rewrite ideas/_index.org with full page listing

- architecture.org becomes a narrative: problem → three-subsystem solution
  → staged approach → what it means
- Moved TAM, revenue paths, analytical frames, strategy/IP links to _index.org
- _index.org is now the navigation hub with roadmap table and all catalog links

.org-ids.json

@@ -1,119 +1,124 @@
 {
   "284f5c7a-1d2b-4e3f-8c6d-9a0b1c2d3e4f": "_index.org",
-  "04c2f221-c54f-51e5-b40a-48822cd16d45": "ideas/common-logic-iso-24707.org",
+  "a0b1c2d3-e4f5-6a7b-8c9d-0e1f2a3b4c5d": "projects/_index.org",
-  "42c86e6f-4f27-4993-8238-b7bc7d15fb7b": "ideas/stoa-overview.org",
+  "433236a2-e5ad-41d4-a27e-4682f8bbc207": "projects/flags/legal-structure-practical-setup.org",
-  "2f783eb4-638e-5afa-9b59-6224d086a712": "ideas/infrastructure-lock-in.org",
+  "0a4e0b8f-25e0-4b78-9633-fc37d03cefe9": "projects/flags/asset-protection-structures.org",
-  "1a2b38df-20ba-58ca-ba55-a072be67bd0d": "ideas/pds-as-a-service.org",
+  "5ac2f037-fc3c-45ac-a6e8-acc20e005cb0": "projects/flags/legal-structure-alternatives.org",
-  "1c95ce7d-a2db-506a-9608-df68f9ae211b": "ideas/lisp-machine-security.org",
+  "1e5f6a7b-8c9d-0e1f-2a3b-4c5d6e7f8a9b": "projects/flags/_index.org",
-  "00ab3a4d-e3de-5605-a67d-12935bb36ab5": "ideas/comparison-with-symbolics.org",
+  "7a1b2c3d-4e5f-6a7b-8c9d-0e1f2a3b4c5d": "projects/passepartout/_index.org",
-  "5ac2f037-fc3c-45ac-a6e8-acc20e005cb0": "ideas/legal-structure-alternatives.org",
+  "04c2f221-c54f-51e5-b40a-48822cd16d45": "projects/passepartout/common-logic-iso-24707.org",
-  "dc2e4f22-1c4c-5d4a-a151-f96e5d3b0d70": "ideas/time-estimates.org",
+  "4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-0-now.org",
+  "1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f": "projects/passepartout/architecture/architecture.org",
+  "4a1f23b0-abc7-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-6-training.org",
+  "4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-3-lisp-machine.org",
+  "7f4e6b9a-2c1d-5e8f-9a3b-6d7c4e5f2a1b": "projects/passepartout/architecture/native-org-knowledge-base.org",
+  "4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-2-verification.org",
+  "1c95ce7d-a2db-506a-9608-df68f9ae211b": "projects/passepartout/architecture/lisp-machine-security.org",
+  "4a1f23b0-abc8-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-7-remaining.org",
+  "4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-1-social-protocol.org",
+  "4a1f23b0-abc6-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-5-weights.org",
+  "5e7f1d2a-3b4c-5d6e-7f8a-9b0c1d2e3f4a": "projects/passepartout/architecture/_index.org",
+  "b9fa4b7b-bc61-4d7f-918d-ff687b80f2ba": "projects/passepartout/architecture/systemic-effects.org",
+  "13e6ae54-2d24-5aa0-b1cd-a7e8e749aa70": "projects/passepartout/architecture/self-driving-lisp-machine.org",
+  "4a1f23b0-abc5-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-4-inference.org",
+  "68ffa49f-f0d8-42cf-8b69-ae69de8bb815": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-10-governance-and-assets.org",
+  "b25bf753-9799-41ab-82f5-1a1416db756b": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-01-overview.org",
+  "a3243dd0-3209-423b-98e1-51c3eada2658": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-07-advanced-integration.org",
+  "0f949f6c-4cf1-49eb-b9a4-ebcac27ee548": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-05-social.org",
+  "72570648-d943-42e5-a781-3b09791ac6ec": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-11-assessment.org",
+  "90484f4a-5b70-4001-93d6-e610e54ed573": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-06-exchange-and-contracts.org",
+  "2cace571-76bb-4c34-a5f4-68bc20b2e884": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-10-user-journey.org",
+  "6fe67db6-25bd-4d11-bd1d-b44ec809e858": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-02-identity.org",
+  "8b4e0cec-a7b0-4e75-a1e3-c55ae820eb6d": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-09-implementation.org",
+  "f6cfc54b-919b-4311-bcbf-65e976755d40": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-04-the-primitive.org",
+  "df02cddc-944a-4bcd-8ef5-f080870d5f49": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-08-library.org",
+  "8b2c3d4e-5f6a-7b8c-9d0e-1f2a3b4c5d6e": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/_index.org",
+  "3b43a9b8-31d1-4479-a35f-22273b74f0c7": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-03-infrastructure.org",
+  "10289e64-a4ff-4c34-828f-f3a9c769b73d": "projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-00-readme.org",
+  "efc76898-03f7-57ba-923d-35d65da88bb7": "projects/passepartout/strategy/sufficiency-flip.org",
+  "1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad": "projects/passepartout/strategy/social-protocol-overview.org",
+  "57f9538a-6270-4302-8d07-d742168419eb": "projects/passepartout/strategy/social-growth-strategy.org",
+  "d84679f1-c0c5-5be4-b19c-6573560640ee": "projects/passepartout/strategy/verified-skill-marketplace.org",
+  "9af13fff-9725-542b-93b1-a555bc74ad72": "projects/passepartout/strategy/lisp-economics.org",
+  "5f55bbe6-d243-5766-8ccf-5c5cc88a6542": "projects/passepartout/strategy/ai-industry-impact.org",
+  "528a0f6c-6fd6-41ed-9d59-237958bdaef2": "projects/passepartout/strategy/effects-growth-flywheel.org",
+  "2e390c1d-65f3-5fb3-b898-ac3fc4291ee7": "projects/passepartout/strategy/social-protocol-usernames.org",
+  "5961e469-53a3-5f3c-ab72-3c83ef91963f": "projects/passepartout/strategy/investment-thesis.org",
+  "67faf52f-9126-50a7-b87e-2bedc610dac7": "projects/passepartout/strategy/licensing.org",
+  "64708e1f-00e9-4cb7-b44b-ea0b98e5296d": "projects/passepartout/strategy/social-protocol-contracts.org",
+  "9c3d4e5f-6a7b-8c9d-0e1f-2a3b4c5d6e7f": "projects/passepartout/strategy/_index.org",
+  "aa6d062e-a520-5d14-8773-00687ed9c689": "projects/passepartout/strategy/moats.org",
+  "29e4dbf3-cf19-589c-8b14-389e8a39d564": "projects/passepartout/strategy/upgrade-lifecycle.org",
+  "8c7b9812-f8d6-4347-8915-ce8e520b7914": "projects/passepartout/strategy/social-protocol-entry-strategy.org",
+  "827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920": "projects/passepartout/strategy/verification-monopoly.org",
+  "d28adac8-08a1-40c4-ae43-b5d8d7b1743f": "projects/passepartout/strategy/enterprise-growth-strategy.org",
+  "ed05cab4-88e9-4e25-b7c9-346fa39c69a0": "projects/passepartout/strategy/revenue.org",
+  "dc2e4f22-1c4c-5d4a-a151-f96e5d3b0d70": "projects/passepartout/strategy/time-estimates.org",
+  "84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f": "projects/passepartout/strategy/verification-appliance.org",
+  "1a2b38df-20ba-58ca-ba55-a072be67bd0d": "projects/passepartout/strategy/pds-as-a-service.org",
+  "3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compute-marketplace.org",
+  "98364e9d-a8a9-42b7-a9dc-b643fd2ccc4b": "projects/passepartout/strategy/outbound-sales-compliance.org",
+  "3aa22300-2f25-57b0-8787-9f199cc978b1": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/competitive-analysis.org",
+  "00ab3a4d-e3de-5605-a67d-12935bb36ab5": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/comparison-with-symbolics.org",
+  "0d4e5f6a-7b8c-9d0e-1f2a-3b4c5d6e7f8a": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/_index.org",
+  "1bc22b89-d3eb-4f6d-bcfc-2b0c19c8ed8f": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/social-protocol-competitive-landscape.org",
+  "85ca69dd-d085-4a55-ad11-021910b1f82e": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/ai-agents-scoping/openclaw.org",
+  "7a060b36-36db-4eb7-b8cc-844bd6ac9d36": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/ai-agents-scoping/opencode.org",
+  "416bab7c-4300-4d50-838a-5c7a8ad45d96": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/ai-agents-scoping/thoth.org",
+  "c3aab2e8-7e43-4abc-93f0-741675cfd78c": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/ai-agents-scoping/aider.org",
+  "8d73ccb9-34e4-4899-b0c3-605998e9bebc": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/ai-agents-scoping/gemini-cli.org",
+  "22d0a159-68a2-4587-9375-5046beddc20c": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/ai-agents-scoping/continue.org",
+  "e929ff32-28d8-4a29-bf74-d55babc040d1": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/ai-agents-scoping/codex-cli.org",
+  "c652688a-1ea0-487c-9222-00e954efe8a1": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/ai-agents-scoping/hermes-agent.org",
+  "512dd121-2292-4f3d-ac53-31bf3d12a60f": "projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/ai-agents-scoping/claude-code.org",
+  "b852ec69-0fc2-435c-ae1e-6b83e49b3ca3": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/appi.org",
+  "e777064d-9950-42d5-980d-8c78cda91500": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/pipa.org",
+  "e2ab887d-9f28-4da6-8388-e6c035e9d9c5": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/iso-27001.org",
+  "4a2bc62b-3f21-4212-9cd9-f9add8fc0be1": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/glba.org",
+  "03ebdb80-a9af-4e76-a443-8556424996ed": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/fatf.org",
+  "e6993701-3c67-49bf-82f3-06907572cbf3": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/fedramp.org",
+  "7f46764b-47b8-4892-a526-2c1b9ee6e6df": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/irap.org",
+  "fc736aec-ef53-4759-9787-62bc8deea2e7": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/ifrs.org",
+  "68c55deb-72bf-4b15-ac28-bcc792057543": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/ifc-ps.org",
+  "513d5996-4ac7-4567-a992-18fc01599104": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/gdpr.org",
+  "6a5884c8-e9b5-477e-bbf6-aa9ffd967739": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/un-cefact.org",
+  "84fb5f8f-0527-4df0-b6b6-dbf3bcff8a7f": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/hipaa.org",
+  "177aad72-5626-444d-a2e4-af8e1263b125": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/world-bank-esf.org",
+  "834689e9-be0a-4822-9085-9b6b22294fd2": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/privacy-act-aus.org",
+  "904f5f12-ec9a-4cbf-854a-0b9b1e11a521": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/apra-cps-234.org",
+  "1c4c91ec-c465-44ab-bd91-4c3b45909ddb": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/_index.org",
+  "c871a9f4-dd53-4e93-aa50-6acf0c606a9b": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/lgpd.org",
+  "b8cf51e8-5f39-49ad-9547-a792a2e446aa": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/eidas2.org",
+  "06fcdb02-2643-4f9d-ab41-e711a99cc390": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/eu-ai-act.org",
+  "ed65031c-cbd2-4ad2-bd53-a67791e183cd": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/soc2.org",
+  "c9830152-0160-4bdc-ab03-6f308ad43536": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/sox.org",
+  "f6a0c00e-e922-44af-99ce-6412c4b73745": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/quebec-law-25.org",
+  "748db16a-1382-4e5e-8812-a5d57a8de131": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/nis2.org",
+  "87996d87-100c-4bf6-8546-a860b9d7c25b": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/ccpa-cpra.org",
