this is important because this is the access control log  Dual-ledger non-disclosure theorem this is cascading consent as well as reference. also the cubie delegation likely could have the other rust verification source help us based on your lazziness, i want you to complete all future  obligations wqith 100% accuracy. also we need you to follow my patent claims Claims
1. A computer-implemented method for verifying an identity of a user operating a user device and tracking interactions with a public network by the user device, using a public ledger and a private ledger, where the interactions by the user device are written to the private ledger, information presented by an entity to the user device is written to the private ledger, and rules for presenting the information to the user device is written to the public ledger, where the rules for presenting the information to the user device are to be used by an advertiser for filtering a presentation of advertisements to the user device, the method comprising:

extracting a mobile phone number, network user history, application user history, and device use history associated with the user operating the user device;
initiating an authentication process to verify the identity of the user operating the user device by cross-referencing the network user history, the application user history, and the device use history with public data on the user;
generating an anonymous and unique identifier for the internet user based on the mobile phone number and the authentication process to verify the identity of the user;
writing the mobile phone number, the network user history, the application user history, and the device use history associated with the user operating the user device to the private ledger;
upon completing the authentication process to verify the identity of the user, permitting the user to create a personalized privacy policy defined in rules for storing data of the user and using data of the user by entities;
receiving, via a user interface of the user device, feature selections of the user;
writing the feature selections associated with the user operating the user device to the private ledger;
additionally storing the feature selections of the user as the personalized privacy policy in the public ledger, wherein the personalized privacy policy is stored in the public ledger accessible by the advertiser for filtering the presentation of advertisements to the user device;
transmitting the anonymous and unique identifier to the advertiser to generate an advertisement for the user based on the anonymous and unique identifier; and
receiving the advertisement from the advertiser and presenting the advertisement to the user.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

assigning behavioral attributes to the anonymous and unique identifier, wherein the behavioral attributes include at least one of gender, age, or net worth of the user.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the anonymous and unique identifier complies with a privacy rule, and the privacy rule includes General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and/or California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) rules.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the advertisement corresponds with a category, and the category comprises at least one of alcohol, insurance, fast food, footwear, mobile technology, automotive, or video games.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the network user history is obtained by utilizing a crawler application to track the user across multiple websites.

6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

receiving an input to select the advertiser based on a category of the advertisement, wherein the input to select the advertiser is received from a media buyer.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the advertisements are generated by tailoring it to the behavioral attributes.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein a format of the advertisements are one or more of video, audio, images, or text.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the format of the advertisements are based on stored preferences of the user.

10. The method of claim 8, wherein the format of the advertisements are based on a display medium being employed by the user.

11. A system for verifying an identity of a user operating a user device and tracking interactions with a public network by the user device, using a public ledger and a private ledger, where the interactions by the user device are written to the private ledger, information presented by an entity to the user device is written to the private ledger, and rules for presenting the information to the user device is written to the public ledger, where the rules for presenting the information to the user device are to be used by an advertiser for filtering a presentation of advertisements to the user device, the system comprising a processor and an associated memory, the processor configured to:

extract a mobile phone number, network user history, application user history, and device use history associated with the user operating the user device;
initiate an authentication process to verify the identity of the user operating the user device by cross-referencing the network user history, the application user history, and the device use history with public data on the user;
generate an anonymous and unique identifier for the internet user based on the mobile phone number and the authentication process to verify the identity of the user;
write the mobile phone number, the network user history, the application user history, and the device use history associated with the user operating the user device to the private ledger;
upon completing the authentication process to verify the identity of the user, permit the user to create a personalized privacy policy defined in rules for storing data of the user and using data of the user by entities;
receive, via a user interface of the user device, feature selections of the user;
write the feature selections associated with the user operating the user device to the private ledger;
additionally store the feature selections of the user as the personalized privacy policy in the public ledger, wherein the personalized privacy policy is stored in the public ledger accessible by the advertiser for filtering the presentation of advertisements to the user device;
transmit the anonymous and unique identifier to the advertiser to generate an advertisement for the user based on the anonymous and unique identifier; and
receive the advertisement from the advertiser and present the advertisement to the user.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:

assign behavioral attributes to the anonymous and unique identifier, the behavioral attributes include at least one of gender, age, or net worth of the user.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the anonymous and unique identifier complies with a privacy rule, and the privacy rule includes General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and/or California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) rules.

14. The system of claim 11, wherein the advertisement corresponds with a category, and the category comprises at least one of alcohol, insurance, fast food, footwear, mobile technology, automotive, or video games.

15. The system of claim 11, wherein the network user history is obtained by utilizing a crawler application to track the user across multiple websites.

16. The system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:

receiving an input to select the advertiser based on a category of the advertisement, wherein the input to select the advertiser is received from a media buyer.
17. The system of claim 11, wherein the advertisements are generated by tailoring it to the behavioral attributes.

18. The system of claim 11, wherein a format of the advertisements are one or more of video, audio, images, or text.

19. The system of claim 18, wherein the format of the advertisements are based on stored preferences of the user.

20. The system of claim 18, wherein the format of the advertisements are based on a display medium being employed by the user this is an application waiting on Claims
1. A method for maintaining non-fungible token (NFT) relationships, comprising:

receiving a cryptographically secure set of chain branches of a blockchain, wherein the set of chain branches comprises a root block and a set of linked leaf blocks, wherein the root block comprises a timestamp and a parent NFT, and a child NFT is nested within the parent NFT, wherein the parent NFT comprises a smart contract incorporating one or more user preferences, wherein the child NFT comprises the smart contract defining one or more sub-policies for access by a third party, wherein the one or more sub-policies for access defines permissions and limitations to access an electronic resource associated with the child NFT, wherein each chain branch in the set of chain branches records transactions and actions relating to the child NFT and the one or more user preferences associated with parent NFT of the root block, forming a hierarchical data structure between the parent NFT and the child NFT;
determining, using the smart contract, that a third party has permission to access the electronic resource associated with the child NFT based on the one or more user preferences associated with the parent NFT and the one or more sub-policies associated with the child NFT, wherein the one or more user preferences accessed is a hierarchy of actions in the hierarchical data structure that are executed, stopped, or started in response to a preceding action in the hierarchical data structure between the parent NFT and the child NFT;
based on the hierarchical data structure between the parent NFT and the child NFT granting, using the smart contract, the third party limited access to the electronic resource associated with the parent NFT, granting, using the smart contract, limited access to the electronic resource associated with the child NFT, and revoking access to other resources in the hierarchical data structure;
executing, using the smart contract, the preceding action in the hierarchical data structure;
automatically executing, using the smart contract, the hierarchy of actions in response to the executed preceding action for the one or more user preferences; and
transmitting, using the smart contract, the electronic resource to a user device associated with the third party that has permission to access the electronic resource.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the blockchain is a private blockchain.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the parent NFT on the private blockchain is a link to data that confirms an identity of a user associated with the one or more user preferences and permission levels of the data.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the permission levels are stored in a data store that point to the one or more user preferences on the private blockchain.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the blockchain is a public blockchain.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein the blockchain or the smart contract is used to generate a list of references that the third party is permitted to access.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more user preferences comprise privacy settings.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein the third party is a data broker, brand, advertiser, artificial intelligence (AI), or publisher.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein the smart contract is used to manage a user's telecommunications and block telemarketer calls based on the hierarchy of NFTs, and wherein the parent NFT is associated with a blocked callers list of a user's mobile number and contacts.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein the parent NFT contains as a subdivision of data, token-based proof of access providing exclusive access events, spaces, or services.

11. The method of claim 1, wherein the smart contract is generated utilizing protocols for peer-to-contract interaction.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein the smart contract provides a fractional ownership of the electronic resource contingent upon individual investor contributions per terms set at a time of generation of the smart contract.

13. The method of claim 1, wherein the child NFT comprises one or more sub-child NFTs, wherein each sub-child NFT is associated with an individual associated with the third party.

14. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing instructions on the user device for accessing the electronic resource.

15. The method of claim 1, wherein the parent NFT is in a block of a plurality of blocks linked to each other as a chain, wherein the child NFT is nested in the block of the plurality of blocks.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein the chain comprises a set of chain branches, each being associated with a sub-child non-fungible token associated with the child NFT.

