mirror of
https://github.com/SHOGGOTH-SECTOR/sica-fondt.git
synced 2026-07-31 16:16:26 +00:00
20e99f434c
Wave 1 remainder + Wave 2 design-first specs, completing one build plan per sub-organ: - B1 tarot emulator, B2 SOUL/Big-3, B3 Celtic Cross - C2 4+4 metacog, C3 inference cycle, C4 Brain - D1 Ada border, D2 the medium, D3 mini-rag - E1 3 GnuCOBOL invariant stores, E2 VARIANT stores, E3 RAG family - F1 MoRAG, F2 SAE monitor, F3 subagents - G1 stress-loop contract, G2 governance, G3 defense model Each: contract + stubs for independent build; unfitted constants marked C1. https://claude.ai/code/session_015hmgREHNsxYCuim33yUF2c
2.3 KiB
2.3 KiB
G3 — Defense model (cross-cutting · emergent)
1. Component
The two-layer defense, emergent from organs already specced — not new code. Layer 1 = semantic saturation (the Celtic-Cross token-flow, B3). Layer 2 = the Ada trust boundary (D1). This doc is the contract that says how they combine.
2. Status / certainty
C4 — both layers decided; layer 2 is WORKING (D1), layer 1 is the B3 draw used as armor.
3. Language & location
Realized by B3 (token-flow) + D1 (SPARK boundary). No new module; contract doc only.
4. Does / does-not
- Does: push injection material down the attention gradient with meaningful content (the 10 accumulating cards), and structurally validate every crossing at Ada.
- Does-not: flood noise (saturation is semantic); watch the Brain (central cut).
5. Interface contract
- Layer 1 (B3): the iterative 10-card spread occupies context with meaningful symbol-material — "free armour when self-hosting" (tokens = owned-hardware cycles, not API cost).
- Layer 2 (D1): blocklist (fetch→build→execute, base64 chains) · provenance on memory writes · no self-authority-reclassification · rate-limit escalation.
- Threat corpus kept as study specimens only (prompts.json cryptojacking, HiFi_ProToCol authority reclass, gorkprotocol memory injection, THEORY.md hollow-math) — defended against, never built.
6. Dependencies & stubs
B3 (layer 1) + D1 (layer 2). Both stubbable independently; this contract just asserts they co-apply.
7. Invariants / laws
- L1 (C4): defense is semantic saturation, not noise flooding.
- L2 (C5): every crossing is structurally validated at Ada (D1 laws).
- L3 (C5): threat specimens are a study corpus only — never a build target.
8. Build steps
- Ensure B3 accumulation actually fills context as designed (layer 1). 2. Ensure D1 admits/blocks per
its laws (layer 2). 3. Keep the threat corpus quarantined as reference (e.g.
reference/), not wired.
9. Tests
Layer 1: spread occupies the expected context share by final cognition. Layer 2: D1 trust_tests pass. Corpus: a static check that nothing under the threat corpus is referenced by a build target.
10. Open items
- Where the threat-specimen corpus lives (reference/ archive). Measuring saturation effectiveness (C1).