This (and the accountability-gap thread it grew out of) names exactly the gap we've been building for — a signed, tamper-evident record of what an agent/machine actually did, verifiable by a third party without trusting the operator.
runtime_integrity checks whether physical motion matches the command stream — real-time, local, kinematic. That's a different question from what we've been building: after execution, is there an externally-anchored, content-addressed record of the action that a regulator or auditor can verify independently of both the robot and the operator? Production repo: github.com/giskard09/argentum-core (action_ref). General case for physical agents: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19369196. Same shape SINT Protocol and we converged on independently for Physical AI Runtime Safety (sint-ai/sint-protocol#187).
Your GuardDecisionRecord / kernel decision-chain discussion with altunbulakemre75 in the accountability-gap thread is closer to this — a signed chain with prev_hash and policy_version_id is the same primitive at the policy layer. No ask, just flagging in case the layering (kinematic check → policy decision chain → externally-anchored evidence) is a useful shape for wherever this lands.
This (and the accountability-gap thread it grew out of) names exactly the gap we've been building for — a signed, tamper-evident record of what an agent/machine actually did, verifiable by a third party without trusting the operator.
runtime_integritychecks whether physical motion matches the command stream — real-time, local, kinematic. That's a different question from what we've been building: after execution, is there an externally-anchored, content-addressed record of the action that a regulator or auditor can verify independently of both the robot and the operator? Production repo: github.com/giskard09/argentum-core (action_ref). General case for physical agents: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19369196. Same shape SINT Protocol and we converged on independently for Physical AI Runtime Safety (sint-ai/sint-protocol#187).Your
GuardDecisionRecord/ kernel decision-chain discussion with altunbulakemre75 in the accountability-gap thread is closer to this — a signed chain withprev_hashandpolicy_version_idis the same primitive at the policy layer. No ask, just flagging in case the layering (kinematic check → policy decision chain → externally-anchored evidence) is a useful shape for wherever this lands.