Proposal Explorer
ResetA verification proposal from the AI Verification Tech Map, from its records of 2026-10-09. https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0015,M-0002,M-0022&hide=weights
Analysis
Applied filters: Keep hidden from the verifier: model weights. Not set (Any): Prover, Verifier devices on site, Prover cooperation, Chips, Minimum development status, Attack testing.
Overview
| Mechanism | Development | Security evidence | Open failures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure | Proposed | Published security analysis | 1 significant |
| Deterministic and bit-exact inference | Operational use | Published security analysis | none |
| Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities | Proposed | Published security analysis | none |
- Open failures: n critical n significant n minor
Claim coverageNo claims yet
Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.
Properties1 with operational use · 3 built for an adversarial prover
- Operational use
- Operational use Deterministic and bit-exact inference for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service
- Built for an adversarial prover
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure, Deterministic and bit-exact inference and Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
- No new hardware needed
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure and Deterministic and bit-exact inference
Attack testing3 mechanisms with published 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.
Limits5 scope limitations · 2 open questions · 2 not yet demonstrated · 1 mechanism with open significant failures
- Open significant failures
1 failure in 1 mechanism
Outside help during challenges in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure
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. 3 4
Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
Related mechanism Research demo Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges: Timed challenges bound how far away a helper can be by how quickly it must answer. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add
Related mechanism Research demo Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: Removing or capping links between groups of accelerators limits remote memory access during a challenge. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add
- Scope limitations
Memory the wipe cannot reach in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure
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. 5 6
Scope limitation · Open question. On the record
Gap between erased and total memory in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure
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. 3
Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record
Some kernels remain genuinely nondeterministic in Deterministic and bit-exact inference
The bit-exact work separates kernels that are deterministic but not batch-invariant from truly nondeterministic ones that use atomic functions. Some integer de-quantization kernels use atomic additions and remain nondeterministic, so exact replay needs backends that avoid them. 9
Scope limitation · Open question. On the record
Cross-hardware replay relies on reverse-engineered, closed behaviour in Deterministic and bit-exact inference
Emulating one GPU's rounding on another requires reverse-engineering tensor-core arithmetic and modelling proprietary kernel choices. Hawkeye covers a subset of NVIDIA architectures and states that attention and other higher-level operations need further reverse engineering. For the bit-exact emulator, a proprietary Hopper kernel family is an open edge case. 9 11
Scope limitation · Open question. On the record
Openings for airflow, power and optics weaken shielding in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
Cankaya notes that keeping attenuation high while passing high-power airflow, cabling and optical links adds complexity beyond existing shielded-enclosure specifications. 19
Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record
- Open questions
Supply-chain implants may evade inspection in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
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. 19
Open question · Theoretical argument. On the record
Inspection assumptions may not hold in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
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. 19
Open question · Open question. On the record
- Not yet demonstrated
- Proposed Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure and Proposed Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
Possible additions2 for open failures · 1 for dependencies
Mechanisms on the map that are not in the proposal. Pointers, not recommendations.
-
- Bears on the open significant failure “Outside help during challenges” in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure. Removing or capping links between groups of accelerators limits remote memory access during a challenge.
-
- Bears on the open significant failure “Outside help during challenges” in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure. Timed challenges bound how far away a helper can be by how quickly it must answer.
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure waits on it. Timed challenges must exclude remote memory and other helpers.
Dependencies1 missing prerequisite · 9 blockers
- Missing prerequisites
- Research demo Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges needed by Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure Add
- Blockers
9 blockers recorded
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure
- Wipes take time: tens of minutes for a pod's volatile memory and hours for SSDs, displacing work. Performance & compatibility 4 5 6
- Timed challenges must exclude remote memory and other helpers. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges 3 4
- All memory stores in a system must be inventoried and wiped at the same time. Coverage & hidden compute 5
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference
- Batch-invariant kernels cost throughput: in Thinking Machines' Qwen3-8B test, an improved deterministic build took 42 s against 26 s for vLLM's default, and SGLang reports an average 34.35% slowdown on its FlashInfer and FlashAttention 3 backends. Performance & compatibility 10 12
- Coverage is incomplete: the bit-exact emulator targets dense blocks on NVIDIA GPUs and excludes mixture-of-experts inference and training, and vLLM's batch-invariant mode is in beta, with open work on AMD hardware and speculative decoding. Performance & compatibility 9 13 20
- Amodo's status page for the AI 2040 verification plan rates a reproducible inference stack for that plan as 'not started'. Performance & compatibility 21
- Exact replay requires the prover to disclose weights, software versions, parallelism and batch sizes to whoever recomputes. Privacy & leakage 4 9
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure
What the verifier sees1 depend on design
From the family or selected implementation's record.
