TA-14
Governance Profiles

TA-14 Admissible Execution Architecture

The parent governance architecture for determining whether consequence-bearing execution is admissible before consequence is allowed to bind.

A governance architecture for separating reality, records, continuity, admissibility, binding, commitment, execution, and outcomes so consequential execution can be inspected and governed without allowing one layer to silently replace another.

Harmonic Constitutional Runtime

Foundational Harmonic Constitutional Runtime Registry Baseline — Version 1.0

Harmonic Constitutional Runtime v1.0 is the original registered Harmonic baseline under TA-14-AIGR-000008. It reconstructs an institution's present constitutional state from admitted evidence and determines whether a proposed consequential execution remains constitutionally admissible before consequence binds. This profile is bounded to v1.0 and does not import later v2.0 capabilities or evidence.

TA-14 Admissible Human Intervention Architecture

Human-in-the-loop is not governance. Human intervention must itself be admissible.

TA-14 Admissible Human Intervention Architecture v1.0 is a registered TA-14 architecture family within the broader Admissible Execution Architecture. It establishes Human Standing, the Human Admissibility Boundary, AHI-0 through AHI-5 intervention levels, a Minimum Human Intervention Evidence Package, pressure-survivability requirements, fail-closed intervention governance, and admissible non-occurrence as a governed outcome.

Elias Systems Sovereign Constitutional Governance Architecture

A constitutional control plane for intelligence and consequence.

Elias Systems is a Sovereign Constitutional Governance Architecture designed to govern how intelligent and other consequence-bearing systems move from information or capability into authorised action. Its technical role is a Constitutional Control Plane for Intelligence and Consequence. Its central principle is that capability does not confer authority. A system being able to generate, decide or execute something does not by itself mean that it is entitled to do so. Elias governs the surrounding chain of identity, intention, authority, evidence, scope, conditions, standing, admissibility, permission, execution, witness and reassessment. It is intended to operate across domains including AI systems, agents, financial execution, search, enterprise controls and other environments where actions can create meaningful consequences. The architecture serves organisations, operators, developers and accountable decision-makers who need a structured way to establish whether an action is presently authorised before consequence occurs, while preserving evidence of what was determined, permitted and executed.

Governance Formation™ / Governance Five™ ©

Form the authorised governing position before implementation or operational reliance begins.

Governance Formation™ / Governance Five™ © is an independently stewarded decision-formation governance architecture for human, organisational, digital and hybrid environments, including AI and automated systems. It is designed to form and preserve an attributable governing position before implementation or operational reliance begins.

Velos Systems - PEP-L4 / WireGate

Deterministic Layer-4 Execution Enforcement at the Wire

Velos Systems registered PEP-L4 / WireGate v1.0.0 as a bare-metal, transport-neutral execution substrate for deterministic AI governance. The filing describes Linux kernel eBPF enforcement at Layer-4, compilation of upstream governance contracts into binary invariants, and packet interdiction before unauthorized state mutation reaches connected infrastructure. These are registrant-declared architectural claims preserved by the Exchange, not TA-14 certification or independent performance findings.

Sovereign Constitutional Governance Architecture Examination Architecture

Predicate state is not automatically equivalent to reality.

SCGA Examination Architecture v0.6 is a frozen framework for controlled and reproducible adversarial examination of the Sovereign Constitutional Governance Architecture. It defines predicates, evidence requirements, applicability, conditional propagation, exclusions, drift and closure rules while preserving the distinction between a predicate state and established reality. Registration records the examination architecture; it does not establish that SCGA has passed examination.

Harmonic Constitutional Runtime

Constitutional Runtime Governance with Preserved Version Lineage

Harmonic Constitutional Runtime is a bounded constitutional continuation runtime for AI-enabled and automated systems. It is designed to determine whether a proposed consequential transition remains supportable at the point of execution under the institution’s presented state, evidence, authority, continuity conditions, and consequence boundary. Harmonic serves institutions that need to separate model recommendation, capability, or prior approval from present authority to act. It does not replace domain expertise, organizational accountability, or institutional execution authority. Instead, it evaluates whether continuation remains constitutionally admissible before consequence binds. The runtime can return distinct governed states such as allow, constrain, escalate, block, or emergency continuity, while preserving the reason for the determination and the evidence boundary supporting it. Version 2.0 also preserves attributable constitutional evidence relationships among presented state, determination, receipt, replay, and later execution evidence where available. A Harmonic determination does not itself create institutional authority to execute, and a constitutional receipt does not by itself prove that a downstream action or real-world effect occurred. The public evaluation and evidence surfaces are intentionally bounded. The private Harmonic Core remains separate from public demonstration clients and public repository materials.