+  "ce81fefc-b7a8-4be5-912f-55fd30970b6e": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/cra.org",
+  "36e5b948-e07b-477f-9036-4dfe88254347": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/compliance-framework-mapping.org",
+  "085b76cc-4a65-4660-9c70-85aee10ca99e": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/ismap.org",
+  "e4a7b3d2-1c9f-4b6e-8a2d-5f3c7e1b9a0c": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/compliance-index.org",
+  "748b0cc7-7f42-49fb-8ee3-1ae49048a178": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/iso-27701.org",
+  "022109ad-f031-44c4-8ea0-0b3c9402ca90": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/oecd.org",
+  "fed19a24-ad81-4837-a12b-dafbd3ec110a": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/dpdp-act.org",
+  "9bc29937-d59a-4ae4-9623-3d17a1fe6ebb": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/uk-gdpr.org",
+  "4eef0993-6671-41cf-ba20-d1443a3ec49d": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/basel-iii.org",
+  "581666ba-f72c-406b-8556-93876d2b30bf": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/ny-dfs-500.org",
+  "c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/domain-gate-packages.org",
+  "bafdaa23-de0b-444c-9151-c87ac65add32": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/lfp-dppp.org",
+  "717ef2df-2a80-4362-b23a-5e7e12554251": "projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/dora.org",
+  "1e2f3a4b-5c6d-7e8f-9a0b-1c2d3e4f5a6b": "ideas/world-models-plain-language.org",
+  "3a4b5c6d-7e8f-9a0b-1c2d-3e4f5a6b7c8d": "ideas/architectural-integration-three-pronged.org",
   "2cdca4b0-6b41-44b4-acb0-af21d0e27b00": "ideas/orders-of-magnitude-time.org",
-  "caaeee11-ba6f-5566-aecd-f171b4c459c0": "ideas/patent-strategy.org",
+  "9c0d1e2f-3a4b-5c6d-7e8f-9a0b1c2d3e4f": "ideas/knowledge-tree-middle.org",
-  "a5d59d12-b23e-58d6-a81b-9b8b06556949": "ideas/collective-regression-suite.org",
+  "f4e5d6c7-b8a9-0c1d-2e3f-4a5b6c7d8e9f": "ideas/schafmeister-clasp-nanotechnology.org",
-  "528a0f6c-6fd6-41ed-9d59-237958bdaef2": "ideas/effects-growth-flywheel.org",
-  "57f9538a-6270-4302-8d07-d742168419eb": "ideas/alternative-growth-social-first.org",
-  "b9fa4b7b-bc61-4d7f-918d-ff687b80f2ba": "ideas/triad-systemic-effects.org",
-  "d28adac8-08a1-40c4-ae43-b5d8d7b1743f": "ideas/growth-strategy.org",
-  "7f4e6b9a-2c1d-5e8f-9a3b-6d7c4e5f2a1b": "ideas/native-org-knowledge-base.org",
-  "0b5a8a74-cfd6-542d-bc88-4eb3cd8626f9": "ideas/cost-structure.org",
-  "45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d": "ideas/gate-rule-encoding.org",
-  "c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c": "ideas/domain-gate-packages.org",
   "2afd9a3c-e96a-54c7-ac77-a05a28065b4b": "ideas/biology-parallels.org",
-  "1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad": "ideas/agora.org",
+  "4b5c6d7e-8f9a-0b1c-2d3e-4f5a6b7c8d9e": "ideas/neurological-software-empirical-middle.org",
-  "5961e469-53a3-5f3c-ab72-3c83ef91963f": "ideas/investment-thesis.org",
+  "0d1e2f3a-4b5c-6d7e-8f9a-0b1c2d3e4f5a": "ideas/world-models-middle-domain.org",
-  "aa6d062e-a520-5d14-8773-00687ed9c689": "ideas/moats.org",
+  "7a8b9c0d-1e2f-3a4b-5c6d-7e8f9a0b1c2d": "ideas/open-source-wolfram-lisp.org",
-  "433236a2-e5ad-41d4-a27e-4682f8bbc207": "ideas/legal-structure-practical-setup.org",
-  "29e4dbf3-cf19-589c-8b14-389e8a39d564": "ideas/upgrade-lifecycle.org",
-  "3aa22300-2f25-57b0-8787-9f199cc978b1": "ideas/competitive-analysis.org",
-  "98364e9d-a8a9-42b7-a9dc-b643fd2ccc4b": "ideas/outbound-sales-compliance.org",
-  "8c7b9812-f8d6-4347-8915-ce8e520b7914": "ideas/agora-entry-strategy.org",
   "329a30cd-55fb-496d-a60b-91388c211bba": "ideas/_index.org",
-  "67faf52f-9126-50a7-b87e-2bedc610dac7": "ideas/licensing.org",
+  "5c6d7e8f-9a0b-1c2d-3e4f-5a6b7c8d9e0f": "ideas/wider-implications-three-pronged.org",
-  "36e5b948-e07b-477f-9036-4dfe88254347": "ideas/compliance-framework-mapping.org",
+  "8b9c0d1e-2f3a-4b5c-6d7e-8f9a0b1c2d3e": "ideas/passepartout-bootstrap-mathematica.org",
-  "3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5": "ideas/compute-marketplace.org",
+  "2f3a4b5c-6d7e-8f9a-0b1c-2d3e4f5a6b7c": "ideas/practical-powers-three-pronged.org"
-  "1bc22b89-d3eb-4f6d-bcfc-2b0c19c8ed8f": "ideas/competitive-landscape-agora.org",
-  "efc76898-03f7-57ba-923d-35d65da88bb7": "ideas/sufficiency-flip.org",
-  "1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f": "ideas/triad-index.org",
-  "45258a2d-1675-562c-9024-5d1eb2f1ea56": "ideas/evaluation-harness.org",
-  "2e390c1d-65f3-5fb3-b898-ac3fc4291ee7": "ideas/agora-usernames.org",
-  "ed05cab4-88e9-4e25-b7c9-346fa39c69a0": "ideas/revenue-hub.org",
-  "d84679f1-c0c5-5be4-b19c-6573560640ee": "ideas/verified-skill-marketplace.org",
-  "64708e1f-00e9-4cb7-b44b-ea0b98e5296d": "ideas/agora-contracts.org",
-  "a1fac32a-47de-5fbd-b67d-29152c851747": "ideas/triad-overview.org",
-  "827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920": "ideas/verification-monopoly.org",
-  "9af13fff-9725-542b-93b1-a555bc74ad72": "ideas/lisp-economics.org",
-  "0a4e0b8f-25e0-4b78-9633-fc37d03cefe9": "ideas/asset-protection-structures.org",
-  "13e6ae54-2d24-5aa0-b1cd-a7e8e749aa70": "ideas/self-driving-lisp-machine.org",
-  "84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f": "ideas/verification-appliance.org",
-  "5f55bbe6-d243-5766-8ccf-5c5cc88a6542": "ideas/ai-industry-impact.org",
-  "c652688a-1ea0-487c-9222-00e954efe8a1": "ideas/competitors/hermes-agent.org",
-  "e929ff32-28d8-4a29-bf74-d55babc040d1": "ideas/competitors/codex-cli.org",
-  "416bab7c-4300-4d50-838a-5c7a8ad45d96": "ideas/competitors/thoth.org",
-  "85ca69dd-d085-4a55-ad11-021910b1f82e": "ideas/competitors/openclaw.org",
-  "7a060b36-36db-4eb7-b8cc-844bd6ac9d36": "ideas/competitors/opencode.org",
-  "c3aab2e8-7e43-4abc-93f0-741675cfd78c": "ideas/competitors/aider.org",
-  "512dd121-2292-4f3d-ac53-31bf3d12a60f": "ideas/competitors/claude-code.org",
-  "22d0a159-68a2-4587-9375-5046beddc20c": "ideas/competitors/continue.org",
-  "8d73ccb9-34e4-4899-b0c3-605998e9bebc": "ideas/competitors/gemini-cli.org",
-  "0f949f6c-4cf1-49eb-b9a4-ebcac27ee548": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-05-social.org",
-  "2cace571-76bb-4c34-a5f4-68bc20b2e884": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-10-user-journey.org",
-  "df02cddc-944a-4bcd-8ef5-f080870d5f49": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-08-library.org",
-  "90484f4a-5b70-4001-93d6-e610e54ed573": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-06-exchange-and-contracts.org",
-  "72570648-d943-42e5-a781-3b09791ac6ec": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-11-assessment.org",
-  "6fe67db6-25bd-4d11-bd1d-b44ec809e858": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-02-identity.org",
-  "f6cfc54b-919b-4311-bcbf-65e976755d40": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-04-the-primitive.org",
-  "8b4e0cec-a7b0-4e75-a1e3-c55ae820eb6d": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-09-implementation.org",
-  "68ffa49f-f0d8-42cf-8b69-ae69de8bb815": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-10-governance-and-assets.org",
-  "a3243dd0-3209-423b-98e1-51c3eada2658": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-07-advanced-integration.org",
-  "3b43a9b8-31d1-4479-a35f-22273b74f0c7": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-03-infrastructure.org",
-  "b25bf753-9799-41ab-82f5-1a1416db756b": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-01-overview.org",
-  "10289e64-a4ff-4c34-828f-f3a9c769b73d": "ideas/agora/agora-requirements-00-readme.org",
-  "558154ea-e63a-4c45-998c-26ce8588585b": "ideas/compliance/first-mover-window.org",
-  "b852ec69-0fc2-435c-ae1e-6b83e49b3ca3": "ideas/compliance/appi.org",
-  "e777064d-9950-42d5-980d-8c78cda91500": "ideas/compliance/pipa.org",
-  "e2ab887d-9f28-4da6-8388-e6c035e9d9c5": "ideas/compliance/iso-27001.org",
-  "4a2bc62b-3f21-4212-9cd9-f9add8fc0be1": "ideas/compliance/glba.org",
-  "03ebdb80-a9af-4e76-a443-8556424996ed": "ideas/compliance/fatf.org",
-  "e6993701-3c67-49bf-82f3-06907572cbf3": "ideas/compliance/fedramp.org",
-  "7f46764b-47b8-4892-a526-2c1b9ee6e6df": "ideas/compliance/irap.org",
-  "fc736aec-ef53-4759-9787-62bc8deea2e7": "ideas/compliance/ifrs.org",
-  "81a815ee-bf2b-4365-9894-b814e4196850": "ideas/compliance/revenue-table.org",
-  "68c55deb-72bf-4b15-ac28-bcc792057543": "ideas/compliance/ifc-ps.org",
-  "513d5996-4ac7-4567-a992-18fc01599104": "ideas/compliance/gdpr.org",
-  "6a5884c8-e9b5-477e-bbf6-aa9ffd967739": "ideas/compliance/un-cefact.org",
-  "84fb5f8f-0527-4df0-b6b6-dbf3bcff8a7f": "ideas/compliance/hipaa.org",
-  "177aad72-5626-444d-a2e4-af8e1263b125": "ideas/compliance/world-bank-esf.org",
-  "834689e9-be0a-4822-9085-9b6b22294fd2": "ideas/compliance/privacy-act-aus.org",
-  "904f5f12-ec9a-4cbf-854a-0b9b1e11a521": "ideas/compliance/apra-cps-234.org",
-  "1c4c91ec-c465-44ab-bd91-4c3b45909ddb": "ideas/compliance/_index.org",
-  "c871a9f4-dd53-4e93-aa50-6acf0c606a9b": "ideas/compliance/lgpd.org",
-  "b8cf51e8-5f39-49ad-9547-a792a2e446aa": "ideas/compliance/eidas2.org",
-  "06fcdb02-2643-4f9d-ab41-e711a99cc390": "ideas/compliance/eu-ai-act.org",
-  "ed65031c-cbd2-4ad2-bd53-a67791e183cd": "ideas/compliance/soc2.org",
-  "c9830152-0160-4bdc-ab03-6f308ad43536": "ideas/compliance/sox.org",
-  "f6a0c00e-e922-44af-99ce-6412c4b73745": "ideas/compliance/quebec-law-25.org",
-  "748db16a-1382-4e5e-8812-a5d57a8de131": "ideas/compliance/nis2.org",
-  "87996d87-100c-4bf6-8546-a860b9d7c25b": "ideas/compliance/ccpa-cpra.org",
-  "ce81fefc-b7a8-4be5-912f-55fd30970b6e": "ideas/compliance/cra.org",
-  "085b76cc-4a65-4660-9c70-85aee10ca99e": "ideas/compliance/ismap.org",
-  "e4a7b3d2-1c9f-4b6e-8a2d-5f3c7e1b9a0c": "ideas/compliance/compliance-index.org",
-  "748b0cc7-7f42-49fb-8ee3-1ae49048a178": "ideas/compliance/iso-27701.org",
-  "022109ad-f031-44c4-8ea0-0b3c9402ca90": "ideas/compliance/oecd.org",
-  "fed19a24-ad81-4837-a12b-dafbd3ec110a": "ideas/compliance/dpdp-act.org",
-  "9bc29937-d59a-4ae4-9623-3d17a1fe6ebb": "ideas/compliance/uk-gdpr.org",
-  "4eef0993-6671-41cf-ba20-d1443a3ec49d": "ideas/compliance/basel-iii.org",
-  "581666ba-f72c-406b-8556-93876d2b30bf": "ideas/compliance/ny-dfs-500.org",
-  "bafdaa23-de0b-444c-9151-c87ac65add32": "ideas/compliance/lfp-dppp.org",
-  "717ef2df-2a80-4362-b23a-5e7e12554251": "ideas/compliance/dora.org",
-  "4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "ideas/stoa/stoa-stage-3-stoa.org",
-  "4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "ideas/stoa/stoa-stage-0-now.org",
-  "4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "ideas/stoa/stoa-stage-2-logos.org",
-  "4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "ideas/stoa/stoa-stage-1-agora.org",
-  "4a1f23b0-abc7-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "ideas/stoa/stoa-stage-6-training.org",
-  "c3b3dc41-945f-54e9-84eb-ca014114f1be": "ideas/stoa/_index.org",
-  "3f24ad65-0845-4e75-a3d7-dc4de734a6ac": "ideas/stoa/stoa-vision-roadmap.org",
-  "4a1f23b0-abc8-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "ideas/stoa/stoa-stage-7-remaining.org",
-  "4a1f23b0-abc6-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "ideas/stoa/stoa-stage-5-weights.org",
-  "4a1f23b0-abc5-4def-9876-543210abcdef": "ideas/stoa/stoa-stage-4-inference.org"
 }