- Model weights
Depends on the design for Deterministic and bit-exact inference.
Not involved: Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure and Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.
- Inputs and outputs
Depends on the design for Deterministic and bit-exact inference.
Not involved: Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure and Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.
- Training data
Not involved: Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure, Deterministic and bit-exact inference and Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.
Exposure notes
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Overwrites memory with verifier-chosen data; it does not handle model data.
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Exact replay needs the weights, configuration and replayed requests inside the recomputation environment. What the verifier sees depends on whether that environment keeps them confidential. 4 9
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Shields and filters a facility; it does not handle model data.
Implementations5 systems
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure
- Proposed AI 2040 inference-only verification stack Proposed architecture, AI Futures Project
- Proposed Low-trust AI compute verification system overview Proposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference
- Research demo Batch-invariant inference kernels (Thinking Machines) Open-source project, Thinking Machines Lab
- Operational use Verde and RepOps (Gensyn) Product, Gensyn
- Proposed Low-trust AI compute verification system overview Proposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
- Proposed AI 2040 inference-only verification stack Proposed architecture, AI Futures Project
- Proposed Low-trust AI compute verification system overview Proposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
- Proposed RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design Proposed architecture, RAND
Sources21 cited
- Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). Original
- Secure Code Update for Embedded Devices via Proofs of Secure Erasure, D. Perito & G. Tsudik (2010). Original
- Software-Based Memory Erasure with Relaxed Isolation Requirements, S. Bursuc et al. (2024). Original
- A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
- Memory Wipes - Performance Analysis, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- Improving Disk Wiping Speed for Memory Wipes, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- Amodo-Design/PoSE-Memory-Wiping (GitHub repository), Amodo Design (2026). Original
- Empirical Evaluation of Memory-Erasure Protocols, R. Gil-Pons et al. (2025). Original
- Bit-Exact AI Inference Verification Without Performance Tradeoffs, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
- Defeating Nondeterminism in LLM Inference, H. He & Thinking Machines Lab (2025). Original
- Hawkeye: Reproducing GPU-Level Non-Determinism, E. Badash et al. (2026). Original
- Towards Deterministic Inference in SGLang and Reproducible RL Training, The SGLang Team (2025). Original
- Batch Invariance (vLLM documentation), vLLM project (2026). Original
- gensyn-ai/ree: Gensyn Reproducible Execution Environment (GitHub repository), Gensyn (2026). Original
- EigenCloud Brings Verifiable AI to Mass Market with EigenAI and EigenCompute Launches, EigenCloud (2025). Original
- Building Delphi: Pricing, Settlement, and Agentic Trading, D. Jedamski (2026). Original
- Reproducible Execution Environment (REE) (Gensyn documentation), Gensyn (2026). Original
- What is Delphi? (Delphi documentation), Gensyn (2026). Original
- Suppressing Side Channels in an Untrusted Data Center via Retrofitted Defenses, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
- [Feature]: Batch Invariant Feature and Performance Optimization (vLLM issue #27433), vLLM project contributors (2025). Original
- AI 2040 Plan A — Verification SITREP, Amodo Design (2026). Original
Share the link to this proposal. This proposal is also available as plain text and JSON.
Filter mechanisms
Filters apply to mechanisms only. They describe the setting a proposal is for, and all are off by default. A mechanism that a filter rules out is flagged and does not count towards claim coverage. Selected implementations use their own record fields. A match means not excluded; conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note. Passing a filter does not establish that the assumptions hold in a deployment.
24 of 25 mechanisms match · Clear all
Prover
How far can the party being checked be trusted?
The prover is the party being checked. Semi-trusted designs rely on part of its stack: usually the chip vendor's hardware root of trust, its firmware or counters, or its supply-chain records. Adversarial designs aim to hold even if it cheats wherever the checks allow, within their stated assumptions.
Keeps mechanisms whose threat model holds against at least this prover. Adversarial is the strongest assumption. Definitions
Verifier devices on site
May the verifier install its own hardware at the prover's sites?
Some mechanisms need a device the verifier owns or trusts at the prover's facility, such as a network tap, a bandwidth limiter or a sealed sensor. Choose Not allowed when the setting rules that out. Inspectors are not covered.
"Not allowed" removes mechanisms that need a retrofit device, such as a network tap or a sealed sensor. Definitions
Prover cooperation
How much must the prover take part?