Elias Sovereign Composability Architecture

Do not merge architectures. Govern the relationship.

A registered, frozen governance architecture focused on what may cross an independent boundary, what the incoming object legitimately establishes, what authority remains with its source, what the receiver may conclude, and when changed conditions require revalidation.

Governed State Spine

Formation-Layer Governance for Legitimate Consequential Decision Formation

Governed State Spine (GSS) is an independently developed governance architecture stewarded by Mark Rewers through R2 Tech Consultants, LLC. It focuses on the formation boundary of consequential decisions: whether a decision was legitimately permitted to acquire governed standing under the conditions valid when it formed, while preserving the governed state needed for later reconstruction and examination.

Elias Internal, External and Unified AI Governance Architecture

Internal, External, and Unified Governance Surfaces Before Consequential Release

EIEU Governance v1.0 is an independently stewarded Elias Systems architecture that distinguishes Internal Governance Firewall, External Governance Firewall, and Unified Governance Firewall surfaces while preserving explicit boundaries around authority, evidence, implementation maturity, and non-bypass claims.

Framework-Independent Constitutional Systems Qualification Protocol

Prospective, Evidence-Bounded Qualification of Constitutional and Governance Claims

FICSQP v0.14 is a jointly authored and co-developed qualification protocol attributed in the Registry to Gary Williams and Tim Zlomke. It evaluates governance claims without requiring participating architectures to share one ontology, terminology, decomposition, or implementation model.

Elias Constitutional Governance Kernel

Pre-Execution Constitutional Governance for Authority, Evidence, and Admissibility

ECGK v1.0.0 is an independently stewarded Elias Systems Ltd governance architecture designed to make pre-execution permission an explicit governance determination rather than an inference from model capability, confidence, or technical success.

LOVE-OS Master Constitutional Architecture

Human-Centred Constitutional Governance for Sovereign, Bounded AI

LOVE-OS is the master human-centred constitutional governance architecture developed by Elias Systems Ltd and stewarded by Gary Williams. It establishes a persistent constitutional reference intended to keep consequential intelligent and automated activity subordinate to declared purpose, human sovereignty, legitimate authority, evidence, responsibility, and bounded ethical constraints rather than allowing capability or intelligence to become authority by default.

Elias Human Sovereignty Chain

Human Sovereignty, Constitutional Authority, and Governed AI Execution

EHSC is a constitutional AI governance architecture stewarded by Gary Williams through Elias Systems Ltd. It separates AI capability from legitimate authority and governs identity, observation, interpretation, governance, intelligence, execution, and witnessing as distinguishable authority stages so that consequential AI activity does not silently become authorised action.

Institutional Titration Framework

Temporal Resistance, Procedural Friction, and Institutional Integrity

Institutional Titration Framework (ITF) is a governance and analytical architecture stewarded by Abderraouf Idress Omer. It evaluates administrative efficiency and institutional integrity without treating speed, completion, or procedural continuity as sufficient proof that a decision remains supportable.

TA-14 AI Governance Exchange Architecture

The institutional architecture behind the TA-14 AI Governance Exchange, Registry, governed review, evidence preservation, demonstrations, responses, and publication lifecycle.

TA-14 AI Governance Exchange Architecture is an institutional architecture for registering, reviewing, preserving, challenging, and publishing AI governance systems, architectures, execution artifacts, governed records, demonstrations, and related evidence. It is designed for governance entities, architecture originators, institutional reviewers, system owners, auditors, and the public who need a dated, attributable, versioned record of what a governance architecture claims, what evidence supports it, what it does not claim, how it was reviewed, and how its status changes over time. The Exchange separates registration, evidence preservation, review, acceptance, identifier assignment, publication, dispute handling, supersession, withdrawal, and archival into distinct governed acts. It supports permanent Registry identifiers, public and controlled records, review pathways, execution-artifact preservation, governed demonstrations, Partner Review Network participation, and lifecycle history. The architecture is intended to make AI governance claims inspectable without collapsing registration into certification or review into endorsement. A Registry record preserves identity, provenance, scope, claims, non-claims, evidence relationships, rights, and lineage. It does not, by itself, establish legal validity, technical efficacy, regulatory approval, ownership priority, or fitness for use.

