How should an AI system prove that a candidate change is behaviorally acceptable?
baseline/candidate experiments · deterministic invariants · trace comparison · judge reliability · uncertainty
ProofDiffBehavioral change assurance↗RESEARCH DIRECTION
The research direction sits where probabilistic model capability meets software constraints: evaluation, economics, authorization, governance, and operational reliability.
baseline/candidate experiments · deterministic invariants · trace comparison · judge reliability · uncertainty
ProofDiffBehavioral change assurance↗semantic permission plans · boundary scenarios · approval-path diff · severity-aware release gates
PermitDiffPre-release permission change assurance↗workload characterization · constraint envelope · observed provider profiles · baseline evidence · Pareto analysis
InferenceLedgerInference decision economics↗canonical intent · deterministic policy · bounded credentials · execution revalidation · replay control · audit integrity
AgentGuardRuntime action authorization + execution integrity↗evidence registry · provenance · freshness · conflict detection · review policy · source-change impact
TrustFlowExternal enterprise claim integrity↗resolution reasoning · deterministic policy · typed actions · risk gates · idempotency · reconciliation
ResolveOpsGoverned business-resolution workflows↗METHOD
Define exactly what the system should prove — and what it should not claim.
Build a gate capable of rejecting the preferred result.
Keep model judgment separate from security, policy, money, and release authority.
Scope metrics, uncertainty, failure modes, and unsupported generalizations beside the result.