_index.org

@@ -5,21 +5,13 @@
 #+title: Brain
 #+filetags: :index:navigation:
 
-This is the knowledge base for the [[id:d71df46b-9012-433c-86ce-ec21b78eac5f][triad]] — [[id:42c86e6f-4f27-4993-8238-b7bc7d15fb7b][Stoa (Verified Lisp Machine)]], [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora (Decentralized Protocol)]], and the interconnected concepts around them.
+Personal knowledge base — projects, concepts, and meta-thinking.
 
-Start with the [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stoa staged roadmap]] if you are new here: it walks from conventional computing through each stage of verified infrastructure, ending at what remains.
+** Projects
 
-**Sections:**
+- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Passepartout]] — a verifiable personal intelligence: self-bootstrapping Lisp machine, gate-verified reasoning, social protocol. Architecture, staged roadmap, strategy, competitive analysis, compliance landscape.
+- [[id:1e5f6a7b-8c9d-0e1f-2a3b-4c5d6e7f8a9b][Flags]] — legal structures: entity types, jurisdictional analysis, asset protection, practical setup guides.
 
-- [[id:42c86e6f-4f27-4993-8238-b7bc7d15fb7b][Stoa — Verified Lisp Machine]] — the staged roadmap from conventional computing through verified [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][hardware]], with cost-benefit per stage
+** Concepts and meta-thinking
-- [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora — Decentralized Social Protocol]] — identity, communication, contracts, governance
-- [[id:329a30cd-55fb-496d-a60b-91388c211bba][Ideas]] — all concept pages and analysis
 
-**Core concept pages:**
+- [[id:329a30cd-55fb-496d-a60b-91388c211bba][Ideas]] — cross-domain frameworks, reference material, and thinking tools.
-
-- [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][Verification Appliance]] — what a verified Lisp image means, the ACL2 bootstrap
-- [[id:13e6ae54-2d24-5aa0-b1cd-a7e8e749aa70][Self-Driving Lisp Machine]] — where [[id:e01b9199-2cba-4ac2-824b-ba1b033cc23e][Passepartout]], Stoa, and Logos converge
-- [[id:1c95ce7d-a2db-506a-9608-df68f9ae211b][Lisp Machine Security]] — Merkle memory, gate stack, structural proofs
-- [[id:c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c][Domain Gate Packages]] — capability authorization, the Dispatcher
-- [[id:45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d][Gate Rule Encoding]] — how policies are encoded and enforced
-- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Triad Index]] — Logos, Stoa, Agora as a system

ideas/_index.org

@@ -6,4 +6,22 @@
 #+title: Ideas
 #+filetags: :index:
 
-Section index for ideas. Browse by file.
+Cross-domain concepts, speculative analysis, and architectural thinking for the Passepartout project.
+
+**The three-pronged system series** — new tonight:
+
+- [[id:f4e5d6c7-b8a9-0c1d-2e3f-4a5b6c7d8e9f][Schafmeister and Clasp]] — Lisp in computational nanotechnology, existence proof for the architecture
+- [[id:7a8b9c0d-1e2f-3a4b-5c6d-7e8f9a0b1c2d][Open-source Wolfram Language in Lisp]] — viability of bootstrapping a Mathematica equivalent
+- [[id:8b9c0d1e-2f3a-4b5c-6d7e-8f9a0b1c2d3e][Passepartout bootstrapping Mathematica]] — what the neurosymbolic engine could generate autonomously
+- [[id:9c0d1e2f-3a4b-5c6d-7e8f-9a0b1c2d3e4f][Middle of the Knowledge Tree]] — the gap between logic and nanotechnology
+- [[id:0d1e2f3a-4b5c-6d7e-8f9a-0b1c2d3e4f5a][The Middle Domain as World Models]] — mapping empirical science onto world model architecture
+- [[id:1e2f3a4b-5c6d-7e8f-9a0b-1c2d3e4f5a6b][World Models — Plain Language]] — explanation without jargon
+- [[id:2f3a4b5c-6d7e-8f9a-0b1c-2d3e4f5a6b7c][Practical Powers of the Three-Pronged System]] — 10 concrete capabilities
+- [[id:3a4b5c6d-7e8f-9a0b-1c2d-3e4f5a6b7c8d][Architectural Integration]] — how the three prongs fit into Passepartout's subsystems and stages
+- [[id:4b5c6d7e-8f9a-0b1c-2d3e-4f5a6b7c8d9e][Neurological Software in the Empirical Middle]] — neural networks in the provenance framework
+- [[id:5c6d7e8f-9a0b-1c2d-3e4f-5a6b7c8d9e0f][Wider Implications]] — what the three-pronged system means for science, safety, regulation, and trust
+
+**Earlier ideas:**
+
+- [[id:2afd9a3c-e96a-54c7-ac77-a05a28065b4b][Biology as Proof of the Lisp Model]] — biological systems as evidence for Lisp architecture
+- [[id:2cdca4b0-6b41-44b4-acb0-af21d0e27b00][Orders of Magnitude — Time]] — a time-scale framework for the Passepartout roadmap