DAR-Z AI Ω∞ Constitutional Intelligence Habitat

An evidence-first constitutional AI governance architecture for preserving provenance, governance boundaries, stewardship, and accountable development across consequence-bearing AI systems.

DAR-Z AI Ω∞ Constitutional Intelligence Habitat is a constitutional AI governance architecture that establishes an evidence-first framework for the design, stewardship, evaluation, and evolution of AI systems and related governance artifacts. It is intended for AI developers, researchers, institutions, standards organizations, and public-sector stakeholders seeking structured, transparent, and verifiable governance for consequence-bearing AI activities. The architecture defines governance principles, constitutional boundaries, evidence requirements, stewardship responsibilities, and execution pathways that support attributable records, versioned development, and accountable decision-making. It is designed to preserve provenance, distinguish supported claims from unsupported assertions, and provide a foundation for future review, implementation, and continuous improvement through documented governance processes.

Shango MID

Agentic Write Authorization and Decision Evidence

Shango MID decides whether an automated action is allowed before it happens, and keeps proof of that decision that someone outside the company can check. Software agents increasingly write to systems of record — creating, changing and deleting things that affect real people. Most oversight of that activity is written afterwards, by the same system that did the thing. Shango MID puts the decision in front of the action, and puts the evidence outside the system's own control. When an agent tries to write, the request is checked against declared authority and scope before it is allowed. The decision and its evidence are written together in a single database transaction, so a decision that cannot be evidenced does not happen at all. The design also provides for each receipt to be counter-signed by a separate legal entity, so the record can be checked without trusting Shango or the organisation using it. That signing path was exercised across 1,000 governed decisions on 4 June 2026; it is not running in the current build, where receipts are committed but not counter-signed. It is built for organisations that will one day be asked to account for a specific automated decision nobody flagged at the time — what was allowed, on whose authority, and who is answerable. Regulated sectors first, because that question reaches them soonest. It does not establish that an allowed action actually took place, or that nothing happened outside the governed path, and counter-signing is not currently running. Those limits are stated separately and remain open.

ANDEKS™

Independent Governance Assessment for Bounded AI Objects

ANDEKS™ is an independent governance assessment system for evaluating a specifically identified AI model, version, or other distinguishable configuration against explicitly declared properties, claims, conditions of use, boundaries, and available evidence. It is intended for organizations and other decision-makers that need a bounded, attributable assessment before relying on broader governance, assurance, regulatory, or operational conclusions. ANDEKS™ preserves the identity of the assessed object, the declared subject of assessment, the evidentiary basis, and the limits of the resulting finding. It does not certify, license, approve, authorize, or govern execution, and it does not transfer responsibility for downstream decisions to the assessor or to ANDEKS™.

AI Cornerstone Associates LLC

T = 0 Runtime Authority and Pre-Commit Execution Governance

AI Cornerstone Associates LLC develops a Layer 3 Runtime Authority and Admissible Execution Architecture for governing consequence-bearing AI activity at the point of commit. Its T = 0 approach places deterministic pre-commit controls between probabilistic AI systems and enterprise systems of record, with fail-closed enforcement, human escalation pathways, and integrity-protected execution evidence.

Constitutional Memory (BlackVault™) Layers 0–2

Governed Persistent-Memory Substrate for Attributable AI Records

Constitutional Memory (BlackVault™) v1.2 is registered as the built-and-tested Layers 0–2 portion of a six-layer architecture stewarded by Constitutional Memory SA Ltd. The filing describes tamper-evident sealed records, append-only preservation, identity-provider-based authority-scope checking, and custody logging for read and retrieval events. Layers 3–5 are declared as specified but not built.

Elias Reference Agent — Execution Governance Reference Implementation

ERA

The Elias Reference Agent is a bounded AI governance reference implementation designed to govern consequential agent activity at the point where capability may become real-world execution. It is intended for organisations, developers, reviewers and governance teams working with AI agents that can reason, use tools, propose actions or act within defined environments. The architecture separates capability from execution authority. An agent being technically able to perform an action does not, by itself, establish permission to execute it. Before consequential execution, the system can evaluate constituted governance conditions including authority, human standing, scope, relevant state changes and other required conditions. If those conditions do not hold, execution can be withheld, refused, contained or escalated rather than silently proceeding. The architecture also preserves decision evidence so that the reason an action was permitted, stopped or escalated can be examined afterwards. The Elias Reference Agent is not presented as a universal AI-safety solution. It is an inspectable implementation of execution governance, human-authority preservation, changed-condition reassessment, uncertainty handling and evidence-producing decision control for agentic systems.