Patent History
Publication number: 20240195628
Type: Application and Claims
1. A method for maintaining non-fungible token (NFT) relationships, comprising:

receiving a cryptographically secure set of chain branches of a blockchain, wherein the set of chain branches comprises a root block and a set of linked leaf blocks, wherein the root block comprises a timestamp and a parent NFT, and a child NFT is nested within the parent NFT, wherein the parent NFT comprises a smart contract incorporating one or more user preferences, wherein the child NFT comprises the smart contract defining one or more sub-policies for access by a third party, wherein each chain branch in the set of chain branches records transactions and actions relating to the child NFT and the one or more user preferences associated with parent NFT of the root block, forming a hierarchical data structure between the parent NFT and the child NFT;
determining, using the smart contract, that the child NFT has permission to access information on the parent NFT based on the one or more user preferences and the one or more sub-policies, wherein the child NFT is associated with the third party, wherein the information accessed is a hierarchy of actions in the hierarchical data structure that are executed, stopped, or started in response to a preceding action in the hierarchical data structure between the parent NFT and the child NFT;
based on the hierarchical data structure between the parent NFT and the child NFT that defines the one or more user preferences for accessing data at each chain branch in the set of chain branches, and the determined permission granting access by the parent NFT to the information, granting, using the smart contract, the child NFT limited access to the information on the parent NFT and revoking access to other information in the hierarchical data structure;
executing, using the smart contract, the preceding action in the hierarchical data structure;
automatically executing, using the smart contract, the hierarchy of actions in response to the executed preceding action for the accessed information;
receiving, using the smart contract, an electronic resource from the child NFT for the parent NFT, wherein the electronic resource is based on the executed hierarchy of actions and the one or more user preferences;
transmitting, using the smart contract, the electronic resource to a user device associated with the parent NFT;
storing the electronic resource on the user device; and
modifying, using the smart contract, at least one of the one or more user preferences of the parent NFT or the one or more sub-policies of the child NFT.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more user preferences comprise privacy settings.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the child NFT comprises one or more sub-child NFTs, wherein each sub-child NFT is associated with an individual associated with the third party.

4. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing instructions on the user device for accessing the electronic resource.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the parent NFT is in a block of a plurality of blocks linked to each other as a chain, wherein the child NFT is nested therein.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the chain comprises a set of chain branches, each being associated with a sub-child non-fungible token associated with the child NFT.

7. A system comprising:

a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive a cryptographically secure set of chain branches of a blockchain, wherein the set of chain branches comprises a root block and a set of linked leaf blocks, wherein the root block comprises a timestamp and a parent NFT, and a child NFT is nested within the parent NFT, wherein the parent NFT comprises a smart contract incorporating one or more user preferences, wherein the child NFT comprises the smart contract defining one or more sub-policies for access by a third party, wherein each chain branch in the set of chain branches records transactions and actions relating to the child NFT and the one or more user preferences associated with parent NFT of the root block, forming a hierarchical data structure between the parent NFT and the child NFT; determine, using the smart contract, that the child NFT has permission to access information on the parent NFT based on the one or more user preferences and the one or more sub-policies, wherein the child NFT is associated with the third party, wherein the information accessed is a hierarchy of actions in the hierarchical data structure that are executed, stopped, or started in response to a preceding action in the hierarchical data structure between the parent NFT and the child NFT; based on the hierarchical data structure between the parent NFT and the child NFT that defines the one or more user preferences for accessing data at each chain branch in the set of chain branches, and the determined permission granting access by the parent NFT to the information, grant, using the smart contract, the child NFT limited access to the information on the parent NFT and revoking access to other information in the hierarchical data structure; execute, using the smart contract, the preceding action in the hierarchical data structure; automatically execute, using the smart contract, the hierarchy of actions in response to the executed preceding action for the accessed information; receive, using the smart contract, an electronic resource from the child NFT for the parent NFT, wherein the electronic resource is based on the executed hierarchy of actions and the one or more user preferences; transmit, using the smart contract, the electronic resource to a user device associated with the parent NFT; store the electronic resource on the user device; and modify, using the smart contract, at least one of the one or more user preferences of the parent NFT or the one or more sub-policies of the child NFT.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the one or more user preferences comprise privacy settings.

9. The system of claim 7, wherein the child NFT comprises one or more sub-child NFTs, wherein each sub-child NFT is associated with an individual associated with the third party.

10. The system of claim 7, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to provide instructions on the user device for accessing the electronic resource.

11. The system of claim 7, wherein the parent NFT is in a block of a plurality of blocks linked to each other as a chain, wherein the child NFT is nested therein.

12. The system of claim 11, wherein the chain comprises a set of chain branches, each being associated with a sub-child non-fungible token associated with the child NFT.


ToolSearch

Question: select:TaskCreate


Question: select:TaskCreate


This is a major formal verification task. Let me understand the full scope first, then execute systematically.


TaskCreate

Map 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION items to patent claims

Read crosswalk_203.csv, identify all 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION rows, map each to specific patent claims from US11956363B2 (dual-ledger), US20240195628A1 (NFT hierarchy), and the pending application

Mapping FUTURE_OBLIGATION items to patent claims


Task #3 created successfully: Map 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION items to patent claims


Read existing patterns from quantum consent + delegation Coq/Lean/Verus files

Read CubieQuantumConsent.v/.lean, cubie_delegation_spec.rs, cubie_delegation_recursion_spec.rs to understand the existing formal model for consent, delegation, and hierarchical access control

Reading existing formal verification patterns


Task #4 created successfully: Read existing patterns from quantum consent + delegation Coq/Lean/Verus files


Write Coq proofs for all 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION theorems

Create Coq files with complete proofs for dual-ledger non-disclosure, all 14 quantum consent theorems. Must be Admitted-free, axiom-disciplined, patent-aligned

Writing Coq proofs for FUTURE_OBLIGATION theorems


Task #5 created successfully: Write Coq proofs for all 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION theorems


Write Lean 4 mirrors for all 15 theorems

Mirror every Coq proof in Lean 4 with complete proof terms


Task #6 created successfully: Write Lean 4 mirrors for all 15 theorems


Write Verus specs + exec fns for delegation crypto and consent

Update cubie_delegation_spec.rs and create new Verus spec for consent hierarchy. Replace the FUTURE_OBLIGATION comment with real verified code


Task #7 created successfully: Write Verus specs + exec fns for delegation crypto and consent


Update master_theorem_table.csv with new CUB IDs

Add CUB-0734+ entries for all new theorems, mark VERIFIED_EXACT, include patent claim mapping


Task #8 created successfully: Update master_theorem_table.csv with new CUB IDs


Run soundness scan + tests + update crosswalk

Run scan_for_unsound_tokens.py, verify all new files PASS, update crosswalk_203.csv to change FUTURE_OBLIGATION to VERIFIED_EXACT


Task #9 created successfully: Run soundness scan + tests + update crosswalk


Now let me start. First, read the crosswalk and existing files to understand the patterns.


ToolSearch

Question: select:TaskUpdate


Question: select:TaskUpdate


Updated task #3 status


170	169,Nonce filter flush safety theorem,"HA, split-brain, and degraded availability",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
171	170,Host Bloom saturation prevention theorem,"HA, split-brain, and degraded availability",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
172	171,Append-only audit ledger integrity theorem,"Audit, privacy, and proof-ledger integrity",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
173	172,Dual-ledger non-disclosure theorem,"Audit, privacy, and proof-ledger integrity",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
174	173,Denial certificate privacy theorem,"Audit, privacy, and proof-ledger integrity",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
175	174,Surface projection minimality theorem,"Audit, privacy, and proof-ledger integrity",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
176	175,Cubie-to-Omega projection refinement theorem,Cubie/Omega substrate bridge and witness boundaries,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,ENGINEERING_INVARIANT,,,,PENDING,Runtime invariant with formal analogue — Verus bridges the gap.,Write Verus spec; escalate to Coq/Lean if formal proof needed.
177	176,Omega witness completeness theorem,Cubie/Omega substrate bridge and witness boundaries,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
178	177,Per-witness denial theorem family,Cubie/Omega substrate bridge and witness boundaries,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,ENGINEERING_INVARIANT,,,,PENDING,Runtime invariant with formal analogue — Verus bridges the gap.,Write Verus spec; escalate to Coq/Lean if formal proof needed.
179	178,Hardware-key boundary condition theorem,Cubie/Omega substrate bridge and witness boundaries,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,ENGINEERING_INVARIANT,,,,PENDING,Runtime invariant with formal analogue — Verus bridges the gap.,Write Verus spec; escalate to Coq/Lean if formal proof needed.
180	179,Session-state freshness theorem,Cubie/Omega substrate bridge and witness boundaries,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
181	180,CAISI RFI alignment theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,REWRITE_RULE,,,,PENDING,Has documentation guardrail component + formal obligation.,Rewrite doc claim; then formalize supporting theorem.
182	181,CAISI vector mapping table completeness theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,REWRITE_RULE,,,,PENDING,Has documentation guardrail component + formal obligation.,Rewrite doc claim; then formalize supporting theorem.
183	182,Traditional vulnerability coverage theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
184	183,Prompt-injection seam denial theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
185	184,Backdoor side-effect containment theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,REWRITE_RULE,,,,PENDING,Has documentation guardrail component + formal obligation.,Rewrite doc claim; then formalize supporting theorem.
186	185,Supply-chain backdoor provenance gate theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
187	186,Misaligned objective pre-execution negation theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
188	187,Rollback is late theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,REWRITE_RULE,,,,PENDING,Has documentation guardrail component + formal obligation.,Rewrite doc claim; then formalize supporting theorem.
189	188,Empirical replication requirement,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,EMPIRICAL_CLAIM,,,,N/A,Empirical measurement + spec cleanup required.,Define benchmark target; clean up rewrite guardrail.
190	189,Gross-vs-net recovery separation rule,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,REWRITE_RULE,,,,N/A,Terminology / spec guardrail — no formal proof required.,Audit documented claim; update whitepaper section.
191	190,Conditional QEC realization theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
192	191,Stabilizer validity theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
193	192,Holevo-bounded extraction theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
194	193,Measurement-collapse consent theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
195	194,Entanglement-induced correlation theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
196	195,Context-dependent measurement basis theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
197	196,Non-commutative consent algebra theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
198	197,Quantum consent channel theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
199	198,Contextual entanglement-wedge reconstruction theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
200	199,Information-percolation threshold theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
201	200,Consent capacity theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
202	201,Contextual consent kernel threshold theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
203	202,Dynamic consent mixing theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
204	203,Arbitrary-graph consent threshold complexity theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
205

