Skip to content

DISCOVERED

MANIFEST_VALID

RIGHTS_REVIEWED

SECURITY_REVIEWED

TECHNICALLY_QUALIFIED

SOVEREIGNTY_QUALIFIED

ADMITTED_FOR_SCOPE

SUSPENDED

REVOKED

RETIRED

T

RH

SH

VB

IP

EMC

ESD

SG

ALT

SF

TS

TC

Edge module · wedge

Tower node

Weather station

Weather radar

Seismic vault

Building the scene…

Protocol and grid · Explainer

Your grid, on the open protocol.

Providers admitted for a stated scope and nothing wider. Devices qualified against the environment they will meet. Nodes that form a cell, cells that federate across trust domains, plans compiled from declared intent, and evidence that can be checked by anyone holding the chain.

Admission states
10
Admission transitions
35
Compiler phases
14
Protocol flows
12

01 · Admission

Admitted for a scope. Nothing wider.

A provider starts as a candidate with no reliance permitted. Its manifest is validated, then its rights, its supply chain and a bounded test profile; a jurisdiction review follows where the deployment needs one. The policy decision admits it under a key: provider, artifact digest, profile, jurisdiction, purpose and qualification revision. Change any part of the key and the admission does not carry over.

Profile

Purpose

Evidence

State
DISCOVERED
Last guard
–
Admission key
–
Keys admitted so far
0

02 · Qualification

Tested against the place it will live.

Qualification starts from the use environment: it decides which methods apply, the tests record their conditions and instruments, failures are evaluated, limits and derating are declared, and the result binds to the exact hardware and firmware bill of materials. Pick an environment, run the suite, then set any cell to see the row decide.

Environment

Suite

pass

derated

fail

not run

not required

Methods required here
–
Devices qualified for this environment
–
Failing closed
–

03 · Site

A wedge node, then a cell.

One wedge node establishes the site from signed media. It discovers its peers, each proves itself by mutual attestation, policy assigns roles, and members join the cell and share local services, including a local authority that keeps operating inside its lease when the backhaul is gone. The cell closes with acceptance evidence.

Members

Run

Cell state
WEDGE_NODE
Members in the cell
–
Held outside
–

04 · Federation

Cells federate. Trust stays explicit.

Federation is asynchronous exchange under a binding: trust, scope, data-locality, version and correction contracts. Each cell sends signed summaries, not raw state. When a domain is cut off it keeps operating inside its lease; on reconnection the sides exchange digests and resolve conflicts by authoritative owner and version.

Domain C

Bindings across domains
–
Summaries held by domain C
–
Domain C
–

05 · Orchestration

Declared intent in, an immutable plan out.

A deployment plan declares capabilities and policy, not a bill of materials. The compiler resolves only providers admitted for the scope, evaluates policy and fails closed, then checks resources, network and timing, data rights and locality, and trust prerequisites in parallel before it places workloads and emits a plan with a digest and proof obligations. Planning is not execution.

Constraint

Run

Phase reached
–
Result
–
Plan digest (SHA-256)
–

06 · Evidence

Every step leaves a record you can check.

Each step of a plan’s delivery writes a record that carries the hash of the one before it. Anyone holding the chain can recompute it: change one record after the fact and its hash no longer matches the link stored in the next, so the break shows exactly where. The hashes below are SHA-256 over each record, computed in your browser.

Records
–
Chain
–
Head
–
Building the scene…
Protocol and grid · Explainer

Your grid, on the open protocol.

Providers admitted for a stated scope and nothing wider. Devices qualified against the environment they will meet. Nodes that form a cell, cells that federate across trust domains, plans compiled from declared intent, and evidence that can be checked by anyone holding the chain.

01 · Admission

Admitted for a scope. Nothing wider.

A provider starts as a candidate with no reliance permitted. Its manifest is validated, then its rights, its supply chain and a bounded test profile; a jurisdiction review follows where the deployment needs one. The policy decision admits it under a key: provider, artifact digest, profile, jurisdiction, purpose and qualification revision. Change any part of the key and the admission does not carry over.

Profile
Purpose
Evidence
    State
    DISCOVERED
    Last guard
    –
    Admission key
    –
    Keys admitted so far
    0
    02 · Qualification

    Tested against the place it will live.

    Qualification starts from the use environment: it decides which methods apply, the tests record their conditions and instruments, failures are evaluated, limits and derating are declared, and the result binds to the exact hardware and firmware bill of materials. Pick an environment, run the suite, then set any cell to see the row decide.