Required: the prover takes part, for example by logging requests, producing proofs or opening records. Partial: some access, such as installing a device. Not required: works from outside, such as satellite imagery.
"Partial at most" removes mechanisms that need the prover's active participation. "Not required" keeps only those that work without it. Definitions
Chips
May the proposal depend on new chip designs?
New chip features take years to reach a deployed fleet and cover only chips made after they ship. Mechanisms that use shipping features, such as trusted execution environments or performance counters, stay.
"Existing chips only" removes mechanisms that need changes to future chip designs. Definitions
Minimum development status
Development status
A level describes the public evidence for a mechanism's stated use, not its cost or feasibility. R3 can still have open critical flaws.
Keeps mechanisms whose readiness level is at least this one. Definitions
Attack testing
How hard has each mechanism been attacked in public?
The strongest published attempt to break the mechanism for its verification use: a security analysis, red-teaming by its developers or collaborators, or a red team independent of them.
Keeps mechanisms whose strongest published attack testing is at least this. Definitions
Keep hidden from the verifier
What must the verifier never see? Choose any.
Model weights: the checked model's parameters. Inputs and outputs: the requests a deployed model serves and its responses. Training data: what a model was trained on. Each mechanism's exposure is the editors' reading of its record: shown, depends on the design (kept, with a note), hidden, not involved, or unspecified for a selected implementation. Code and configuration are not covered yet.
Removes mechanisms that show the asset to the verifier. Conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note and needs checking against the privacy requirement.
Claims
A claim is something one party wants to verify about another party's AI hardware or software. Each claim's number shows how the proposal addresses it.
- Addressed. A mechanism in the proposal is aimed at this claim and is not excluded by the filters.
- Partly addressed. Only supporting mechanisms, or mechanisms aimed at it that the filters exclude.
- Unaddressed. No mechanism in the proposal addresses this claim.
Addressed means a mechanism in the proposal is aimed at the claim and is not excluded by your filters. It does not mean the claim is verified: check its assessed use, development status, security evidence, assumptions and findings.
Mechanisms
A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims. Its badge is its development status for its stated use. An optional implementation choice narrows its assumptions, assessed use and claim links to that record. Lines join it to the claims it addresses. Click a line for details.Under its name it lists the claims it is aimed at or supports.
- Aimed at the claim: verifying it is a direct purpose of the mechanism.
- Supports the claim: helps verify it without being aimed at it.
- Faint: excluded by your filters, so it does not count towards claim coverage.
Overview
One row per mechanism in the proposal. Every mark comes from that mechanism's record, as listed in the panels below; what the verifier sees is the editors' reading of the record's text. Failure counts are per mechanism. Summary counts name mechanisms with open failures, not a sum of attacks. Choosing an implementation narrows each row to that record's assessed use; family findings remain as context. 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.
What the verifier sees
For model weights, inputs and outputs, and training data. This is the editors' reading of each mechanism's record (its threat model, how it works and its limitations), not a field of the record. Shown: the verifier sees it. Depends: on the design or variant, or the verifier sees only samples. Hidden: the verifier sees only commitments, hashes, proofs or results. Not involved: the record does not handle it. Unspecified: the selected implementation has no asset-specific assessment here.
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. They are pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and findings, and none is claimed to close a failure. Links from failures are the editors' reading of the two records.
Start from a goal
A goal is something a rule or agreement about AI sets out to achieve. Choosing one loads the claims it needs verified. Your mechanisms and filters stay as they are.
- Cap frontier training2 direct, 3 supportingKeep every AI training run below an agreed amount of compute.
- Pause frontier AI development2 direct, 3 supportingStop new AI training runs and experiments for an agreed period, while existing models stay in service.
- Deploy only evaluated models2 direct, 3 supportingDeploy powerful AI models widely only after their risks have been evaluated and judged manageable.
- Prevent catastrophic misuse2 direct, 2 supportingKeep capable AI models from helping anyone carry out catastrophic attacks, such as biological or chemical ones.
- Prevent weight theft1 direct, 1 supportingKeep the weights of capable AI models from being copied out of the facilities that hold them.
- Enforce chip export controls1 directKeep export-controlled AI chips at the destinations they were authorised for.
Start from a published design
Choosing a design loads the mechanisms its record realises or depends on. If the proposal has no claims yet, it also loads the claims that record says the design addresses.
- AI 2040 inference-only verification stack7 mechanismsProposed architecture, AI Futures Project
- Low-trust AI compute verification system overview7 mechanismsProposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
- RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design2 mechanismsProposed architecture, RAND