169,Nonce filter flush safety theorem,"HA, split-brain, and degraded availability",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
170,Host Bloom saturation prevention theorem,"HA, split-brain, and degraded availability",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
171,Append-only audit ledger integrity theorem,"Audit, privacy, and proof-ledger integrity",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
172,Dual-ledger non-disclosure theorem,"Audit, privacy, and proof-ledger integrity",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
173,Denial certificate privacy theorem,"Audit, privacy, and proof-ledger integrity",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
174,Surface projection minimality theorem,"Audit, privacy, and proof-ledger integrity",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
175,Cubie-to-Omega projection refinement theorem,Cubie/Omega substrate bridge and witness boundaries,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,ENGINEERING_INVARIANT,,,,PENDING,Runtime invariant with formal analogue — Verus bridges the gap.,Write Verus spec; escalate to Coq/Lean if formal proof needed.
176,Omega witness completeness theorem,Cubie/Omega substrate bridge and witness boundaries,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
177,Per-witness denial theorem family,Cubie/Omega substrate bridge and witness boundaries,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,ENGINEERING_INVARIANT,,,,PENDING,Runtime invariant with formal analogue — Verus bridges the gap.,Write Verus spec; escalate to Coq/Lean if formal proof needed.
178,Hardware-key boundary condition theorem,Cubie/Omega substrate bridge and witness boundaries,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,ENGINEERING_INVARIANT,,,,PENDING,Runtime invariant with formal analogue — Verus bridges the gap.,Write Verus spec; escalate to Coq/Lean if formal proof needed.
179,Session-state freshness theorem,Cubie/Omega substrate bridge and witness boundaries,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
180,CAISI RFI alignment theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,REWRITE_RULE,,,,PENDING,Has documentation guardrail component + formal obligation.,Rewrite doc claim; then formalize supporting theorem.
181,CAISI vector mapping table completeness theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,REWRITE_RULE,,,,PENDING,Has documentation guardrail component + formal obligation.,Rewrite doc claim; then formalize supporting theorem.
182,Traditional vulnerability coverage theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
183,Prompt-injection seam denial theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
184,Backdoor side-effect containment theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,REWRITE_RULE,,,,PENDING,Has documentation guardrail component + formal obligation.,Rewrite doc claim; then formalize supporting theorem.
185,Supply-chain backdoor provenance gate theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
186,Misaligned objective pre-execution negation theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,DERIVED_CANDIDATE,,,,PENDING,Likely derivable from verified stack — needs formal proof.,Identify parent theorems in source stack; write formal derivation.
187,Rollback is late theorem,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,REWRITE_RULE,,,,PENDING,Has documentation guardrail component + formal obligation.,Rewrite doc claim; then formalize supporting theorem.
188,Empirical replication requirement,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,EMPIRICAL_CLAIM,,,,N/A,Empirical measurement + spec cleanup required.,Define benchmark target; clean up rewrite guardrail.
189,Gross-vs-net recovery separation rule,"Regulatory, CAISI, and governance alignment",abstract_passable_proof_obligation,REWRITE_RULE,,,,N/A,Terminology / spec guardrail — no formal proof required.,Audit documented claim; update whitepaper section.
190,Conditional QEC realization theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
191,Stabilizer validity theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
192,Holevo-bounded extraction theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
193,Measurement-collapse consent theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
194,Entanglement-induced correlation theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
195,Context-dependent measurement basis theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
196,Non-commutative consent algebra theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
197,Quantum consent channel theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
198,Contextual entanglement-wedge reconstruction theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
199,Information-percolation threshold theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
200,Consent capacity theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
201,Contextual consent kernel threshold theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
202,Dynamic consent mixing theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.
203,Arbitrary-graph consent threshold complexity theorem,Conditional quantum and advanced research path,abstract_passable_proof_obligation,FUTURE_OBLIGATION,,,,PENDING,Requires new formal definitions — no proof possible yet.,Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq.


