & T. Larsen (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/covert-ai-projects
2. 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
3. Tracking Hyperscale AI Data Center Growth with Satellite Imagery, C. Krawec (2026). https://fas.org/publication/tracking-hyperscale/
4. Introducing the Frontier Data Centers Hub, Epoch AI (2025). https://epoch.ai/latest/introducing-the-frontier-data-centers-hub
5. AI Data Centers Documentation – Methodology, Epoch AI (2026). https://epoch.ai/data/data-centers-documentation/methodology
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. Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10724
8. Suppressing Side Channels in an Untrusted Data Center via Retrofitted Defenses, N. Cankaya (2026). https://techgov.intelligence.org/blog/suppressing-side-channels-in-an-untrusted-data-center-via-retrofitted-defenses