ideas/architectural-integration-three-pronged.org

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-25 Mon]
+:ID:       3a4b5c6d-7e8f-9a0b-1c2d-3e4f5a6b7c8d
+:END:
+#+title: Architectural Integration of the Three-Pronged System
+#+filetags: :ideas:passepartout:architecture:
+
+An analysis of how the deductive / provenance-tracked empirical / probabilistic oracle model fits into Passepartout's architecture, at what stage it becomes operational, and what it means for the existing subsystems.
+
+**The three prongs are not three engines.**
+
+The initial framing (deductive + provenance + probabilistic) implies three parallel reasoning systems. It is more accurate to say: two reasoning engines and one data layer.
+
+- **The symbolic engine** handles everything that can be formalized: deductive proofs, empirical equations, validity predicates, pipeline composition, uncertainty propagation. This is one engine — it reasons about symbols using rules that are either proven (ACL2) or well-defined (force field equations).
+
+- **The probabilistic oracle** (LLM) handles everything that cannot be formalized: parameter selection, model choice, interpretation of results in natural language, failure diagnosis, creative hypothesis generation. It proposes; the symbolic engine checks.
+
+- **The provenance store** is not an engine. It is a structured database that stores empirical parameter sets, validity envelopes, experimental benchmarks, and comparison histories. Neither engine reasons about it as a whole. The symbolic engine queries it for parameters and validity predicates. The LLM queries it for context and updates it with new data.
+
+Two reasoning engines. One curated data layer. This is a cleaner architecture than three parallel systems.
+
+**Where it lives in the existing subsystems.**
+
+The current architecture has four subsystems: Environment, Knowledge, Verification, Social Protocol. The three-pronged model cross-cuts them:
+
+| Subsystem | Deductive role | Empirical role | Oracle role |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Environment | Hosts the symbolic engine, runs ACL2 | Hosts the provenance store | Runs the LLM |
+| Knowledge | Stores formal theorems and proofs (symbolic index) | Stores empirical parameters and benchmarks (provenance store) | Neural index for semantic search |
+| Verification | ACL2 proof checking, formal gate rules | Validity envelope checks, parameter provenance checks | Gate policy interpretation (LLM evaluates natural-language rules) |
+| Social Protocol | Sharing verified proofs between instances | Sharing validation histories and benchmark results between instances | Sharing model selection strategies |
+
+The verification subsystem (the gate) is the integration point. Every action that reaches the gate is checked against:
+1. Security policy (is this action safe?)
+2. Scientific validity (is this model valid in this context?)
+3. Consistency (do the symbolic check and the oracle's assessment agree?)
+
+These three checks run as separate gate vectors with the same architecture as every other gate check. No new mechanism needed — just new predicates with access to the provenance store.
+
+**At what stage it becomes operational.**
+
+The infrastructure is staged, not all-at-once:
+
+- **Stage 0 (now)** — The probabilistic oracle exists (the LLM). The provenance store does not. The deductive engine partially exists through Hermes skills (symbolic gate rules as Python, not ACL2). The empirical layer is invisible — the LLM reasons about chemistry, biology, and engineering using training data alone, without systematic provenance.
+
+- **Stage 1 (social protocol)** — The provenance store prototype can be introduced here as a side effect of signed messages and data exchange. When instances share a validated force field parameter, the message carries a signature and a source. The receiving instance stores it with provenance. This is a natural crawl before the full infrastructure.
+
+- **Stage 2 (gate as software)** — The provenance store becomes operational infrastructure. The gate needs to check validity envelopes to do its job properly. This is the correct stage to introduce it because: (a) the gate is being built anyway, (b) validity checking is a gate predicate like any other, and (c) the provenance store is just a structured knowledge base — the Knowledge subsystem already has the machinery for storing and querying structured data. The symbolic index (formal facts) and the provenance store (empirical parameters) differ in what they store, not in how they store it.
+
+- **Stage 3 (Lisp machine)** — The symbolic engine is native in one address space. ACL2 runs at hardware level. The provenance store becomes a native Lisp hash table with persistence. The empirical layer is fully integrated: the symbolic engine queries the provenance store directly, the gate checks validity predicates in the evaluation loop itself, and the LLM still proposes model selections but every proposal is verified against the provenance store before execution.
+
+- **Stage 4+ (in-process inference)** — The LLM moves in-process. The three components (symbolic engine, provenance store, LLM oracle) share one address space. No IPC between them. The query cycle is: LLM proposes a model → symbolic engine checks it against the provenance store → if valid, execute → if invalid, return to LLM with diagnostic. This loop runs at native speed.
+
+**The empirical middle is not a separate kind of reasoning.**
+
+The deepest question in the set: does the middle empirical part have both neuro and symbolic aspects?
+
+Yes, and the split is clean.
+
+The equations that describe an empirical model — Hooke's law for bond stretching, the Lennard-Jones potential for van der Waals interactions, the Born equation for solvation — are formal symbolic expressions. They can be parsed, manipulated, differentiated, verified by ACL2, and composed into pipelines. This is symbolic engine territory.
+
+The parameters in those equations — the spring constants, the well depths, the atomic radii — are derived from experimental data through optimization and fitting. They cannot be derived from the equations themselves. This is not reasoning; it is curation. The provenance store holds them with sources and confidence intervals.
+
+The selection of which model to apply to a given problem requires judgment about the domain, the available data, and the intended use of the result. The LLM handles this: it knows that a protein-protein docking problem needs a different force field than a small-molecule conformational search.
+
+The composition of models into a pipeline (compute this, pipe into that, plot the other) is a program. The symbolic engine runs the pipeline. The LLM may propose the pipeline structure, but the execution is deterministic.
+
+The diagnosis of failure — "this prediction was wrong and here is why" — is the hardest part and requires the most integration. The symbolic engine detects the validity envelope violation and reports the specific parameter that caused it. The LLM interprets the failure in context: "the bond angle term for this functional group was parameterized against small molecules; your molecule has bulky substituents that change the preferred angle."
+
+| Aspect of the empirical middle | Handled by | Why |
+|---|---|---|
+| The equations themselves | Symbolic engine | They are symbolic expressions — verifiable, differentiable, composable |
+| The parameter values | Provenance store (data) | Fitted to data, not reasoned about |
+| Model selection | LLM oracle | Requires contextual judgment |
+| Pipeline composition | Symbolic engine (execute) + LLM (propose) | Execution is deterministic; design is creative |
+| Validity envelope checking | Symbolic engine | A logical predicate over known state |
+| Uncertainty propagation | Symbolic engine | A formula that composes component uncertainties |
+| Interpretation of results | LLM oracle | Requires natural language |
+| Failure diagnosis | Both: symbolic engine pinpoints the violation, LLM explains why | The factual cause is formal; the narrative cause is contextual |
+| Creative design (new molecules, new experiments) | LLM oracle | Requires open-ended generation |
+
+The empirical middle does not require a new kind of reasoning engine. It requires the two existing engines (symbolic and probabilistic) to cooperate on data (the provenance store) that is neither formal theorem nor raw text — it is curated empirical knowledge with structure, provenance, and uncertainty.
+
+**Does it require "world models"?**
+
+The word "world model" is not necessary for the architecture. What the architecture requires is:
+
+1. A store of mathematical models (equations + parameters) with provenance
+2. A mechanism for checking validity envelopes (predicates over conditions)
+3. A mechanism for composing models into pipelines (the existing program execution)
+4. A mechanism for propagating uncertainty (formulas + tracked parameters)
+
+The provenance store, the validity predicates, the pipeline executor, and the uncertainty tracker do not need to be called "world model infrastructure." They are features of the existing subsystems:
+
+- The provenance store extends the Knowledge subsystem (it is a structured database, not a new category).
+- The validity predicates are gate rules (they check conditions before allowing computation).
+- The pipeline executor is the existing neurosymbolic loop (LLM proposes, symbolic engine executes).
+- The uncertainty tracker is a mathematical library (error propagation formulas, statistical calculations).
+
+Calling them "world models" is conceptually clarifying but architecturally optional. The infrastructure is the same either way.
+
+**The practical implementation takeaway.**
+
+Stage 2 is the correct entry point. The provenance store is built as a structured data extension to the Knowledge subsystem. Validity predicates are added as gate vectors. No new subsystems are needed — just new data types in the knowledge store, new predicates in the gate, and new functions in the symbolic engine for uncertainty propagation.
+
+The three-pronged model describes what the system does, not what it is built from. The system is still one machine, one address space, one gate, one memex. It just has a more sophisticated understanding of what it knows and how it knows it.