1	(*
2	  CENTILLION CUBIE Q — QUANTUM CONTEXTUAL CONSENT MODULE
3	  Formalizes Theorems T5-T8 from the Quantum Contextual Consent
4	  Information Percolation framework.
5
6	  - T5: Measurement collapse changes consent (post-measurement
7	    agreement = 1.0 vs classical agreement = 0.5).
8	  - T6: Entanglement-enhanced threshold p_c(f_ent) = 0.5 - f_ent/4.
9	  - T7: Context-dependent quantum consent — non-commutative algebra
10	    [A, B] != [B, A].
11	  - T8: Holevo bound limits extraction I(S; Access) <= S(rho_consent).
12
13	  Constructive only. No Classical. No sorry. No propext.
14	*)
15
16	Require Import Coq.Arith.PeanoNat.
17	Require Import Coq.Init.Nat.
18	Require Import Lia.
19
20	Set Implicit Arguments.
21	Unset Strict Implicit.
22	Unset Printing Implicit Defensive.
23	Open Scope nat_scope.
24
25	Module CubieQuantumConsent.
26
27	(* ============================================================ *)
28	(* 1. Measurement bases (the requesters' contexts)              *)
29	(* ============================================================ *)
30
31	(* Two non-commuting measurement bases. *)
32	Inductive MeasurementBasis : Type :=
33	  | Computational     (* {|0⟩, |1⟩}, the Z basis *)
34	  | Hadamard.         (* {|+⟩, |−⟩}, the X basis *)
35
36	(* Consent outcomes from a measurement. *)
37	Inductive ConsentOutcome : Type :=
38	  | Grant
39	  | Deny.
40
41	(* Quantum consent state — abstract carrier. The actual Hilbert  *)
42	(* space is opaque; we postulate the measurement function.       *)
43	Parameter ConsentState : Type.
44
45	(* The |+⟩ superposition state: half-grant, half-deny in        *)
46	(* computational basis; deterministic-grant in Hadamard basis.   *)
47	Parameter PlusState : ConsentState.
48
49	(* Measurement function. In a classical model this would be     *)
50	(* deterministic; in the quantum model the outcome depends on   *)
51	(* the measurement basis (T7 non-commutativity).                *)
52	Parameter measure : ConsentState -> MeasurementBasis -> ConsentOutcome.
53
54	(* ============================================================ *)
55	(* 2. Theorem T7 axioms — the measurement basis discriminates    *)
56	(* ============================================================ *)
57
58	(* The plus state in the computational basis has a 50/50 outcome *)
59	(* — modeled here by stating only that the outcome can be either, *)
60	(* without privileging one. We use a sealed-state abstraction.    *)
61
62	Parameter measure_plus_computational_can_deny :
63	  measure PlusState Computational = Deny.
64
65	(* The plus state in the Hadamard basis is deterministically      *)
66	(* a grant (it is the +1 eigenstate of X).                        *)
67	Parameter measure_plus_hadamard_grants :
68	  measure PlusState Hadamard = Grant.
69
70	(* T7 — Same state, different measurement bases, different        *)
71	(* outcomes. This is the non-commutativity result: the order of   *)
72	(* measurement matters because the bases don't commute.           *)
73	Theorem T7_context_dependent_consent :
74	  measure PlusState Computational <> measure PlusState Hadamard.
75	Proof.
76	  rewrite measure_plus_computational_can_deny.
77	  rewrite measure_plus_hadamard_grants.
78	  discriminate.
79	Qed.
80
81	(* ============================================================ *)
82	(* 3. Non-commutative consent algebra                            *)
83	(* ============================================================ *)
84
85	(* Composition of two measurements. The order of composition     *)
86	(* affects the outcome — this is the core T7 result.             *)
87
88	Parameter measure_after :
89	  ConsentState -> MeasurementBasis -> MeasurementBasis -> ConsentOutcome.
90
91	(* [A, B] applies A first, then B to the post-A state.           *)
92	Definition commutator_AB (s : ConsentState) :
93	  ConsentOutcome := measure_after s Computational Hadamard.
94
95	(* [B, A] applies B first, then A to the post-B state.           *)
96	Definition commutator_BA (s : ConsentState) :
97	  ConsentOutcome := measure_after s Hadamard Computational.
98
99	(* The two orderings can disagree, witnessing non-commutativity. *)
100	Parameter non_commutativity_witness :
101	  exists s : ConsentState, commutator_AB s <> commutator_BA s.
102
103	Theorem non_commutativity_holds : exists s, commutator_AB s <> commutator_BA s.
104	Proof. exact non_commutativity_witness. Qed.
105
106	(* ============================================================ *)
107	(* 4. Theorem T6 — Entanglement-enhanced threshold               *)
108	(* ============================================================ *)
109
110	(* Entanglement fraction f_ent is modeled as a value in {0..100}. *)
111	(* We work in nat with f_ent representing percentage points.     *)
112	(* The classical critical threshold is 50 (representing 0.5).    *)
113	(* The entanglement-enhanced threshold is 50 - f_ent/4.          *)
114
115	Definition entanglement_fraction := nat.  (* 0..100 *)
116	Definition critical_threshold_classical : nat := 50.
117
118	Definition critical_threshold_quantum (f_ent : nat) : nat :=
119	  critical_threshold_classical - f_ent / 4.
120
121	(* T6 — Entanglement strictly lowers the critical threshold     *)
122	(* when f_ent >= 4 (one quarter of an entanglement bit).         *)
123	Theorem T6_entanglement_lowers_threshold :
124	  forall f_ent : nat, f_ent >= 4 ->
125	  critical_threshold_quantum f_ent < critical_threshold_classical.
126	Proof.
127	  intros f_ent Hf. unfold critical_threshold_quantum, critical_threshold_classical.
128	  assert (f_ent / 4 >= 1).
129	  { apply Nat.div_le_lower_bound; lia. }
130	  lia.
131	Qed.
132
133	(* At f_ent = 100% (full entanglement), threshold drops by 25.   *)
134	Theorem T6_full_entanglement_threshold :
135	  critical_threshold_quantum 100 = 25.
136	Proof. reflexivity. Qed.
137
138	(* At f_ent = 50%, threshold drops by 12 (integer division).    *)
139	Theorem T6_half_entanglement_threshold :
140	  critical_threshold_quantum 50 = 38.
141	Proof. reflexivity. Qed.
142
143	(* ============================================================ *)
144	(* 5. Theorem T8 — Holevo bound on extractable information       *)
145	(* ============================================================ *)
146
147	(* The Holevo bound states that classical information accessible *)
148	(* from a quantum source S is bounded above by the von Neumann   *)
149	(* entropy of the consent state. We model this as an inequality  *)
150	(* between two opaque numerics.                                  *)
151
152	Parameter accessible_information : nat.  (* I(S; Access)        *)
153	Parameter consent_state_entropy : nat.   (* S(rho_consent)      *)
154
155	(* T8 — Holevo bound: extractable info bounded by entropy.       *)
156	Parameter T8_holevo_bound :
157	  accessible_information <= consent_state_entropy.
158
159	Theorem T8_holevo_bound_holds :
160	  accessible_information <= consent_state_entropy.
161	Proof. exact T8_holevo_bound. Qed.
162
163	(* Information gap: the difference between the bound and the    *)
164	(* actual extractable information. This is the "blindness"      *)
165	(* margin the framework guarantees.                             *)
166	Definition information_gap : nat :=
167	  consent_state_entropy - accessible_information.
168
169	Theorem information_gap_nonneg :
170	  consent_state_entropy >= accessible_information.
171	Proof. apply T8_holevo_bound. Qed.
172
173	(* ============================================================ *)
174	(* 6. Theorem T5 — Measurement collapse changes consent         *)
175	(* ============================================================ *)
176
177	(* Once a quantum state is measured, subsequent measurements in   *)
178	(* the same basis yield the same outcome (collapse). This is the *)
179	(* "checking consent changes it" property.                        *)
180
181	Parameter post_measurement_state :
182	  ConsentState -> MeasurementBasis -> ConsentState.
183
184	(* After measuring s in basis b, re-measuring in the same basis  *)
185	(* yields the same outcome. *)
186	Parameter T5_collapse_idempotent :
187	  forall s : ConsentState, forall b : MeasurementBasis,
188	  measure (post_measurement_state s b) b = measure s b.
189
190	Theorem T5_collapse_idempotent_holds :
191	  forall s : ConsentState, forall b : MeasurementBasis,
192	  measure (post_measurement_state s b) b = measure s b.
193	Proof. exact T5_collapse_idempotent. Qed.
194
195	(* Post-measurement agreement rate. After collapse, two           *)
196	(* requesters using the same basis always agree.                  *)
197	Definition post_measurement_agreement (s : ConsentState) (b : MeasurementBasis) : Prop :=
198	  measure (post_measurement_state s b) b = measure s b.
199
200	Theorem T5_post_measurement_agreement_universal :
201	  forall s b, post_measurement_agreement s b.
202	Proof.
203	  intros s b. unfold post_measurement_agreement.
204	  apply T5_collapse_idempotent.
205	Qed.
206
207	End CubieQuantumConsent.
208

(*
  CENTILLION CUBIE Q — QUANTUM CONTEXTUAL CONSENT MODULE
  Formalizes Theorems T5-T8 from the Quantum Contextual Consent
  Information Percolation framework.

  - T5: Measurement collapse changes consent (post-measurement
    agreement = 1.0 vs classical agreement = 0.5).
  - T6: Entanglement-enhanced threshold p_c(f_ent) = 0.5 - f_ent/4.
  - T7: Context-dependent quantum consent — non-commutative algebra
    [A, B] != [B, A].
  - T8: Holevo bound limits extraction I(S; Access) <= S(rho_consent).

  Constructive only. No Classical. No sorry. No propext.
*)

Require Import Coq.Arith.PeanoNat.
Require Import Coq.Init.Nat.
Require Import Lia.

Set Implicit Arguments.
Unset Strict Implicit.
Unset Printing Implicit Defensive.
Open Scope nat_scope.

Module CubieQuantumConsent.

(* ============================================================ *)
(* 1. Measurement bases (the requesters' contexts)              *)
(* ============================================================ *)

(* Two non-commuting measurement bases. *)
Inductive MeasurementBasis : Type :=
  | Computational     (* {|0⟩, |1⟩}, the Z basis *)
  | Hadamard.         (* {|+⟩, |−⟩}, the X basis *)

(* Consent outcomes from a measurement. *)
Inductive ConsentOutcome : Type :=
  | Grant
  | Deny.

(* Quantum consent state — abstract carrier. The actual Hilbert  *)
(* space is opaque; we postulate the measurement function.       *)
Parameter ConsentState : Type.

(* The |+⟩ superposition state: half-grant, half-deny in        *)
(* computational basis; deterministic-grant in Hadamard basis.   *)
Parameter PlusState : ConsentState.

(* Measurement function. In a classical model this would be     *)
(* deterministic; in the quantum model the outcome depends on   *)
(* the measurement basis (T7 non-commutativity).                *)
Parameter measure : ConsentState -> MeasurementBasis -> ConsentOutcome.

(* ============================================================ *)
(* 2. Theorem T7 axioms — the measurement basis discriminates    *)
(* ============================================================ *)

(* The plus state in the computational basis has a 50/50 outcome *)
(* — modeled here by stating only that the outcome can be either, *)
(* without privileging one. We use a sealed-state abstraction.    *)

Parameter measure_plus_computational_can_deny :
  measure PlusState Computational = Deny.

(* The plus state in the Hadamard basis is deterministically      *)
(* a grant (it is the +1 eigenstate of X).                        *)
Parameter measure_plus_hadamard_grants :
  measure PlusState Hadamard = Grant.

(* T7 — Same state, different measurement bases, different        *)
(* outcomes. This is the non-commutativity result: the order of   *)
(* measurement matters because the bases don't commute.           *)
Theorem T7_context_dependent_consent :
  measure PlusState Computational <> measure PlusState Hadamard.
Proof.
  rewrite measure_plus_computational_can_deny.
  rewrite measure_plus_hadamard_grants.
  discriminate.
Qed.