    Environment
    Suite
    passderatedfailnot runnot required
    Methods required here
    –
    Devices qualified for this environment
    –
    Failing closed
    –
    03 · Site

    A wedge node, then a cell.

    One wedge node establishes the site from signed media. It discovers its peers, each proves itself by mutual attestation, policy assigns roles, and members join the cell and share local services, including a local authority that keeps operating inside its lease when the backhaul is gone. The cell closes with acceptance evidence.

    Members
    Run
      Cell state
      WEDGE_NODE
      Members in the cell
      –
      Held outside
      –
      04 · Federation

      Cells federate. Trust stays explicit.

      Federation is asynchronous exchange under a binding: trust, scope, data-locality, version and correction contracts. Each cell sends signed summaries, not raw state. When a domain is cut off it keeps operating inside its lease; on reconnection the sides exchange digests and resolve conflicts by authoritative owner and version.

      Domain C
        Bindings across domains
        –
        Summaries held by domain C
        –
        Domain C
        –
        05 · Orchestration

        Declared intent in, an immutable plan out.

        A deployment plan declares capabilities and policy, not a bill of materials. The compiler resolves only providers admitted for the scope, evaluates policy and fails closed, then checks resources, network and timing, data rights and locality, and trust prerequisites in parallel before it places workloads and emits a plan with a digest and proof obligations. Planning is not execution.

        Constraint
        Run
        Phase reached
        –
        Result
        –
        Plan digest (SHA-256)
        –
        
            
        06 · Evidence

        Every step leaves a record you can check.

        Each step of a plan’s delivery writes a record that carries the hash of the one before it. Anyone holding the chain can recompute it: change one record after the fact and its hash no longer matches the link stored in the next, so the break shows exactly where. The hashes below are SHA-256 over each record, computed in your browser.

          Records
          –
          Chain
          –
          Head
          –
          07 · Scale

          One admitted node, then a federation of grids.

          The smallest unit is one node, admitted within its provider’s declared scope. A site groups nodes under a site controller; a cluster gathers one provider’s sites; a region joins several providers inside one trust domain; the global layer federates trust domains by agreement. At every level access is decided per request from identity, evidence and policy, never from where a node sits on the network.

          Sources NIST SP 800-207, Zero Trust Architecture

          08 · Conformance

          Conformance is tested, then published.

          An open protocol is only as good as its tests. An implementation runs the published test suite for the profiles and levels it claims, the results become a conformance report, and a public registry lists what passed and against which version. A deployment then accepts implementations by their report, not by their brand. The vocabulary of conformity assessment keeps testing, inspection and attestation distinct.

          Sources ISO/IEC 17000, Conformity assessment: vocabulary and general principles

          09 · Versioning

          A protocol that changes without breaking the grid.

          The protocol is layered: a small core, profiles for each kind of grid, bindings to wire formats, extensions and the implementations above. Version numbers carry meaning: a major change may break compatibility, a minor one adds without breaking, a patch only fixes. Profiles pin the versions they rely on, and a deprecated feature is announced and kept for an overlap before it is removed.

          Sources Semantic Versioning 2.0.0

          10 · Operations

          A grid run by exception, across owners.

          Each provider operates its own nodes; the grid sees their admission state and evidence. When a node’s evidence goes stale or no longer matches its reference values, the node is quarantined automatically and its data is held apart until it attests again. Remote attestation defines how evidence is produced, conveyed and appraised, so one owner’s fault never silently enters another’s record.

          Sources IETF RFC 9334, Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) Architecture

          11 · Lifecycle

          From declaration to withdrawal.

          A provider declares its scope, its nodes are admitted, they operate, and their credentials are renewed well before they expire. Short-lived certificates issued and renewed by an automated protocol keep a lost key from staying useful for long. When a provider withdraws, its nodes are revoked, and the records they produced stay in the ledger with their provenance intact.

          Sources IETF RFC 8555, Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)

          12 · Buyers’ questions

          What to ask of a grid built on an open protocol.

          Is the specification public and free to implement? Who decides changes, and through what process? Can a node from another implementation join if it passes the same tests? What evidence stays with you, and can you leave with your nodes and records? Principles for open standards ask for due process, broad consensus, transparency, balance and openness, and these questions test each of them.

          Sources OpenStand, Principles for the Modern Standards Paradigm