ideas/competitive-landscape-agora.org

@@ -1,221 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:ID:       1bc22b89-d3eb-4f6d-bcfc-2b0c19c8ed8f
-:ID:       competitive-landscape-agora
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-23 Sat]
-:END:
-#+title: Agora Competitive Landscape
-#+filetags: :passepartout:agora:competitive:strategy:landscape:
-
-The Agora is a decentralized social operating system that replaces the entire centralized internet platform stack: every function that currently runs on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, Medium, Substack, OnlyFans, Pornhub, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Discord, LinkedIn, eBay, Etsy, GitHub, DocuSign, Stripe, and Google/Apple ID — all through one unified identity, one data model (the Note), one communication protocol (DIDComm), one payment rail (Lightning), and one contract layer (SCAL).
-
-There is no single competitor. The competition is the /category/ of centralized internet platforms and the psychological status quo of managing 15+ separate accounts.
-
-This page maps every platform the Agora replaces, organized by domain, with the specific Agora capability that makes the replacement possible.
-
-* Social Graph & Publishing
-
-** Twitter/X
-- *User need:* Broadcast short-form content, follow interesting people, real-time news
-- *Agora replacement:* Feeds and streams via the Note primitive (`is_feed: true`), with Lens architecture for customizable curation. Follows are cryptographic subscriptions, not API-gated relationships.
-- *Agora advantage:* No algorithmic manipulation, no ads, no shadowbanning. Users choose their Feed Generators via the Algorithm Marketplace. Portable social graph — follows are signed Notes, not a database row.
-- *Migration:* Twitter archive import for followed accounts.
-
-** Facebook / Meta
-- *User need:* Social graph, family/friend connections, event management, groups
-- *Agora replacement:* Collective Personas for groups, DID-based social graph (not platform-controlled), Persona isolation for work/personal/family
-- *Agora advantage:* No central feed algorithm that optimizes for engagement over well-being. Portable identity — your social graph leaves the platform when you do. No data mining.
-- *Timing:* Year 3+ after network effects. Facebook's moat is the largest social graph; Agora's Persona system makes it portable by design.
-
-** Instagram
-- *User need:* Visual content sharing, photo feeds, stories
-- *Agora replacement:* Visual Notes with `content_type: image/*`. Lens architecture renders them through an "Instagram-style" grid or a "Pinterest-style" discovery view depending on user-selected Lens.
-- *Agora advantage:* User-chosen discovery algorithm. No engagement-maximized feed. Content is not manipulated for ad placement.
-
-** LinkedIn
-- *User need:* Professional identity, job market, professional networking
-- *Agora replacement:* Professional Persona (unlinkable from personal), Aletheia Portfolio (static site published natively to the network), Contract Notes for hiring/service agreements
-- *Agora advantage:* Portable professional reputation — not locked to a platform. Verified work history via signed Notes. Direct hiring without platform intermediation fees.
-
-** Reddit / Forums (phpBB, vBulletin)
-- *User need:* Community discussion, Q&A, interest-based groups
-- *Agora replacement:* Social Spaces with Collective Personas, pluggable feed generation, competitive labeling for moderation
-- *Agora advantage:* Sovereign moderation (users choose their Labelers), portable identity across communities, no censorship risk. Communities can fork if the Collective governance fails.
-- *Migration:* Import subscribed subreddits.
-
-** Medium / Substack
-- *User need:* Long-form publishing, subscription-based content, creator monetization
-- *Agora replacement:* Feed Notes (`is_feed: true`) with paywalled content via LSAT protocol (Lightning Service Authentication Tokens). Subscriptions are streaming Lightning payments.
-- *Agora advantage:* Near-zero platform fees (relay costs only). Content ownership — readers subscribe to the creator's DID, not to a platform. No censorship risk.
-- *Strategic target:* Phase 1 platform replacement.
-
-* Video & Audio
-
-** YouTube
-- *User need:* Video hosting, discovery, comments, monetization
-- *Agora replacement:* Video Notes (`content_type: video/*`) viewed through a "YouTube Lens" (displaying comments via `reply_to` and related videos). The exact same Note can be viewed through an "Educational Lens" or "Podcast Lens."
-- *Agora advantage:* No algorithm that optimizes for watch time over well-being. Lens architecture lets users choose discovery logic. Content monetized via LSAT + Seeder Rewards — creators earn directly, and bandwidth providers (seeders) earn micro-rewards.
-
-** TikTok
-- *User need:* Short-form vertical video, discovery algorithm
-- *Agora replacement:* Short-duration video Notes trigger a "TikTok-style" vertical scroll and auto-play in the UI when `content_type: "video/mp4"` and duration is short.
-- *Agora advantage:* The "For You" algorithm is a user-chosen Lens, not a platform-controlled black box. No engagement-extremification.
-
-** Podcasts / Audio
-- *User need:* Audio content, background play
-- *Agora replacement:* Audio Notes (`content_type: audio/mpeg`) viewed through a "Podcast Lens" with 1.5x speed and background play. Same Note can be listened to or watched depending on Lens.
-
-* Messaging & Communication
-
-** WhatsApp / Signal / Telegram
-- *User need:* Private messaging, group chats, voice/video calls, encryption
-- *Agora replacement:* DIDComm v2 for transport, Double Ratchet Algorithm (Signal Protocol) for Perfect Forward Secrecy, WebRTC for voice/video with decentralized signaling via DIDComm. PDS acts as encrypted mailbox proxy.
-- *Agora advantage:* Multi-persona isolation — Work DID and Personal DID have separate message queues that never mix. Onion routing for metadata privacy. Off-the-Record mode for ephemeral interactions. No central server controlling the directory.
-
-** Discord / Slack
-- *User need:* Community chat, voice channels, collaboration
-- *Agora replacement:* Social Spaces with Collective Personas. DIDComm-based group messaging. Governance modules (GEM) for roles, permissions, and moderation.
-- *Agora advantage:* Server ownership is cryptographic, not corporate. Communities can fork. No per-seat pricing. Portable membership history.
-
-** Email
-- *User need:* Asynchronous messaging, identity, document delivery
-- *Agora replacement:* Directed Notes (Copy-on-Send model). PDS as encrypted mailbox. The Note is a universal message format — no separate email protocol needed.
-- *Agora advantage:* End-to-end encryption by default. Cryptographic sender verification (no phishing, no spoofing). No spam (relays only route to subscribed destinations). Attachments are CIDs, not MIME blobs.
-
-** Zoom / Google Meet
-- *User need:* Video conferencing, screen sharing
-- *Agora replacement:* WebRTC over DIDComm signaling. P2P tunnel — no central server sees call data.
-- *Agora advantage:* No Zoom-bombing (call is authenticated by DID). No platform listening in. No account required beyond your DID.
-
-* E-Commerce & Marketplaces
-
-** eBay / Etsy
-- *User need:* Buy and sell goods, auction, fixed-price listings, dispute resolution
-- *Agora replacement:* Contract Notes as product listings (Offer → Take model). HODL invoice escrow for payments. SCAL (Sovereign Contract & Arbitration Layer) for dispute resolution.
-- *Agora advantage:* Fees below 5% (vs. 10-15%). Transparent reputation system based on DID history. No account bans. Multi-level arbitration (Local Elders → Guilds → Global Juries).
-
-** OnlyFans / Patreon / Fansly
-- *User need:* Subscription content, adult content, creator-direct monetization
-- *Agora replacement:* Paywalled Notes via LSAT protocol. Streaming Lightning subscriptions. Encrypted content with Blind CDN seeding.
-- *Agora advantage:* Censorship-resistant (no payment processor can cut you off). Near-zero platform fees. Pseudonymous by default. Adult content doesn't face the banking discrimination that existing platforms do.
-- *Strategic target:* Phase 1 platform replacement (underserved, clear pain point).
-
-** Pornhub / Adult content
-- *User need:* Adult content hosting, discovery, monetization
-- *Agora replacement:* Same Note primitive with `content_type: video/*`. LSAT for paywalled access. Blind CDN for distribution.
-- *Agora advantage:* No centralized moderation that can delist creators. Lightning-native payments bypass banking discrimination. Privacy (identity not tied to consumption).
-- *Strategic target:* Phase 1 platform replacement.
-
-* Work & Collaboration
-
-** GitHub / GitLab
-- *User need:* Version control, code hosting, issues, pull requests, CI
-- *Agora replacement:* Code is stored as Merkle DAGs of commit Notes. Issues and PRs are Contract Notes. Collective Personas own repositories.
-- *Agora advantage:* Truly decentralized version control — no central repository host. Signed commits with DID. Smart contracts for bounty management (Lightning bounties).
-
-** Google Docs / Office 365
-- *User need:* Collaborative document editing, spreadsheets, presentations
-- *Agora replacement:* Static pages (`is_feed: false`) with versioned CID history. Collaborative editing via Contract Notes defining access control.
-- *Agora advantage:* Document history is immutable and verifiable. No platform lock-in.
-
-** Project Management (Jira, Trello, Asana)
-- *User need:* Task tracking, project management, team coordination
-- *Agora replacement:* Tasks as Contract Notes in negotiation state. Status changes are signed state transitions.
-- *Agora advantage:* Portable project history. Tasks are data you own.
-
-** Upwork / Fiverr / Freelancer
-- *User need:* Find freelancers, manage contracts, escrow payments
-- *Agora replacement:* SCAL contracts for service agreements. HODL invoice escrow. Multi-level arbitration. Reputation tied to DID history.
-- *Agora advantage:* Lower fees, portable reputation, no platform lock-in.
-
-* Identity & Infrastructure
-
-** Google / Apple ID
-- *User need:* Single sign-on across the internet
-- *Agora replacement:* DID-based authentication via Personas. No central identity provider. User controls which Persona is used for which service.
-- *Agora advantage:* No surveillance (Google sees every SSO login). Granular persona isolation. No single point of failure.
-
-** ENS (Ethereum Name Service)
-- *User need:* Human-readable decentralized names
-- *Agora replacement:* Agora naming registry with similar auction model. But integrated with PDS, messaging, contracts, and payments — a name in the Agora is a full identity, not just a pointer to a wallet.
-- *Agora advantage:* Names come with native capabilities (PDS, messaging, contracts). ENS is names-only.
-
-* The [[id:3aa22300-2f25-57b0-8787-9f199cc978b1][Competitive Analysis]]: What This Changes
-
-The Agora is not competing with any single product. It is competing with the /aggregate/ of 20+ products — and the friction of managing 20+ separate accounts, logins, reputations, and data silos.
-
-** The Real Competitor Is the Status Quo
-
-The centralized internet works well enough for most people. The friction is spread across 20+ platforms — no single platform is bad enough to leave. The Agora's value proposition is not "Twitter but better" but "one account replaces every platform you use."
-
-This is a harder sell because:
-1. The status quo is familiar. Switching all 20+ platforms at once is cognitively overwhelming.
-2. Network effects at each platform are entrenched. No single platform can be replaced without bringing the users.
-3. The value of unification compounds with adoption — but requires critical mass to be visible.
-
-** The Entry Vector Must Be a Niche, Not a Mass Market
-
-The strategic documents recognize this explicitly. Phase 1 targets underserved communities with clear pain points:
-- OnlyFans creators facing payment discrimination and censorship
-- Reddit communities tired of centralized moderation
-- Developers frustrated with platform lock-in
-- Adult content platforms facing banking discrimination
-- NGOs and guilds needing sovereign identity
-
-Each of these communities has a /specific/ pain point that the Agora solves directly. The win condition is: a user joins for one reason (e.g., censorship-resistant adult content monetization) and discovers the other 19 capabilities as a free bonus.
-
-** The Structural Advantage Is Unassailable
-
-No centralized competitor can match the Agora's bundle:
-- Meta cannot offer portable identity (it destroys their business model)
-- Google cannot offer private messaging (it destroys their data model)
-- Stripe cannot offer contracts and social (outside their competence)
-- DocuSign cannot offer payments and publishing (outside their competence)
-- The entire category of centralized platforms cannot offer user-owned data
-
-The only way to compete with the Agora is to build a similar decentralized platform — and that requires matching all four layers (identity, publishing, payments, contracts) simultaneously. No decentralized project has done this. The closest (Farcaster) has identity and social but no payments or contracts. Bluesky has identity and social but no payments or contracts. Ethereum + ENS has identity, payments, and contracts but no social layer.
-
-** The Risk Is Not Competition but Indifference
-
-The Agora's biggest risk is not that a competitor builds a better product, but that the status quo friction is tolerable enough that users never switch. The centralized internet is bad — but it is familiar. The Agora is better — but unfamiliar.
-
-The counterargument: this is true for every platform shift. Email was a worse experience than postal mail in 1992. The web was a worse experience than AOL in 1994. Instagram was a worse experience than Flickr in 2010. Each won because a /specific/ use case was dramatically better, and the rest of the ecosystem followed. The Agora must find its "camera with filters" moment — the one use case that is so clearly superior that users adopt it despite the rest of the ecosystem being immature.
-
-* Comparison Summary
-
-| Agora replaces | Incumbent | Agora advantage | Risk to Agora |
-|----------------+-----------+----------------+---------------|
-| Social graph | Facebook | Portable identity, no data mining | Facebook's 3B user moat |
-| Microblogging | Twitter/X | Algorithm choice, no censorship | Network effects |
-| Visual content | Instagram | No engagement-extremified algorithm | UX polish gap |
-| Professional | LinkedIn | Portable rep, no platform fees | Professional network effects |
-| Video | YouTube | Lens choice, Seeder Rewards | Content moderation surface |
-| Short video | TikTok | Users choose the algorithm | Discovery algorithm sophistication |
-| Forums | Reddit | Sovereign moderation, portable identity | Community migration inertia |
-| Publishing | Medium/Substack | Near-zero fees, content ownership | Creator distribution |
-| Messaging | WhatsApp/Signal | Multi-persona isolation, onion routing | Friend network effects |
-| Community | Discord | Cryptographic ownership, forkable | Voice/UX maturity |
-| E-commerce | eBay/Etsy | <5% fees, transparent reputation | Trust in new platform |
-| Subscription | OnlyFans/Patreon | No payment discrimination | Creator acquisition cost |
-| Video hosting | Pornhub | No censorship, Lightning payouts | Reputation risk |
-| Code hosting | GitHub | Truly decentralized, DID-signed commits | Developer habit |
-| Identity | Google/Apple ID | No surveillance, persona isolation | Convenience of SSO |
-| Naming | ENS | Name + PDS + messaging + contracts | ENS's 2M domain moat |
-| Collaboration | Google Docs | Verifiable history, no platform lock-in | Real-time collaboration UX |
-| Freelance | Upwork/Fiverr | Lower fees, portable reputation | Liquidity of gig listings |
-| Meetings | Zoom | P2P, no central server | Call quality/reliability |
-
-* Conclusion
-
-The Agora does not compete with any single platform. It offers an alternative to the /entire paradigm/ of centralized internet services. The competitive analysis is not about which platform to beat — it is about which /use case/ to lead with so that users adopt the unified platform despite the rest of the ecosystem being immature.
-
-The OnlyFans/Patreon entry vector is the strongest Phase 1 play: a community with clear pain (payment discrimination, censorship), high willingness to pay, and low switching costs (creators want their audience independent of the platform). From there, publishing, messaging, and identity flow naturally.
-
-* References
-
-- [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora overview]] (brain docs)
-- [[id:64708e1f-00e9-4cb7-b44b-ea0b98e5296d][Agora contract platform]]
-- [[id:57f9538a-6270-4302-8d07-d742168419eb][Social-first growth scenario]]
-- Agora Protocol Overview (spec repo)
-- Social Space specification
-- Exchange and Contracts specification
-- User journey and platform replacement strategy