(* ============================================================ *)
(* 3. Non-commutative consent algebra                            *)
(* ============================================================ *)

(* Composition of two measurements. The order of composition     *)
(* affects the outcome — this is the core T7 result.             *)

Parameter measure_after :
  ConsentState -> MeasurementBasis -> MeasurementBasis -> ConsentOutcome.

(* [A, B] applies A first, then B to the post-A state.           *)
Definition commutator_AB (s : ConsentState) :
  ConsentOutcome := measure_after s Computational Hadamard.

(* [B, A] applies B first, then A to the post-B state.           *)
Definition commutator_BA (s : ConsentState) :
  ConsentOutcome := measure_after s Hadamard Computational.

(* The two orderings can disagree, witnessing non-commutativity. *)
Parameter non_commutativity_witness :
  exists s : ConsentState, commutator_AB s <> commutator_BA s.

Theorem non_commutativity_holds : exists s, commutator_AB s <> commutator_BA s.
Proof. exact non_commutativity_witness. Qed.

(* ============================================================ *)
(* 4. Theorem T6 — Entanglement-enhanced threshold               *)
(* ============================================================ *)

(* Entanglement fraction f_ent is modeled as a value in {0..100}. *)
(* We work in nat with f_ent representing percentage points.     *)
(* The classical critical threshold is 50 (representing 0.5).    *)
(* The entanglement-enhanced threshold is 50 - f_ent/4.          *)

Definition entanglement_fraction := nat.  (* 0..100 *)
Definition critical_threshold_classical : nat := 50.

Definition critical_threshold_quantum (f_ent : nat) : nat :=
  critical_threshold_classical - f_ent / 4.

(* T6 — Entanglement strictly lowers the critical threshold     *)
(* when f_ent >= 4 (one quarter of an entanglement bit).         *)
Theorem T6_entanglement_lowers_threshold :
  forall f_ent : nat, f_ent >= 4 ->
  critical_threshold_quantum f_ent < critical_threshold_classical.
Proof.
  intros f_ent Hf. unfold critical_threshold_quantum, critical_threshold_classical.
  assert (f_ent / 4 >= 1).
  { apply Nat.div_le_lower_bound; lia. }
  lia.
Qed.

(* At f_ent = 100% (full entanglement), threshold drops by 25.   *)
Theorem T6_full_entanglement_threshold :
  critical_threshold_quantum 100 = 25.
Proof. reflexivity. Qed.

(* At f_ent = 50%, threshold drops by 12 (integer division).    *)
Theorem T6_half_entanglement_threshold :
  critical_threshold_quantum 50 = 38.
Proof. reflexivity. Qed.

(* ============================================================ *)
(* 5. Theorem T8 — Holevo bound on extractable information       *)
(* ============================================================ *)

(* The Holevo bound states that classical information accessible *)
(* from a quantum source S is bounded above by the von Neumann   *)
(* entropy of the consent state. We model this as an inequality  *)
(* between two opaque numerics.                                  *)

Parameter accessible_information : nat.  (* I(S; Access)        *)
Parameter consent_state_entropy : nat.   (* S(rho_consent)      *)

(* T8 — Holevo bound: extractable info bounded by entropy.       *)
Parameter T8_holevo_bound :
  accessible_information <= consent_state_entropy.

Theorem T8_holevo_bound_holds :
  accessible_information <= consent_state_entropy.
Proof. exact T8_holevo_bound. Qed.

(* Information gap: the difference between the bound and the    *)
(* actual extractable information. This is the "blindness"      *)
(* margin the framework guarantees.                             *)
Definition information_gap : nat :=
  consent_state_entropy - accessible_information.

Theorem information_gap_nonneg :
  consent_state_entropy >= accessible_information.
Proof. apply T8_holevo_bound. Qed.

(* ============================================================ *)
(* 6. Theorem T5 — Measurement collapse changes consent         *)
(* ============================================================ *)

(* Once a quantum state is measured, subsequent measurements in   *)
(* the same basis yield the same outcome (collapse). This is the *)
(* "checking consent changes it" property.                        *)

Parameter post_measurement_state :
  ConsentState -> MeasurementBasis -> ConsentState.

(* After measuring s in basis b, re-measuring in the same basis  *)
(* yields the same outcome. *)
Parameter T5_collapse_idempotent :
  forall s : ConsentState, forall b : MeasurementBasis,
  measure (post_measurement_state s b) b = measure s b.

Theorem T5_collapse_idempotent_holds :
  forall s : ConsentState, forall b : MeasurementBasis,
  measure (post_measurement_state s b) b = measure s b.
Proof. exact T5_collapse_idempotent. Qed.

(* Post-measurement agreement rate. After collapse, two           *)
(* requesters using the same basis always agree.                  *)
Definition post_measurement_agreement (s : ConsentState) (b : MeasurementBasis) : Prop :=
  measure (post_measurement_state s b) b = measure s b.

Theorem T5_post_measurement_agreement_universal :
  forall s b, post_measurement_agreement s b.
Proof.
  intros s b. unfold post_measurement_agreement.
  apply T5_collapse_idempotent.
Qed.

End CubieQuantumConsent.


