rewrite project _index.org broader intro (Environment, Knowledge, Verification); add Knowledge subsystem to architecture page

projects/passepartout/_index.org

@@ -5,48 +5,36 @@
 #+title: Passepartout
 #+filetags: :index:
 
-Every layer of the modern computing stack — hardware, firmware, OS, compiler, runtime, network, application — is independently built and independently untrusted. Security today is empirical: "no bugs found in this release" does not mean no bugs exist. We patch, we scan, we monitor, and we accept that zero days are inevitable. The model is probabilistic and the response is reactive.
+Passepartout is a project whose product does not yet exist in any category. It builds toward a personal computing environment where one machine — a verified Lisp Machine — is your editor, browser, shell, agent, knowledge base, and social identity all in one address space, all verified by the same prover, all owned and controlled by you.
 
-Passepartout asks a different question: what if a single system verified everything — from the gate that authorizes an action to the hardware that executes it?
+It answers a question most systems have stopped asking: what kind of computing environment would you build if you did not assume that every layer is a potential attack surface? Not an operating system with better security — an operating system that eliminates the need for security boundaries by eliminating the layers between components.
 
-**One verified memory graph, from silicon to application.**
+Three subsystems compose into one system:
 
-The problem with conventional verification is that it operates at one layer. You can verify a microkernel. You can verify a compiler. You can verify a smart contract. But the proofs live in different frameworks, apply to different semantics, and cannot be composed. The gap between any two verified layers is itself an unverified trust boundary — and that gap is where every practical exploit lives.
+- **Environment** — Your personal computing environment. Editor, browser, shell, and AI agent coexist as functions in one Lisp image, not separate processes. No daemons to manage, no IPC to trust, no MMU to attack. The tool and the self share one memory graph.
 
-The solution is to eliminate the layers. When the entire stack shares one evaluation semantics, there are no boundaries to compose across. The same proof that shows a gate correctly enforces policy also shows that the hardware correctly evaluates the gate. There is nothing between them.
+- **Knowledge** — A memex where humans and machines share the same file format. Org-mode is the universal representation: prose the human writes, code the machine runs, metadata the system queries, and links the graph navigates — all in one structure. The Org file is not a representation of your data; it is your data. No database to maintain, no schema to migrate, no lock-in to outlive.
 
-**Why Lisp specifically.**
+- **Verification** — A gate that evaluates every action — from the user, the LLM, or a network message — against formal policy before allowing it. The same decision procedure checks a file write, a DIDComm contract, and an LLM-generated proposal. Root does not exist. Privilege escalation is structurally impossible because there are no privilege levels to escalate through.
 
-Verification requires a formal semantics closed under evaluation — a specification that says exactly what every possible program does, with no undefined behavior and no implementation-defined escape hatches. C has both. x86 has both. Rust reduces undefined behavior but does not eliminate it, and its intermediate representation is enormous. The only language with a self-contained formal semantics small enough to verify at the metal is Lisp — because the evaluator *is* the specification. There is no gap between what the spec says and what the machine does. A Lisp machine is a Lisp evaluator, and a verified Lisp evaluator is a verified machine by construction.
+All three operate in the same Lisp address space, verified by the same ACL2 prover. The gate that authorizes a file read also authorizes a social protocol transaction. The Merkle chain that proves a DIDComm message's provenance also proves the compiler output matches its source. One semantics, one proof, one machine.
 
-This is not about programmer preference. It is the shortest path to a closed, verifiable semantic model at hardware granularity.
+**Why Lisp.**
 
-**Three subsystems, one address space.**
+Because verification requires closed formal semantics — a specification that says exactly what every program does, with no undefined behavior. Lisp is the only language where the evaluator is the spec. A Lisp machine has no spec-interpretation gap. This is not about programmer preference; it is about the shortest path to a verifiable machine.
 
-The project decomposes into three subsystems that share one evaluation semantics, one memory graph, and one proof chain:
+**Why staged.**
 
-- **Verification subsystem** — A gate that evaluates every proposed action against formal policy before allowing it. The same decision procedure checks a shell command, a social protocol contract, or an LLM-generated response. Root as an attack target does not exist because the gate does not depend on OS privilege boundaries — it is in the evaluation loop itself.
-
-- **Environment subsystem** — The personal computing environment where the user works. One coherent program image, one address space, no IPC boundaries between components, no MMU to attack. The editor, shell, browser, and agent are not separate programs — they are functions in the same evaluated graph.
-
-- **Social protocol** — Self-sovereign DID identity, encrypted messaging, personal data stores, relay network, compute marketplace, and liquid democracy. The glue between Passepartout instances. Every message is signed, DAG-tracked, and content-addressed. Communication is provable when you choose it to be.
-
-All three operate in the same Lisp address space. The same gate that authorizes a file write also authorizes a social protocol transaction. The same Merkle chain that proves a DIDComm message's provenance also proves the compiler output matches its source. One semantics, one proof, one machine.
-
-**Staged delivery, not a cut-over.**
-
-The full Lisp machine on custom silicon is the destination, but the path is designed so every stage delivers value independently. Stage 0 runs on conventional Linux using Python — exactly where Hermes and gbrain are today. Each subsequent stage eliminates a class of threat and replaces one component with a verified equivalent. The migration is progressive component swap, not a rewrite.
-
-Stage 7 is what remains when all computational threats are eliminated: physical theft, electronic warfare, logical holes in the specification, and the fallibility of the LLM oracle. No zero days, no viruses, no worms, no malware. The only remaining attack surfaces are physical, oracular, and spec-level — and those are limits of computation itself, not of this design.
+The full Lisp machine on custom silicon is the destination, but every stage delivers value independently. Stage 0 runs on conventional Linux using Python — Hermes as agent, gbrain as knowledge store. Stage 1 adds the social protocol (DID identity, encrypted messaging). Stage 2 adds the verified gate as a software layer. Stage 3 replaces the host OS with a bare-metal Lisp image. Each subsequent stage eliminates another class of threat: network API calls, the gap between symbolic and neural weights, unverified fine-tuning. Stage 7 is what remains when all computational threats are eliminated — physical theft, electronic warfare, holes in the specification itself, and the fallibility of the LLM oracle.
 
 **What it means.**
 
-When every action is gate-checked, every message is provable, and every computation runs on verified semantics, the security model shifts from empirical to deductive. Compliance becomes executable gate rules instead of annual audits. AI safety becomes a verified gate between the LLM and the action stream instead of probabilistic guardrails. The accumulated verification suite from every deployed instance becomes an industry certification — Underwriters Laboratory for AI.
+When every action is gate-checked, every message is provable, and every computation runs on verified semantics, security shifts from empirical to deductive. Compliance becomes executable gate rules instead of annual audits. AI safety becomes a verified gate between the LLM and the action stream instead of probabilistic guardrails. The accumulated verification suite from every deployed instance becomes an industry certification.
 
-Passepartout is a new category. Verified infrastructure. Every existing category — cloud, AI, OS, social, payments, compliance, governance — eventually migrates into it because the alternative becomes indefensible.
+But this is what the architecture makes possible, not what it is. What it is: a personal computing environment built on the premise that you should own your computation, your data, and your agency — and that the architecture should prove it, not promise it.
 
 ---
 
-- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Architecture]] — the architecture: verification subsystem, environment, social protocol
+- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Architecture]] — the architecture: environment, knowledge, verification, and their staged build-out
 - [[id:b9fa4b7b-bc61-4d7f-918d-ff687b80f2ba][Systemic Effects]] — how verification cascades across society and economics
 - [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Staged Roadmap]] — Stage 0 (Now) through Stage 7 (What Remains)