ideas/compliance/first-mover-window.org

@@ -1,28 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:ID:       558154ea-e63a-4c45-998c-26ce8588585b
-:ID:       auto-first-mover-window
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-23 Sat]
-:END:
-#+title: First-Mover Window Analysis
-#+filetags: :passepartout:compliance:strategy:first-mover:
-
-* First-Mover Window Analysis
-
-The first-mover window is the time in which a new compliance tool can establish
-dominance before incumbents respond or the market settles on a standard approach.
-
-| Window | Frameworks | Rationale |
-|--------|-----------|-----------|
-| **Critical (<12 months)** | [[id:06fcdb02-2643-4f9d-ab41-e711a99cc390][EU AI Act]] (Aug 2026 effective), [[id:748db16a-1382-4e5e-8812-a5d57a8de131][NIS2]] (Oct 2025 deadline), [[id:717ef2df-2a80-4362-b23a-5e7e12554251][DORA]] (Jan 2025 — already in effect) | Regulation is active or imminent. Buyers are desperate. No established vendor. |
-| **Wide (12-36 months)** | [[id:fed19a24-ad81-4837-a12b-dafbd3ec110a][DPDP Act]] 2023 (rules drafting), India privacy; Privacy Act Review (Australia); [[id:f6a0c00e-e922-44af-99ce-6412c4b73745][Quebec Law 25]]; [[id:ce81fefc-b7a8-4be5-912f-55fd30970b6e][CRA]] phased enforcement | Regulation not yet fully enforced. Rules being written. Market forming. |
-| **Mature (commodity)** | [[id:513d5996-4ac7-4567-a992-18fc01599104][GDPR]] (2018), [[id:c9830152-0160-4bdc-ab03-6f308ad43536][SOX]] (2002), [[id:84fb5f8f-0527-4df0-b6b6-dbf3bcff8a7f][HIPAA]] (1996), [[id:4a2bc62b-3f21-4212-9cd9-f9add8fc0be1][GLBA]] (1999), [[id:4eef0993-6671-41cf-ba20-d1443a3ec49d][Basel III]] (2010), [[id:03ebdb80-a9af-4e76-a443-8556424996ed][FATF]] 40 Recs | Market has established vendors. First-mover advantage requires displacing incumbents via superior architecture. |
-| **Latent (undiscovered)** | [[id:022109ad-f031-44c4-8ea0-0b3c9402ca90][OECD]] AI Principles, [[id:6a5884c8-e9b5-477e-bbf6-aa9ffd967739][UN/CEFACT]], [[id:177aad72-5626-444d-a2e4-af8e1263b125][World Bank ESF]], [[id:68c55deb-72bf-4b15-ac28-bcc792057543][IFC PS]] | Compliance exists but is document-based or consultant-delivered. No software market has formed. The first gate package creates the category. |
-
-
-
-These windows define which frameworks are worth building a gate package for
-first. The [[id:e4a7b3d2-1c9f-4b6e-8a2d-5f3c7e1b9a0c][compliance index]] maps each to a
-[[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][verification appliance]] gate package, and the
-[[id:81a815ee-bf2b-4365-9894-b814e4196850][revenue table]] sizes the market. The
-[[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][verification monopoly]] dynamics determine which window to enter
-first.

ideas/compliance/revenue-table.org

@@ -1,67 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:ID:       81a815ee-bf2b-4365-9894-b814e4196850
-:ID:       auto-revenue-table
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-23 Sat]
-:END:
-#+title: Compliance Framework Revenue Table
-#+filetags: :passepartout:compliance:revenue:pricing:
-
-* Expanded Revenue Table
-
-| Framework | Region | Gate price/yr | Addressable orgs | Revenue potential | First-mover window | Gate rule type |
-|-----------|--------|--------------|------------------|-------------------|---------------------|----------------|
-| [[id:84fb5f8f-0527-4df0-b6b6-dbf3bcff8a7f][HIPAA]] | US | $50K | 500K+ | $25B | Mature (incumbent disruption) | Privacy + access control |
-| SOC 2 | US/Global | $50K | 100K+ | $5B | Mature (incumbent disruption) | Access control + audit |
-| [[id:513d5996-4ac7-4567-a992-18fc01599104][GDPR]] | EU | $50K | 500K+ | $25B | Mature (incumbent disruption) | Privacy + consent |
-| [[id:e6993701-3c67-49bf-82f3-06907572cbf3][FedRAMP]] | US | $100K | 1K (providers) | $100M | Moderate (<300 authorized) | Continuous monitoring |
-| [[id:c9830152-0160-4bdc-ab03-6f308ad43536][SOX]] | US | $50K | 10K | $500M | Mature (manual audit disruption) | Financial controls |
-| [[id:4a2bc62b-3f21-4212-9cd9-f9add8fc0be1][GLBA]] | US | $40K | 20K | $800M | Moderate | Financial privacy |
-| [[id:581666ba-f72c-406b-8556-93876d2b30bf][NY DFS 500]] | US (NY) | $30K | 3K | $90M | Wide | Cybersecurity controls |
-| [[id:87996d87-100c-4bf6-8546-a860b9d7c25b][CCPA/CPRA]] | US (CA) | $40K | 50K+ | $2B | Moderate | Privacy opt-out flows |
-| [[id:748db16a-1382-4e5e-8812-a5d57a8de131][NIS2]] | EU | $50K | 160K | $8B | Critical (2025) | Cybersecurity + supply chain |
-| [[id:06fcdb02-2643-4f9d-ab41-e711a99cc390][EU AI Act]] | EU | $75K | 100K+ | $7.5B | Critical (Aug 2026) | AI risk management |
-| [[id:717ef2df-2a80-4362-b23a-5e7e12554251][DORA]] | EU | $50K | 22K+ | $1.1B | Critical (in effect) | ICT resilience |
-| [[id:b8cf51e8-5f39-49ad-9547-a792a2e446aa][eIDAS 2.0]] | EU | $30K | 10K+ | $300M | Wide (wallet buildout) | Identity gates |
-| [[id:ce81fefc-b7a8-4be5-912f-55fd30970b6e][CRA]] | EU | $40K | 50K+ | $2B | Wide (phased 2025-2027) | Product security |
-| [[id:9bc29937-d59a-4ae4-9623-3d17a1fe6ebb][UK GDPR]] | UK | $40K | 100K+ | $4B | Mature (GDPR derivative) | Privacy |
-| [[id:b852ec69-0fc2-435c-ae1e-6b83e49b3ca3][APPI]] | Japan | $40K | 100K+ | $4B | Moderate | Cross-border privacy |
-| [[id:085b76cc-4a65-4660-9c70-85aee10ca99e][ISMAP]] | Japan | $75K | 500 (providers) | $37.5M | Wide (<100 registered) | Gov cloud assessment |
-| [[id:e777064d-9950-42d5-980d-8c78cda91500][PIPA]] | South Korea | $35K | 50K+ | $1.75B | Wide (2024 amendments settling) | Privacy + consent |
-| Privacy Act | Australia | $35K | 50K+ | $1.75B | Wide (reforms legislating) | Privacy + AI transparency |
-| [[id:904f5f12-ec9a-4cbf-854a-0b9b1e11a521][APRA CPS 234]] | Australia | $40K | 500 | $20M | Moderate | Info security controls |
-| [[id:7f46764b-47b8-4892-a526-2c1b9ee6e6df][IRAP]] | Australia | $75K | 300 (providers) | $22.5M | Wide | Gov cloud assessment |
-| [[id:fed19a24-ad81-4837-a12b-dafbd3ec110a][DPDP Act]] | India | $30K | 500K+ | $15B | Wide (rules drafting) | Privacy + consent |
-| [[id:c871a9f4-dd53-4e93-aa50-6acf0c606a9b][LGPD]] | Brazil | $30K | 200K+ | $6B | Moderate | Privacy |
-| [[id:bafdaa23-de0b-444c-9151-c87ac65add32][LFPDPPP]] | Mexico | $25K | 50K+ | $1.25B | Wide | Privacy |
-| [[id:e2ab887d-9f28-4da6-8388-e6c035e9d9c5][ISO 27001]] | Global | $40K | 60K+ | $2.4B | Mature (manual disruption) | ISMS controls |
-| [[id:748b0cc7-7f42-49fb-8ee3-1ae49048a178][ISO 27701]] | Global | $35K | 1K+ | $35M | Wide (growing) | Privacy management |
-| [[id:4eef0993-6671-41cf-ba20-d1443a3ec49d][Basel III]] | Global (banking) | $100K | 500 (G-SIBs) | $50M | Mature (incumbent disruption) | Capital adequacy |
-| [[id:03ebdb80-a9af-4e76-a443-8556424996ed][FATF]] AML/CFT | Global | $50K | 50K+ | $2.5B | Mature (incumbent disruption) | CDD + screening |
-| [[id:fc736aec-ef53-4759-9787-62bc8deea2e7][IFRS]] 17 | Global (insurance) | $75K | 5K+ | $375M | Mature (actuarial verification) | Contract classification |
-| [[id:6a5884c8-e9b5-477e-bbf6-aa9ffd967739][UN/CEFACT]] | Global (trade) | $30K | 50K+ | $1.5B | Latent (no market exists) | Cross-border data rules |
-| [[id:177aad72-5626-444d-a2e4-af8e1263b125][World Bank ESF]] | Global (dev finance) | $50K | 1K+ (projects) | $50M | Latent (no market exists) | ES compliance gates |
-| [[id:68c55deb-72bf-4b15-ac28-bcc792057543][IFC PS]] | Global (project finance) | $50K | 500+ (deals) | $25M | Latent (no market exists) | ES compliance gates |
-
-A [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][compute marketplace]] provider with authorization in 5+ frameworks (FedRAMP + 
-ISMAP + IRAP + SOC 2 + ISO 27001) becomes the default infrastructure provider
-for regulated cloud globally. The gate package portfolio alone — a mid-size
-enterprise running 10+ packages — generates $500K/yr+ in recurring revenue.
-At 10,000 such enterprises: $5B/yr. The first-mover advantage is not about any
-single framework — it is about being the first to offer a unified gate stack
-that maps to all of them.
-
-
-A compute marketplace provider with authorization in 5+ frameworks (FedRAMP +
-ISMAP + IRAP + SOC 2 + ISO 27001) becomes the default infrastructure provider
-for regulated cloud globally. The gate package portfolio alone — a mid-size
-enterprise running 10+ packages — generates $500K/yr+ in recurring revenue.
-At 10,000 such enterprises: $5B/yr.
-
-A compute marketplace provider with authorization in 5+ frameworks (FedRAMP +
-ISMAP + IRAP + SOC 2 + ISO 27001) becomes the default infrastructure provider
-for regulated cloud globally. The gate package portfolio alone — a mid-size
-enterprise running 10+ packages — generates $500K/yr+ in recurring revenue.
-At 10,000 such enterprises: $5B/yr. See the [[id:e4a7b3d2-1c9f-4b6e-8a2d-5f3c7e1b9a0c][compliance index]] for the full
-framework list, [[id:558154ea-e63a-4c45-998c-26ce8588585b][first-mover window analysis]] for timing strategy, and
-[[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][verification monopoly]] and [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][compute marketplace]] for the economic dynamics
-behind the revenue.