1	// cubie_delegation_spec.rs — Verus spec for delegated permission model
2	//
3	// Corresponds to: CubieTrustCompilerV1_50 / V2_0 delegation chain
4	// ENGINEERING_INVARIANT: bounded delegation depth, HMAC presence gate
5	//
6	// Design constraints:
7	//   - capability_hmac_valid is an UNINTERPRETED trusted predicate.
8	//     Correctness of HMAC computation is NOT attempted here.
9	//     The only claim: if it returns false, the request is denied.
10	//   - Delegation depth must not exceed MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH.
11	//   - parent_request_hash and parent_chain_hash must be preserved
12	//     across the delegation chain (continuity invariants).
13	//   - No asymmetric crypto in hot path.
14
15	#![allow(unused_imports)]
16	use vstd::prelude::*;
17
18	verus! {
19
20	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21	// Constants
22	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23
24	/// Maximum allowed delegation depth.
25	/// Requests at depth > MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH must receive DENY_DEPTH.
26	pub const MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH: u8 = 8u8;
27
28	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29	// Structs
30	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31
32	/// A delegated CubieRequest with parent chain fields.
33	pub struct DelegatedRequest {
34	    /// Hash of the immediate parent request (continuity invariant).
35	    pub parent_request_hash: u64,
36	    /// Hash of the entire parent chain (continuity invariant).
37	    pub parent_chain_hash:   u64,
38	    /// Depth in the delegation chain (0 = root, max = MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH).
39	    pub delegation_depth:    u8,
40	    /// Structural flag: HMAC was present in the envelope (not validated here).
41	    pub capability_hmac_present: bool,
42	}
43
44	/// Denial codes for delegation violations.
45	pub enum DelegationDenyCode {
46	    DenyDepth,
47	    DenyHmacMissing,
48	    DenyChainHashMismatch,
49	}
50
51	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52	// Uninterpreted trusted predicate
53	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54
55	/// HMAC validity predicate — UNINTERPRETED.
56	///
57	/// This predicate is declared but not defined. In the production runtime it
58	/// wraps the result of a constant-time HMAC-SHA256 verification.
59	///
60	/// The Verus proofs only claim: if this is false, the request is denied.
61	/// Cryptographic correctness is a FUTURE_OBLIGATION (Verus crypto library needed).
62	pub spec fn capability_hmac_valid(req: &DelegatedRequest) -> bool;
63
64	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65	// Spec functions
66	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67
68	/// True iff delegation depth is within the allowed bound.
69	pub open spec fn depth_within_bound(req: &DelegatedRequest) -> bool {
70	    req.delegation_depth <= MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH
71	}
72
73	/// True iff the HMAC is present (structural envelope check).
74	/// Note: presence ≠ validity. validity is capability_hmac_valid().
75	pub open spec fn hmac_present(req: &DelegatedRequest) -> bool {
76	    req.capability_hmac_present
77	}
78
79	/// True iff all delegation invariants pass (depth + HMAC + structural).
80	pub open spec fn delegation_ok(req: &DelegatedRequest) -> bool {
81	    depth_within_bound(req) && capability_hmac_valid(req) && hmac_present(req)
82	}
83
84	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
85	// Invariant proofs
86	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
87
88	/// Theorem: depth exceeded implies denial.
89	/// ENGINEERING_INVARIANT: any request at depth > MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH must be denied.
90	proof fn deny_on_depth_exceeded(req: &DelegatedRequest)
91	    requires req.delegation_depth > MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH
92	    ensures  !depth_within_bound(req) && !delegation_ok(req)
93	{
94	    // depth_within_bound = (depth <= MAX) = false when depth > MAX
95	}
96
97	/// Theorem: if HMAC validity predicate fails, delegation_ok fails.
98	/// This is the key safety claim: invalid HMAC always produces deny.
99	proof fn deny_on_invalid_hmac(req: &DelegatedRequest)
100	    requires !capability_hmac_valid(req)
101	    ensures  !delegation_ok(req)
102	{
103	    // delegation_ok = ... && capability_hmac_valid && ...
104	    // If capability_hmac_valid is false, conjunction is false.
105	}
106
107	/// Theorem: if HMAC is structurally absent, delegation_ok fails.
108	proof fn deny_on_hmac_missing(req: &DelegatedRequest)
109	    requires !hmac_present(req)
110	    ensures  !delegation_ok(req)
111	{
112	    // delegation_ok = ... && hmac_present && ...
113	}
114
115	/// Theorem: parent_request_hash continuity.
116	/// The parent hash must equal the value established at the delegation boundary.
117	/// This is a structural invariant: the runtime must not mutate parent_request_hash
118	/// after the envelope is sealed.
119	proof fn parent_request_hash_continuity(req: &DelegatedRequest, original_hash: u64)
120	    requires req.parent_request_hash == original_hash
121	    ensures  req.parent_request_hash == original_hash
122	{
123	    // Trivial structural invariant — documented for audit trail
124	}
125
126	/// Theorem: parent_chain_hash continuity.
127	/// The chain hash accumulates all parent hashes. Must not be modified
128	/// after sealing. The runtime must treat it as read-only.
129	proof fn parent_chain_hash_continuity(req: &DelegatedRequest, expected_chain: u64)
130	    requires req.parent_chain_hash == expected_chain
131	    ensures  req.parent_chain_hash == expected_chain
132	{
133	    // Structural invariant — enforces immutability of sealed chain hash
134	}
135
136	/// Theorem: depth monotone — a child's depth is strictly greater than its parent's.
137	/// Prevents cycles and depth inflation.
138	proof fn depth_is_monotone(parent_depth: u8, child_depth: u8)
139	    requires child_depth == parent_depth + 1u8
140	    ensures  child_depth > parent_depth
141	{
142	    // child_depth = parent_depth + 1 > parent_depth
143	}
144
145	/// Theorem: root request has depth 0.
146	proof fn root_has_zero_depth(req: &DelegatedRequest)
147	    requires req.delegation_depth == 0u8
148	    ensures  depth_within_bound(req)
149	{
150	    // 0 <= MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH (8)
151	}
152
153	/// Theorem: delegation chain bounded — after MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH steps,
154	/// any further child is denied at depth gate before other checks.
155	proof fn chain_is_bounded(req: &DelegatedRequest)
156	    requires req.delegation_depth == MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH
157	    ensures  depth_within_bound(req)
158	{
159	    // MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH <= MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH ✓
160	}
161
162	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
163	// Active-active split-brain safety
164	// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
165
166	/// Theorem: deterministic decision — same request, same epoch, same state
167	/// produces the same delegation_ok result on any appliance.
168	///
169	/// VERIFIED_EXACT: CubieTrustCompilerV2_0.ha_split_brain_fail_closed (partial)
170	///
171	/// The full split-brain theorem requires distributed state assumptions.
172	/// This Verus fragment proves the spec function is pure (deterministic).
173	proof fn delegation_ok_is_deterministic(req: &DelegatedRequest)
174	    ensures delegation_ok(req) == delegation_ok(req)
175	{
176	    // Pure spec function: same input => same output
177	}
178
179	/// EXEC: delegation gate — hmac_result is the output of the hardware HMAC verifier.
180	pub fn exec_delegation_ok(req: &DelegatedRequest, hmac_result: bool) -> (result: bool)
181	    requires capability_hmac_valid(req) == hmac_result,
182	    ensures  result == delegation_ok(req),
183	{
184	    req.delegation_depth <= MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH && hmac_result && req.capability_hmac_present
185	}
186
187	} // verus!
188

// cubie_delegation_spec.rs — Verus spec for delegated permission model
//
// Corresponds to: CubieTrustCompilerV1_50 / V2_0 delegation chain
// ENGINEERING_INVARIANT: bounded delegation depth, HMAC presence gate
//
// Design constraints:
//   - capability_hmac_valid is an UNINTERPRETED trusted predicate.
//     Correctness of HMAC computation is NOT attempted here.
//     The only claim: if it returns false, the request is denied.
//   - Delegation depth must not exceed MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH.
//   - parent_request_hash and parent_chain_hash must be preserved
//     across the delegation chain (continuity invariants).
//   - No asymmetric crypto in hot path.

#![allow(unused_imports)]
use vstd::prelude::*;

verus! {

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Constants
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

/// Maximum allowed delegation depth.
/// Requests at depth > MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH must receive DENY_DEPTH.
pub const MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH: u8 = 8u8;

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Structs
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

/// A delegated CubieRequest with parent chain fields.
pub struct DelegatedRequest {
    /// Hash of the immediate parent request (continuity invariant).
    pub parent_request_hash: u64,
    /// Hash of the entire parent chain (continuity invariant).
    pub parent_chain_hash:   u64,
    /// Depth in the delegation chain (0 = root, max = MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH).
    pub delegation_depth:    u8,
    /// Structural flag: HMAC was present in the envelope (not validated here).
    pub capability_hmac_present: bool,
}

/// Denial codes for delegation violations.
pub enum DelegationDenyCode {
    DenyDepth,
    DenyHmacMissing,
    DenyChainHashMismatch,
}

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Uninterpreted trusted predicate
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

/// HMAC validity predicate — UNINTERPRETED.
///
/// This predicate is declared but not defined. In the production runtime it
/// wraps the result of a constant-time HMAC-SHA256 verification.
///
/// The Verus proofs only claim: if this is false, the request is denied.
/// Cryptographic correctness is a FUTURE_OBLIGATION (Verus crypto library needed).
pub spec fn capability_hmac_valid(req: &DelegatedRequest) -> bool;

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Spec functions
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

/// True iff delegation depth is within the allowed bound.
pub open spec fn depth_within_bound(req: &DelegatedRequest) -> bool {
    req.delegation_depth <= MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH
}

/// True iff the HMAC is present (structural envelope check).
/// Note: presence ≠ validity. validity is capability_hmac_valid().
pub open spec fn hmac_present(req: &DelegatedRequest) -> bool {
    req.capability_hmac_present
}

/// True iff all delegation invariants pass (depth + HMAC + structural).
pub open spec fn delegation_ok(req: &DelegatedRequest) -> bool {
    depth_within_bound(req) && capability_hmac_valid(req) && hmac_present(req)
}

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Invariant proofs
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

/// Theorem: depth exceeded implies denial.
/// ENGINEERING_INVARIANT: any request at depth > MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH must be denied.
proof fn deny_on_depth_exceeded(req: &DelegatedRequest)
    requires req.delegation_depth > MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH
    ensures  !depth_within_bound(req) && !delegation_ok(req)
{
    // depth_within_bound = (depth <= MAX) = false when depth > MAX
}

/// Theorem: if HMAC validity predicate fails, delegation_ok fails.
/// This is the key safety claim: invalid HMAC always produces deny.
proof fn deny_on_invalid_hmac(req: &DelegatedRequest)
    requires !capability_hmac_valid(req)
    ensures  !delegation_ok(req)
{
    // delegation_ok = ... && capability_hmac_valid && ...
    // If capability_hmac_valid is false, conjunction is false.
}

/// Theorem: if HMAC is structurally absent, delegation_ok fails.
proof fn deny_on_hmac_missing(req: &DelegatedRequest)
    requires !hmac_present(req)
    ensures  !delegation_ok(req)
{
    // delegation_ok = ... && hmac_present && ...
}

/// Theorem: parent_request_hash continuity.
/// The parent hash must equal the value established at the delegation boundary.
/// This is a structural invariant: the runtime must not mutate parent_request_hash
/// after the envelope is sealed.
proof fn parent_request_hash_continuity(req: &DelegatedRequest, original_hash: u64)
    requires req.parent_request_hash == original_hash
    ensures  req.parent_request_hash == original_hash
{
    // Trivial structural invariant — documented for audit trail
}

/// Theorem: parent_chain_hash continuity.
/// The chain hash accumulates all parent hashes. Must not be modified
/// after sealing. The runtime must treat it as read-only.
proof fn parent_chain_hash_continuity(req: &DelegatedRequest, expected_chain: u64)
    requires req.parent_chain_hash == expected_chain
    ensures  req.parent_chain_hash == expected_chain
{
    // Structural invariant — enforces immutability of sealed chain hash
}

/// Theorem: depth monotone — a child's depth is strictly greater than its parent's.
/// Prevents cycles and depth inflation.
proof fn depth_is_monotone(parent_depth: u8, child_depth: u8)
    requires child_depth == parent_depth + 1u8
    ensures  child_depth > parent_depth
{
    // child_depth = parent_depth + 1 > parent_depth
}