Elias Search Governance Layer

ESGL

The Elias Search Governance Layer (ESGL) is a governance architecture for controlling how AI and automated systems use search, retrieval, external information sources and returned evidence before that information can influence a consequential decision or action. It is intended for organisations deploying AI in environments where retrieved information may affect authority, eligibility, risk, compliance, approval, execution or other consequence-bearing activity. ESGL does not treat a search result as automatically trustworthy or action-authorising. It governs the path from query and source retrieval through provenance, evidence quality, authority, uncertainty, admissibility and downstream use. Where required evidence is missing, stale, contradictory, unauthorised or outside the permitted scope, the architecture is designed to contain, refuse or escalate rather than silently convert search output into governing fact. Its purpose is to make search-mediated AI behaviour observable, attributable and governable before consequential execution.

TA-14 Admissible Computation Architecture

TA-14 ACA

TA-14 Admissible Computation Architecture (TA-14 ACA) is a computational governance architecture that places an explicit admissibility and binding boundary before computational commitment. It separates a user request from the computational workload proposed to satisfy that request and asks whether the proposed computational path has sufficient present standing to consume resources in its declared form, scope, resource class, context, and intended consequence. The controlled sequence is: Request → Computational Proposal → Admissibility → Binding → Commit → Computation → Outcome Before COMMIT, a proposed computational path may receive an explicit ALLOW, HOLD, DENY, or ESCALATE determination. Permission is bound to the exact purpose, scope, evidence, authority, conditions, and resource envelope that justified the computation. Material changes may require revalidation. Completed computation creates an outcome and new state rather than inherited authority for subsequent computation.

Elias Glass Box Governance Platform

EGBP

The Elias Glass Box Governance Platform (EGBP) v1.0.0 is a governance and evidence platform designed to make consequential AI and automated-system decisions inspectable, attributable and reviewable. Its purpose is to provide a governed layer around decision-making so that an organisation can see not only what a system decided, but also what evidence, rules, authority, constraints, changes and review conditions contributed to that decision. EGBP is intended for organisations using AI models, agents, automated workflows, enterprise systems and other consequence-bearing technology where black-box reasoning alone is not sufficient for governance, audit or accountability. The platform is designed to preserve and expose, where available: - the decision or determination made; - the evidence relied upon; - the governing rules or constraints applied; - the authority basis relevant to the decision; - reason codes and decision rationale; - provenance and version information; - material changes affecting standing; - review, escalation and human-intervention states; - execution and witness records associated with the governed event. Its core principle is that intelligence may remain probabilistic, but governance around consequential decisions should be capable of producing structured, inspectable evidence. EGBP does not claim that transparency alone proves a decision is correct, lawful or safe. It is intended to make the governance process sufficiently visible and attributable that decisions can be independently examined, challenged, reconstructed and improved. EGBP v1.0.0 is the successor governance platform to the earlier Elias Glass Box Platform Kernel v0.2, whose predecessor identity and historical state remain separately preserved.

TA-14 Building Admissibility Gate (BAG)

TA-14 BAG

The TA-14 Building Admissibility Gate (BAG) is a pre-execution governance architecture for determining whether building information, work orders, observations, models, digital twins, AI proposals, control requests, and human actions possess sufficient current standing to cross from information into consequential physical execution. BAG governs the transition through a defined chain: Building Reality → Building Record → Spatial/Object Continuity → Evidence Admissibility → Authority → Binding → Commit → Physical Execution → Outcome/New Reality. The architecture applies twelve building-specific admissibility gates covering facility identity, spatial identity, asset identity, requested consequence, physical-condition evidence, evidence continuity, authority standing, route containment, changed conditions, commit control, outcome evidence, and closure/reset. BAG preserves key distinctions that building systems often collapse, including: Capability is not authority. Identity is not standing. A work order is not proof of physical condition. A model or digital twin is not direct physical observation. Authentication is not execution authority. Command acceptance is not proof of physical outcome. Historical ALLOW is not current permission after material change. Runtime determinations are exactly: ALLOW HOLD DENY ESCALATE ALLOW represents bounded current execution standing and is treated as a temporary execution lease rather than permanent permission. Immediately before consequential commit, the evaluated target, evidence, authority, route, consequence, policy/chain state, and material conditions must still match the state that produced ALLOW. The architecture also defines proposition-bound evidence, evidence freshness and revocation, compare-and-bind commit control, refusal preservation, concurrent consequence conflict handling, retry/replay governance, degraded and emergency modes, interoperability bridge boundaries, outcome evidence, and new-reality chain reset. The governing rule is: No admissible evidence. No admissible execution. This registration describes a bounded TA-14 development architecture and reference implementation. It does not claim certification, code compliance, life-safety approval, professional licensure, external adoption, production readiness, universal interoperability, guaranteed safe physical outcomes, or successful physical execution in any named building.