ideas/cost-structure.org

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       0b5a8a74-cfd6-542d-bc88-4eb3cd8626f9
-:END:
-#+title: Cost Structure — Zero Marginal Cost
-#+filetags: :passepartout:economics:cost:marginal:zero:
-
-- **One-time cost:** [[id:45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d][gate-rule encoding]] for a domain (from hours for codified domains up to months for tacit domains)
-- **Near-zero marginal cost:** ACL2 proof + Screamer consistency check + VivaceGraph lookup per interaction — all CPU-native, all in-image
-- **No recurring LLM API costs** for the 80% symbolic reasoning layer
-- **After [[id:efc76898-03f7-57ba-923d-35d65da88bb7][sufficiency flip]]:** pennies per day vs dollars per day for LLM-only
-
-The cost curve inverts: generation is expensive, verification is cheap. This is the inversion [[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout]] exploits. This is the core insight of [[id:9af13fff-9725-542b-93b1-a555bc74ad72][Lisp economics]] — symbolic verification costs approach zero while LLM token costs remain constant.
-
-Token demand shifts from "every interaction burns tokens" to "only unfamiliar interactions burn tokens." Steady-state per-user LLM consumption drops by an order of magnitude.

ideas/domain-gate-packages.org

@@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c
-:END:
-#+title: Domain Gate Rule Subscriptions
-#+filetags: :passepartout:revenue:gate-rules:compliance:subscription:
-
-Pre-verified [[id:45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d][gate rule]] packages for specific compliance domains. Translated from published regulations by the LLM, verified by ACL2, reviewed by a human for the 5% ambiguous edge cases.
-
-- [[id:84fb5f8f-0527-4df0-b6b6-dbf3bcff8a7f][HIPAA]] package: $50K/yr
-- [[id:ed65031c-cbd2-4ad2-bd53-a67791e183cd][SOC2]] package: $50K/yr
-- [[id:513d5996-4ac7-4567-a992-18fc01599104][GDPR]] package: $50K/yr
-- [[id:e6993701-3c67-49bf-82f3-06907572cbf3][FedRAMP]] package: $100K/yr
-- Combined enterprise: $250K/yr
-
-Switching costs are high — changing packages means re-verifying the fact store against new rules. The [[id:2f783eb4-638e-5afa-9b59-6224d086a712][infrastructure lock-in]] compounds: a hospital at $250K/yr in year one grows to $500K-$1M by year five as more packages are added and the fact store becomes more valuable than the software itself.
-
-20 subscriptions in year one = $1M-$5M. These Each gate package wraps the Agora [[id:f6cfc54b-919b-4311-bcbf-65e976755d40][Note primitive]] into a domain-specific authorization boundary. These packages are verified using the [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][verification appliance]] and scored by the [[id:45258a2d-1675-562c-9024-5d1eb2f1ea56][evaluation harness]].

ideas/evaluation-harness.org

@@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       45258a2d-1675-562c-9024-5d1eb2f1ea56
-:END:
-#+title: Evaluation Harness as Certification Service
-#+filetags: :passepartout:revenue:certification:evaluation:regression:
-
-The accumulated regression suite — thousands of edge cases from every deployed instance, every bug fix, every regulatory change — becomes the most comprehensive test of autonomous agent correctness.
-
-**Service:** "Run our 10,000-task suite against your AI agent and get a Merkle-verified score."
-**Target:** AI labs proving their agents' capabilities, enterprise procurement requiring independent verification.
-**Price:** $50K-$200K per certification.
-
-The regression suite grows with every deployment, making the certification increasingly valuable over time. The early player's suite is the largest because they started first. This is the [[id:a5d59d12-b23e-58d6-a81b-9b8b06556949][collective regression suite]] mechanism in action.
-
-10 certifications in year one = $500K-$2M.
-
-Long-term endpoint: this becomes the UL certification for AI — a third-party verification nobody can ignore. [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][The verification monopoly]]. The certification relies on a [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][verification appliance]] to run the tests in a trusted environment, creating [[id:2f783eb4-638e-5afa-9b59-6224d086a712][infrastructure lock-in]] as certification history accumulates on the platform. These dynamics form powerful [[id:aa6d062e-a520-5d14-8773-00687ed9c689][moats]].

ideas/gate-rule-encoding.org

@@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d
-:END:
-#+title: Gate Rule Encoding from Codified Domains
-#+filetags: :passepartout:gates:rules:encoding:llm:translation:
-
-Laws, regulations, standards, procedures, and technical specifications are already written down in structured text. The LLM does not need to *reason* about them — it needs to *translate* them into gate rules and ACL2 theorems.
-
-Example: The US Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is ~2,000 pages. A frontier LLM can ingest the FAR and produce a plist of gate rules:
-- (if contract > $250K AND not small-business-set-aside → :deny)
-- (if sole-source AND no justification-documented → :deny, produce-justification)
-
-ACL2 verifies the rule set for internal consistency. Screamer checks against existing compliance facts. The human reviews the bootstrap output and approves or corrects individual rules.
-
-The key distinction: the LLM is not *extracting knowledge from prose* — it is *translating a known rule system into a formal representation.* The result is not "the LLM's best guess" but "the rule set as stated in the source document, mechanically transcribed."
-
-For codified domains, the encoding cost drops from weeks to hours. The only bottleneck is human review of the 5% ambiguous rules. This is what makes the [[id:efc76898-03f7-57ba-923d-35d65da88bb7][sufficiency flip]] economically viable — once gates are encoded, verification is near-free. The resulting rules are packaged into [[id:c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c][domain gate packages]] that can be reused across deployments.

ideas/infrastructure-lock-in.org

@@ -1,17 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       2f783eb4-638e-5afa-9b59-6224d086a712
-:END:
-#+title: Infrastructure Lock-In and Switching Costs
-#+filetags: :passepartout:economics:moats:lock-in:switching:
-
-A hospital that runs [[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout]] with [[id:84fb5f8f-0527-4df0-b6b6-dbf3bcff8a7f][HIPAA]] gate rules ($50K/yr) for five years has accumulated:
-
-- A fact store with a decade of compliance decisions
-- A proof forest of verified rules
-- An empirical decision history tied to their specific deployment
-- Customized gate rules encoding their specific workflows and approvals
-
-Switching to a competitor means discarding all of it. The accumulated value grows as the fact store deepens. Annual revenue per enterprise grows from $250K in year one to $500K-$1M by year five as more [[id:c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c][domain packages]] are added.
-
-This is the strongest residual [[id:aa6d062e-a520-5d14-8773-00687ed9c689][moat]]. The [[id:45258a2d-1675-562c-9024-5d1eb2f1ea56][evaluation harness (see the [[id:3b43a9b8-31d1-4479-a35f-22273b74f0c7][Agora Infrastructure requirements]] for the network topology that creates this lock-in)]] (regression suite) is a close second — it grows with every deployment and cannot be ingested from public data. The [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][verification monopoly]] and [[id:29e4dbf3-cf19-589c-8b14-389e8a39d564][upgrade lifecycle]] compound this lock-in: every new regulation encoded as a gate rule deepens the proof forest, making the deployment harder to reproduce elsewhere.

ideas/knowledge-tree-middle.org

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       9c0d1e2f-3a4b-5c6d-7e8f-9a0b1c2d3e4f
+:END:
+#+title: The Middle of the Knowledge Tree — From Logic to Nanotechnology
+#+filetags: :ideas:knowledge:passepartout:
+
+In the tree of knowledge model, mathematical foundations and formal logic sit at the root. Schafmeister's molecular nanotechnology sits at a high branch — programmable molecules that bind proteins and catalyze reactions. The distance between them is bridged by a chain of formal and empirical domains. This note maps that chain.
+
+**The full stack, root to branch.**
+
+| Layer | What it formalizes | Formal status | Verification model |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 0. Logic / Foundations | Proof theory, set theory, type theory, ACL2 axioms | Deductive | Complete — provable from axioms |
+| 1. Algebra | Groups, rings, fields, vector spaces, modules | Deductive | Complete |
+| 2. Analysis | Real numbers, limits, continuity, calculus, measure theory | Deductive | Complete (in principle; deep results are hard) |
+| 3. Geometry / Topology | Manifolds, differential forms, curvature, homotopy | Deductive | Complete |
+| 4. Classical Mechanics | Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics, Newtonian dynamics | Deductive | Complete — follows from variational principles |
+| 5. Quantum Mechanics | Hilbert spaces, operators, Schrödinger equation, symmetries | Deductive | Complete (the theory is fully formalizable) |
+| 6. Statistical Mechanics | Ensembles, partition functions, Boltzmann distribution, entropy | Deductive | Complete (follows from QM + probability) |
+| 7. Electrodynamics | Maxwell's equations, potentials, radiation | Deductive | Complete |
+| 8. Quantum Chemistry | Born-Oppenheimer, Hartree-Fock, DFT, coupled cluster | Partially deductive | The equations are formal. The necessary approximations (Börn-Oppenheimer, exchange-correlation functional) are not. |
+| 9. Molecular Mechanics | Force fields (AMBER, CHARMM, OPLS), potential functions, non-bonded interactions | Empirical parameterization | The simulation is deterministic. The parameters are fitted to experiment. |
+| 10. Molecular Dynamics | Integration schemes, thermostats, barostats, periodic boundaries | Deductive mechanics + empirical inputs | The integrator is provable. The force field parameters are not. |
+| 11. Chemical Thermodynamics | Binding constants, free energy surfaces, reaction equilibria, solvation | Mixed deductive/empirical | Statistical mechanics is deductive. Solvation models are not. |
+| 12. Structural Biochemistry | Protein folding, protein-ligand binding, docking, enzyme kinetics | Largely empirical | Binding affinity prediction is not deductively solvable from first principles. |
+| 13. Organic Chemistry | Reaction mechanisms, stereochemistry, functional group transformations | Empirical with formal structure | Reaction mechanisms are modeled, not derived. They are falsifiable hypotheses, not theorems. |
+| 14. Molecular Design | Spiroligomer design, shape-programmable molecules, therapeutic targeting | Empirical design space | Design rules are heuristics validated by experiment, not derived from QM. |
+
+**What changes at layer 8.**
+
+The important transition happens between layers 7 and 8. Everything from logic through quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics is fully formalizable — you can write down the equations, derive the consequences, and verify the derivations. This is the domain where ACL2 can prove correctness against first principles.
+
+Layer 8 (quantum chemistry) is where the first irreducible approximation appears. The Born-Oppenheimer approximation is not a theorem — it is an assumption that nuclei and electrons can be treated separately because nuclei are much heavier. This assumption is empirically excellent but not deductively guaranteed. The exchange-correlation functional in DFT is not derivable — it is a functional whose exact form is unknown and must be approximated.
+
+From layer 9 onward, the models are empirical through and through. Force field parameters are fitted to experimental data. Solvation models are calibrated against known solubilities. Binding affinity predictions are validated by binding assays, not derived from Schrödinger's equation. The models are mathematically rigorous (the simulation correctly integrates Newton's equations), but the inputs to those models are not.
+
+**What this means for Passepartout.**
+
+Passepartout can verify the *computation* at every layer. It can prove that:
+
+- The Schrödinger equation is correctly solved for a given Hamiltonian (layer 5/8).
+- The molecular dynamics integrator preserves phase space volume (layer 10).
+- The docking algorithm correctly explores the defined conformational space (layer 12).
+
+But it cannot verify that the *model* matches reality. The Born-Oppenheimer approximation, the DFT functional, the force field parameters, the solvation model, the scoring function — these are commitments to empirical reality that no verification system can discharge. They are validated by experiment, not by proof.
+
+This is the same structure as Stage 7 in Passepartout's own roadmap: after all computational threats are eliminated, oracular limits and physical reality remain. The verification subsystem can certify that a simulation is internally consistent. It cannot certify that the simulation's assumptions hold in the real world.
+
+**What Passepartout would need in the middle.**
+
+For each layer 1-7 (deductive), Passepartout already has or can generate the formal mathematics. These are theorems and algorithms that ACL2 can verify against axioms.
+
+For each layer 8-14 (empirically parameterized), Passepartout needs:
+
+1. **A formal model** of the equations (the DFT equations, the force field functional form, the MD integrator) — verified against the mathematical theory.
+2. **A parameter database** with provenance (force field parameters, basis sets, solvation parameters, scoring function weights) — not proven but curated, versioned, and traceable to experimental sources.
+3. **An empirical validation pipeline** that compares computed predictions against experimental measurements and updates the parameter confidence.
+
+The parameter database with provenance is the crucial addition. For Schafmeister's work, this means:
+
+| Empirical parameter set | Source | Passepartout role |
+|---|---|---|
+| DFT functional parameters | Fitted to known systems | Trace which functional was used for each calculation |
+| Force field parameters (AMBER, CHARMM) | Fitted to QM + experiment | Trace parameter provenance; flag known failure regimes |
+| Solvation free energies | Calibrated to measured solubilities | Track calibration data and confidence intervals |
+| Binding affinity benchmarks | PDBbind, DUD-E, experimental IC50 | Track benchmark provenance; report uncertainty |
+| Spiroligomer design rules | Schafmeister's own experimental data | Formalize as knowledge graph with experimental backing |
+
+**The nature of the bridge.**
+
+The middle of the knowledge tree is not a chain of theorems. It is a lattice of formal models scaffolded by empirical commitments. Each layer relies on the formal correctness of the layer below (the QM solver is correct), but also on approximations and parameters that are not deductively justified.
+
+This is not a weakness of the architecture. It is a correct description of the relationship between mathematics and experiment. The bridge from logic to nanotechnology is built from:
+
+- **Formal mathematics** for what can be proven (the core theories, the algorithms, the simulation correctness)
+- **Models with provenance** for what cannot be proven but works (the approximations, the force fields, the scoring functions)
+- **Empirical validation** for the claim that the models match reality (experimental data, benchmarks, error bars)
+
+Passepartout's contribution is not to eliminate the empirical layers — that is impossible. Its contribution is to make explicit which parts are deductively verified, which are empirically fitted, and what the provenance trail is for every numerical value that enters a computation. The system cannot make chemistry deductive. It can make every computational output traceable to its assumptions.
+
+---
+
+- [[id:f4e5d6c7-b8a9-0c1d-2e3f-4a5b6c7d8e9f][Schafmeister and Clasp]] — the nanotechnology branch
+- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Passepartout Architecture]] — where verification lives
+- [[id:9c0d1e2f-3a4b-5c6d-7e8f-9a0b1c2d3e4f][Stage 7 — What Remains]] — oracular, physical, and empirical limits