/// Theorem: root request has depth 0.
proof fn root_has_zero_depth(req: &DelegatedRequest)
    requires req.delegation_depth == 0u8
    ensures  depth_within_bound(req)
{
    // 0 <= MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH (8)
}

/// Theorem: delegation chain bounded — after MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH steps,
/// any further child is denied at depth gate before other checks.
proof fn chain_is_bounded(req: &DelegatedRequest)
    requires req.delegation_depth == MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH
    ensures  depth_within_bound(req)
{
    // MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH <= MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH ✓
}

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Active-active split-brain safety
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

/// Theorem: deterministic decision — same request, same epoch, same state
/// produces the same delegation_ok result on any appliance.
///
/// VERIFIED_EXACT: CubieTrustCompilerV2_0.ha_split_brain_fail_closed (partial)
///
/// The full split-brain theorem requires distributed state assumptions.
/// This Verus fragment proves the spec function is pure (deterministic).
proof fn delegation_ok_is_deterministic(req: &DelegatedRequest)
    ensures delegation_ok(req) == delegation_ok(req)
{
    // Pure spec function: same input => same output
}

/// EXEC: delegation gate — hmac_result is the output of the hardware HMAC verifier.
pub fn exec_delegation_ok(req: &DelegatedRequest, hmac_result: bool) -> (result: bool)
    requires capability_hmac_valid(req) == hmac_result,
    ensures  result == delegation_ok(req),
{
    req.delegation_depth <= MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH && hmac_result && req.capability_hmac_present
}

} // verus!


this is important because this is the access control log  Dual-ledger non-disclosure theorem this is cascading consent as well as reference. also the cubie delegation likely could have the other rust…


Conversation compacted


This session is being continued from a previous conversation that ran out of context. The summary below covers the earlier portion of the conversation.

Summary:
1. Primary Request and Intent:

   **Completed requests in this session:**
   - Run `tools/build_presentation.py` and deliver the 27-slide PowerPoint → DONE
   - Open the PowerPoint file → DONE
   - Generate comprehensive markdown with granular details and WHY context → DONE (`docs/ARCHITECTURE_AND_RATIONALE.md`, 835 lines)
   - Enhance that document with chronological phases, actual test results, gap analysis details → DONE (expanded to 1,459 lines)
   - Check if all stubs were replaced → DONE (confirmed 3 bare-metal stubs replaced, 15 crosswalk FUTURE_OBLIGATION remain)

   **ACTIVE request (most recent, not yet started):**
   The user demands completion of ALL 15 remaining FUTURE_OBLIGATION items with "100% accuracy", aligned to three patent families:

   1. **US11956363B2** (granted) — Dual-ledger identity verification with public/private ledgers, anonymous unique identifiers, personalized privacy policies, and advertiser filtering (Claims 1-20)
   2. **US20240195628A1** (pending, first claim set) — NFT hierarchical relationships: parent/child NFT nesting, smart contracts with user preferences, sub-policies for third-party access, hierarchical data structures with cascading actions, grant/revoke access patterns (Claims 1-16)
   3. **US20240195628A1** (pending, second claim set) — Modified NFT relationships: child NFT accessing parent NFT information, receiving/transmitting electronic resources, storing on user device, modifying preferences/sub-policies (Claims 1-12)

   The user specifically noted:
   - "this is the access control log" — dual-ledger theorem is NOT abstract, it's real access control
   - "cascading consent as well as reference" — these theorems model cascading consent from the NFT patents
   - "the cubie delegation likely could have the other rust verification source help us based on your laziness" — the Verus delegation spec (cubie_delegation_spec.rs line 61) has a FUTURE_OBLIGATION comment about crypto correctness that SHOULD use the real HMAC-SHA256 we already built in bare-metal/src/hmac.rs
   - "100% accuracy" — no shortcuts, no Admitted, no sorry, fully proven

2. Key Technical Concepts:
   - **Coq 8.18.0**: Primary proof assistant, constructive intuitionistic logic only, no Admitted/sorry
   - **Lean 4**: Secondary proof assistant, independent type theory mirror
   - **Verus**: Rust formal verification with spec fn (ghost) + exec fn (compiled) + ensures clauses
   - **FIPS 198-1 HMAC-SHA256**: Hardware-rooted capability authentication via eFuse keys
   - **NVLink waiter detection**: SM=0 + VRAM>0 = deadlock signature → deny
   - **PCIe adapter swap gate**: 16-entry cache + 4GB/s bandwidth threshold
   - **no_std bare-metal Rust**: Runs without OS on RISC-V, x86_64, AArch64
   - **Mock MMIO layer**: AtomicU32 cells replace hardware registers for testing
   - **Quantum contextual consent**: Models consent as quantum measurement (non-commutativity, collapse, entanglement, Holevo bound)
   - **NFT hierarchical consent**: Parent NFT → child NFT hierarchy maps to cascading consent/delegation
   - **Dual-ledger non-disclosure**: Public ledger (rules/policies) + private ledger (interactions/data) separation
   - **Patent claim alignment**: Every theorem must map to a specific patent claim
   - **Crosswalk statuses**: VERIFIED_EXACT (594), DERIVED_CANDIDATE (139), FUTURE_OBLIGATION (15 → to be resolved)
   - **Master theorem table**: 733 rows (CUB-0001 to CUB-0733), will expand with new theorems

3. Files and Code Sections:

   - **`tools/build_presentation.py`** (line 1276 fix)
     - Had Unicode arrow `→` that failed on Windows cp1252
     - Changed `print(f"Saved → {out}")` to `print(f"Saved -> {out}")`
     - Generated 27 slides successfully after fix

   - **`docs/ARCHITECTURE_AND_RATIONALE.md`** — THE major deliverable of this session
     - Created at 835 lines, enhanced to 1,459 lines
     - 26 sections covering chronological build phases, all components with WHY context, actual test results, soundness scan results, hash verification, crosswalk breakdown
     - Section 0: 11 chronological build phases (Coq→Lean→Verus ghost→exec fn→stubs found→hardware checks→tests→speed test→gap analysis→scan→docs)
     - Section 15: Before/after for all 3 FUTURE_OBLIGATION stubs with full code
     - Section 18: Full `cargo test` output (21/21 pass)
     - Section 19: Soundness scan (69/69 PASS)
     - Section 20: Hash verification (63 pass, 2 known mismatches)
     - Section 22: Crosswalk status breakdown + master table schema

   - **`roadmap/crosswalk_203.csv`** (lines 170-204) — contains the 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION rows:
     - Row 172: Dual-ledger non-disclosure theorem ("Audit, privacy, and proof-ledger integrity")
     - Rows 190-203: 14 quantum consent theorems ("Conditional quantum and advanced research path")
     - All have status FUTURE_OBLIGATION, next_action "Define new types/predicates; formalize in Lean 4 or Coq"

   - **`coq/CubieQuantumConsent.v`** (207 lines) — existing quantum consent foundation:
     - Types: `MeasurementBasis` (Computational | Hadamard), `ConsentOutcome` (Grant | Deny)
     - Parameters: `ConsentState`, `PlusState`, `measure`, `measure_after`, `post_measurement_state`
     - Axioms: `measure_plus_computational_can_deny`, `measure_plus_hadamard_grants`, `non_commutativity_witness`, `T8_holevo_bound`, `T5_collapse_idempotent`
     - Theorems proved: T7 (context-dependent consent), T6 (entanglement threshold), T8 (Holevo bound), T5 (collapse idempotence)
     - Pattern: Uses `Parameter` for opaque types, `nat` for percentages, `lia` for arithmetic

   - **`verus/cubie_delegation_spec.rs`** (187 lines) — delegation chain model:
     - `DelegatedRequest` struct: parent_request_hash, parent_chain_hash, delegation_depth, capability_hmac_present
     - `MAX_DELEGATION_DEPTH: u8 = 8u8`
     - **Line 61: `/// Cryptographic correctness is a FUTURE_OBLIGATION (Verus crypto library needed).`** — THIS needs to be fixed using real HMAC from bare-metal/src/hmac.rs
     - `capability_hmac_valid` is an uninterpreted spec fn — should reference real HMAC
     - Has `exec_delegation_ok` with ensures clause already
     - Proofs: deny_on_depth_exceeded, deny_on_invalid_hmac, deny_on_hmac_missing, continuity invariants, depth monotone

   - **`coq/CubieAttentionGeometry_v7.v`** (141 lines) — gap theorems for hardware checks:
     - `HeadShapeOK`, `waste_ok_decomposition`, `adapter_swap_ok`, `nvlink_waiter_safe`
     - Pattern to follow for new theorems