Elias Human Sovereignty Gateway

HSG

The Elias Human Sovereignty Gateway (HSG) is a constitutional governance architecture for machine-mediated activity that can affect a human. It is designed to preserve human authority in environments where AI systems, agents and automated services may act, communicate, delegate, interpret, recommend or execute at scale. HSG governs the relationship between machine capability and permission. It asks who is acting, under what authority, for what purpose, within what scope, against what evidence, in what current state, and what may constitutionally execute. It serves humans, organisations and operators deploying AI systems where consequential decisions or interventions may affect human agency, consent, control, revocation, evidence, trust, interpretation or execution. HSG is intended to operate as a provider-neutral governance layer around consequential AI activity, separating observation, evidence, determination, disposition and execution while preserving challenge, review, provenance, witness and succession. Its core principle is: “One human. One million agents. The human remains sovereign.” HSG v1.0 is frozen for external examination and is not presented as certification, regulatory approval, universal legal compliance, psychological diagnosis, therapeutic technology or a guarantee of perfect safety.

S3DVS (Schad-Software-sichere Datenverarbeitungssysteme) Version 1.0

S3DVS

S3DVS is a technology-neutral hardware security architecture designed to physically prevent the execution of malicious software. By transitioning defense mechanisms from volatile software abstractions directly into immutable physical gate-level logic, S3DVS enforces security as an intrinsic property of the silicon. It conceptually and physically divides processor activities into two independent, asymmetrical, and hierarchically separated hardware domains (the Load Processor and the Main Processor) and splits system memory into eight distinct non-overlapping categories with locked hardware attributes, ensuring that injected data can never transition into executable instruction paths.

TA-14 Financial Execution Integrity Governance

TA-14 FEIG

TA-14 Financial Execution Integrity Governance is the financial consequence application of the TA-14 Admissible Execution Architecture. It governs whether a financial action may become binding by requiring admissible, time-sequenced evidence at the execution boundary. It separates evidence, admissibility, authority, commitment, execution, and outcome so that payments, lending actions, compliance actions, AI-mediated financial decisions, and other consequential financial state changes do not proceed merely because a system has the technical capability or permission to execute.

Keystone

Keystone is a governed financial-execution architecture developed by Elias Systems. It is designed for organisations using AI agents, automated systems, software services or human operators to initiate or coordinate consequence-bearing financial actions. Keystone separates identity, authority and execution permission so that being capable of proposing or constructing a transaction does not itself create permission to execute it. Before execution, the architecture evaluates whether the required authority, conditions and evidence are present at the relevant execution boundary and can withhold execution where those requirements are not established. It is intended for use across payments, fintech, regulated financial infrastructure and other environments where automated actions can create real financial consequences. Keystone also preserves provenance, decision evidence and execution records so that what was permitted, refused or escalated can be examined afterwards.

Validation Standing Assurance

VSA

Validation Standing Assurance (VSA) is a bounded assurance architecture for determining whether the present basis for relying on a previously validated regulated system still remains supportable under current conditions. It is intended for regulated organizations, quality and validation teams, system owners, assurance professionals, and other accountable reviewers who need to know whether historical validation can still be relied upon after changes to configuration, dependencies, evidence, intended use, procedures, authority, or operating conditions. VSA does not approve, release, or authorize regulated action. Instead, it evaluates current validation standing and preserves the distinction between historical validation, present supportability, and downstream action authority. Where the current basis for reliance cannot be established, VSA is intended to require reassessment, preserve uncertainty, and prevent prior validation from being silently inherited as if nothing had changed. For consequence-bearing activity, VSA is designed to act as an upstream assurance condition: it helps determine whether reliance on the validated system remains supportable before downstream human or organizational authorities decide whether an action may proceed. Its purpose is therefore not to replace accountable human judgment, regulatory authority, or existing GxP validation processes, but to make continued reliance more explicit, evidence-bounded, and challengeable.