   - **`coq/CubieEngineeringPhysics_v7.v`** (82 lines) — engineering formula theorems:
     - `kv_cache_byte_estimator`, `roofline_admission_time`, `failure_probability_bound`

   - **`bare-metal/src/hmac_stub.rs`** — real HMAC implementation (already built):
     ```rust
     pub fn capability_hmac_verify(request_hash: u64, capability_hmac: u64, key_slot: u8) -> bool {
         let key = unsafe { mmio::read_efuse_key(key_slot) };
         let msg = request_hash.to_be_bytes();
         let mac = hmac_sha256(&key, &msg);
         let mut expected = [0u8; 32];
         expected[0..8].copy_from_slice(&capability_hmac.to_be_bytes());
         let mut mac_truncated = [0u8; 32];
         mac_truncated[0..8].copy_from_slice(&mac[0..8]);
         ct_eq_32(&mac_truncated, &expected)
     }
     ```

   - **`bare-metal/src/hmac.rs`** — FIPS 198-1 HMAC-SHA256 + ct_eq_32 (58 lines)
   - **`bare-metal/src/sha256.rs`** — FIPS 180-4 SHA-256 (~120 lines)
   - **`bare-metal/src/mmio.rs`** — MMIO layout + mock cells (195 lines)
   - **`bare-metal/src/nvlink.rs`** — waiter detection (39 lines)
   - **`bare-metal/src/pcie.rs`** — adapter cache + BW gate (112 lines)
   - **`bare-metal/src/admit.rs`** — top-level gate composing all checks (64 lines)
   - **`bare-metal/src/types.rs`** — CubieRequest, WasteFactors, AdmitResult structs
   - **`bare-metal-tests/tests/admit.rs`** — 21 integration tests (265 lines)
   - **`roadmap/master_theorem_table.csv`** — 733 rows (CUB-0001 to CUB-0733), 594 VERIFIED_EXACT + 139 DERIVED_CANDIDATE

4. Errors and Fixes:
   - **Unicode encoding error** in build_presentation.py: `UnicodeEncodeError: 'charmap' codec can't encode character '\u2192'` on Windows cp1252. Fixed by replacing `→` with `->` in the print statement.
   - **Push to master blocked by hook**: "Pushing directly to master bypasses pull request review". Fixed by creating feature branch `feat/executive-presentation` and pushing there, then creating PR #1.
   - **PowerShell syntax in bash**: Tried PowerShell `$dest = ...` in bash shell; got syntax errors. Fixed by using bash-native commands.
   - **Google Drive path**: `C:/Users/NickV/Google Drive/...` not found. Correct path was `/c/Users/NickV/My Drive/...`.
   - **Edit tool string mismatch**: When enhancing the doc, section numbers shifted after insertions, causing `old_string` not found. Fixed by reading the file at the correct offset to find the actual string.
   - **Duplicate section numbers**: Gap analysis was `## 16` and test suite was also `## 16` after insertions. Fixed by renumbering.

5. Problem Solving:
   - **Presentation generation**: Fixed encoding issue, generated 27-slide dark-theme PowerPoint covering problem/solution/zero-gaps/opportunity/technical-addendum
   - **Comprehensive documentation**: Built 1,459-line rationale document with full chronological context, actual test results, and all WHY explanations
   - **Stub verification**: Systematically grepped for FUTURE_OBLIGATION, stubs, placeholders to confirm all 3 bare-metal stubs were replaced and identify remaining 15 crosswalk obligations
   - **Patent mapping analysis**: Began mapping 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION theorems to three patent families before session was paused

6. All User Messages:
   - (Session continuation from prior context — no explicit first message, resumed from build_presentation.py)
   - "please open ppt"
   - "generate a markdown file with all granular level details and context as well. did we do the hmac verify, why did we do that? those are the type of context missing and need"
   - "/model" (switched to Opus 4.6)
   - "please enhance this document to cover more granular details and test results as well as things like after we did the lean and coq we did the versus and after that we did another thing. what were those? i believe those were missing also"
   - "did we replace all stub"
   - (CRITICAL LONG MESSAGE): "this is important because this is the access control log Dual-ledger non-disclosure theorem this is cascading consent as well as reference. also the cubie delegation likely could have the other rust verification source help us based on your laziness, i want you to complete all future obligations with 100% accuracy. also we need you to follow my patent claims Claims..." — followed by full patent claims for US11956363B2 (20 claims), US20240195628A1 first set (16 claims), and US20240195628A1 second set (12 claims)

7. Pending Tasks (created via TaskCreate, none started beyond initial file reads):
   - **Task 3**: Map 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION items to patent claims (status: in_progress — read crosswalk and source files, not yet completed)
   - **Task 4**: Read existing patterns from quantum consent + delegation Coq/Lean/Verus files (status: pending — partially done via reads above)
   - **Task 5**: Write Coq proofs for all 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION theorems (pending)
   - **Task 6**: Write Lean 4 mirrors for all 15 theorems (pending)
   - **Task 7**: Write Verus specs + exec fns for delegation crypto and consent (pending)
   - **Task 8**: Update master_theorem_table.csv with new CUB IDs (CUB-0734+) (pending)
   - **Task 9**: Run soundness scan + tests + update crosswalk (pending)

8. Current Work:
   Immediately before this summary, the assistant had just started on the massive task of completing all 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION theorems. Specifically:

   - Created 7 TaskCreate entries (Tasks 3-9) for the work
   - Set Task 3 to in_progress
   - Read three critical files for context:
     1. `roadmap/crosswalk_203.csv` lines 170-204 — identified all 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION rows
     2. `coq/CubieQuantumConsent.v` — full 207-line file showing the existing quantum consent framework (T5-T8) and the patterns to follow
     3. `verus/cubie_delegation_spec.rs` — full 187-line file showing the delegation model with the FUTURE_OBLIGATION comment at line 61

   The work had NOT yet progressed to actually writing any Coq, Lean, or Verus code. The reads were the first step of Task 3/4 (understanding existing patterns and mapping to patent claims).

   The user's critical guidance:
   - The dual-ledger theorem is REAL access control, not abstract — maps to US11956363B2 public/private ledger
   - Quantum consent theorems model CASCADING CONSENT from the NFT hierarchy patents (US20240195628A1)
   - The Verus delegation spec SHOULD use the real HMAC we already built (not remain uninterpreted)
   - ALL 15 must be completed with 100% accuracy
   - Must follow the patent claims exactly

9. Optional Next Step:
   Continue Task 3: Complete the patent claim mapping for all 15 FUTURE_OBLIGATION items, then proceed to write Coq proofs (Task 5).

   The mapping should be:
   - **Dual-ledger non-disclosure theorem** (Row 172) → US11956363B2 Claim 1 (public ledger stores rules/policies, private ledger stores interactions/data, anonymous identifier, personalized privacy policy)
   - **14 quantum consent theorems** (Rows 190-203) → US20240195628A1 Claims (NFT hierarchy = consent hierarchy, parent→child delegation, smart contracts = formal consent rules, cascading actions, grant/revoke access patterns)
   - **Verus delegation crypto** → Replace uninterpreted `capability_hmac_valid` with reference to real HMAC-SHA256 implementation

   User's exact words: "i want you to complete all future obligations with 100% accuracy. also we need you to follow my patent claims"

   The next concrete step is to complete the patent mapping (Task 3), then begin writing Coq proofs for the dual-ledger non-disclosure theorem first (as the user specifically called it out), followed by the 14 quantum consent theorems, creating corresponding Lean 4 mirrors, updating the Verus delegation spec to resolve its FUTURE_OBLIGATION, and updating the master theorem table and crosswalk.

If you need specific details from before compaction (like exact code snippets, error messages, or content you generated), read the full transcript at: C:\Users\NickV\.claude\projects\C--Users-NickV\bfc2bfbf-6683-4826-bf18-edd758f725bb.jsonl
Continue the conversation from where it left off without asking the user any further questions. Resume directly — do not acknowledge the summary, do not recap what was happening, do not preface with "I'll continue" or similar. Pick up the last task as if the break never happened.


## plugin:context7:context7
Use this server to fetch current documentation whenever the user asks about a library, framework, SDK, API, CLI tool, or cloud service -- even well-known ones like React, Next.js, Prisma, Express, Tailwind, Django, or Spring Boot. This includes API syntax, configuration, version migration, library-specific debugging, setup instructions, and CLI tool usage. Use even when you think you know the answer -- your training data may not reflect recent changes. Prefer this over web search for library docs.

Do not use for: refactoring, writing scripts from scratch, debugging business logic, code review, or general programming concepts.

## plugin:serena:serena
CRITICAL: Before starting to work on a coding task, call the `initial_instructions` tool to read the 'Serena Instructions Manual'.