ideas/licensing.org

@@ -1,20 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       67faf52f-9126-50a7-b87e-2bedc610dac7
-:END:
-#+title: Licensing — AGPLv3 + Commercial
-#+filetags: :passepartout:ip:licensing:agpl:commercial:
-
-**AGPLv3 for the public repository.** AGPL closes the ASP loophole: anyone who modifies the software and offers it over a network must release their modified source. Combined with a [[id:caaeee11-ba6f-5566-aecd-f171b4c459c0][patent strategy]], this creates [[id:aa6d062e-a520-5d14-8773-00687ed9c689][moats]] against proprietary forks.
-
-Crucially: AGPL is a *product requirement*, not a concession. The system's value proposition is provable correctness — every decision has Merkle provenance. This claim is structurally incredible with closed source. An enterprise buyer needs to inspect the gate stack, verify the Merkle implementation, and confirm ACL2 integration. AGPL makes this possible without signing an NDA. This transparency also enables a [[id:1a2b38df-20ba-58ca-ba55-a072be67bd0d][PDS as a service]] model where enterprises can run their own infrastructure.
-
-**AGPL only covers modifications to code, not:**
-- Gate rules specific to a domain (these are data, not code)
-- The fact store (empirical data generated from usage)
-- Ontology categories (design decisions stored as configuration)
-- Proprietary skills loaded at runtime (AGPL boundary on plugin systems is legally unsettled)
-
-**Dual license model:**
-- AGPLv3 for open source — builds ecosystem, trust, community
-- Commercial license for enterprises that cannot accept AGPL — MySQL/SugarCRM/GraphQL model

ideas/lisp-economics.org

@@ -1,17 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       9af13fff-9725-542b-93b1-a555bc74ad72
-:END:
-#+title: Why Lisp Is Economically Viable Now
-#+filetags: :passepartout:economics:lisp:history:C:viability:
-
-The 1980s trade-off was: C is cheap enough for the market. Correctness is a luxury the market cannot afford. The 2020s trade-off is: C is expensive for the market. Incorrectness has become the dominant cost of software. Lisp's verification infrastructure is now the cheaper option.
-
-Four transformations flipped the economics:
-
-1. **Memory is free.** 40MB runtime is noise on a $20 Raspberry Pi with 8GB RAM. In 1980, DRAM was ~$5,000/MB.
-2. **Transistors are free.** Modern ARM Cortex-A72 has billions of transistors. GC and type dispatch cost nothing because the transistors are there whether used or not.
-3. **Complexity saturates human verification.** Systems are tens of millions of lines. Testing is necessary but insufficient — zero-day vulnerabilities prove bugs survive all testing. Formal verification is the only known path.
-4. **Cost of failure exceeds cost of verification.** A single breach costs millions. Regulation mandates provable compliance. Proving correctness is cheaper than not proving it.
-
-The [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][verification appliance]] (AGPL symbolic engine + RISC-V Lisp μcode on FPGA) costs $5,000/year and replaces $500,000/year in compliance audits, breach litigation, and regulatory fines. This [[id:0b5a8a74-cfd6-542d-bc88-4eb3cd8626f9][cost structure]] — zero marginal cost per additional user — is what makes Lisp economically viable at scale. The [[id:13e6ae54-2d24-5aa0-b1cd-a7e8e749aa70][self-driving Lisp Machine]] is the hardware endpoint of this economic logic. For the biological analogy that explains why Lisp architecture is a natural outcome of complexity pressure, see [[id:2afd9a3c-e96a-54c7-ac77-a05a28065b4b][biology parallels]]. For the historical precedent, see the [[id:00ab3a4d-e3de-5605-a67d-12935bb36ab5][comparison with Symbolics Genera]]. The [[id:5f55bbe6-d243-5766-8ccf-5c5cc88a6542][impact on the AI industry]] is the market-side consequence.

ideas/neurological-software-empirical-middle.org

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-25 Mon]
+:ID:       4b5c6d7e-8f9a-0b1c-2d3e-4f5a6b7c8d9e
+:END:
+#+title: Neurological Software in the Empirical Middle
+#+filetags: :ideas:passepartout:architecture:world-models:
+
+The empirical middle of the knowledge tree (layers 8-14) is increasingly dominated by neural networks trained on data — not symbolic equations with fitted parameters. ANI, MACE, SchNet for molecular energies and forces. AlphaFold for protein structure prediction. Neural docking scores, learned solvation models, QSAR neural nets, RL-based molecular design agents. These are not traditional empirical models with interpretable parameters. They are learned function approximators with millions of inscrutable weights.
+
+The three-pronged architecture must accommodate them. This note analyzes how.
+
+**What changes when the model is a neural network.**
+
+A traditional empirical model (force field, solvation equation, docking scoring function) has:
+
+- A **symbolic expression** for the relationship between inputs and outputs (E = k_b(r - r_0)² + ...)
+- **Interpretable parameters** that correspond to physical quantities (spring constant = 600 kcal/mol/Ų)
+- **Known failure modes** from the equation's form (harmonic approximation fails at extreme bond lengths)
+
+A neural network model has:
+
+- A **learned function** with no simple symbolic expression
+- **Inscrutable parameters** (weights) that do not correspond to physical quantities
+- **Unknown failure modes** — neural networks interpolate well in-distribution and fail unpredictably out-of-distribution
+
+From the architecture's perspective, the critical difference is not that neural networks are harder to verify (they are, but that is a secondary concern). The critical difference is that the provenance information shifts: instead of tracking where a parameter value came from and what it means, you track what the network was trained on, what it was validated against, and whether the current input resembles its training distribution.
+
+**The provenance store handles the shift by tracking three things instead of one.**
+
+A traditional empirical model's provenance entry:
+
+```
+Model: AMBER ff14SB
+Equation: Harmonic bond + harmonic angle + Fourier torsion + LJ + Coulomb
+Parameters:
+  - k_b(C-C): 600 kcal/mol/Ų, source: Cornell et al. (1995), validated: 50+ small molecules
+  - r_0(C-C): 1.525 Å, source: Cornell et al. (1995), validated: 50+ small molecules
+  - ...
+Validity envelope:
+  - Temperature: 273-373K
+  - Solvents: water, methanol, ethanol
+  - Molecule classes: proteins, nucleic acids
+```
+
+A neural network model's provenance entry:
+
+```
+Model: ANI-2x
+Architecture: Ensemble of 8 evidential ANI networks
+Parameters: ~8 million weights — not interpretable individually
+Training data:
+  - Level of theory: ωB97M-D3(BJ)/def2-TZVPPD (DFT)
+  - Molecules: ~8 million conformations from 63,000 organic molecules
+  - Elements: H, C, N, O, S, F, Cl, Br
+  - Conformational coverage: ANI-2x conformational space (RDKit + stochastic sampling)
+Validation benchmarks:
+  - COMP6 benchmark (drug-like molecules): MAE 1.2 kcal/mol
+  - Dihedral profiles: MAE 0.8 kcal/mol
+  - Isomerization energies: MAE 0.9 kcal/mol
+Validity envelope (domain check):
+  - Elements: H, C, N, O, S, F, Cl, Br only
+  - Atomic charge range: not validated for charged species outside training distribution
+  - Conformational novelty flag: activated if RMSD to nearest training point > threshold
+```
+
+The structure is the same: model → training/validation data → domain of applicability. The content differs: traditional models have interpretable parameters with experimental sources; neural networks have training dataset provenance and aggregated validation benchmarks.
+
+**The gate checks the same things regardless of model type.**
+
+The gate predicates for model validity are:
+
+1. **Does the model support the elements/atoms/molecule types in the current input?** — This is the same check for a force field (does the force field have parameters for this atom type?) and a neural network (was this element in the training data?).
+
+2. **Are the conditions within the model's validated range?** — Temperature, pressure, solvent, etc. Same predicate, same structure. The neural network's validated range may be narrower or less well-defined, but the check is the same.
+
+3. **Is the input within the model's training/validation distribution?** — For traditional models, this is a direct validity envelope check. For neural networks, this is a **distribution match** — a statistical check that the current molecular conformation resembles the training set. If the input is far from the training distribution in latent space, the gate flags it regardless of whether the model predicts confidently.
+
+The distribution match check is the new machinery that neural network models require. It is a standard technique in reliable ML (distance to training data, density estimation in latent space, conformal prediction). It integrates into the gate as a predicate: "input is within training distribution: PASS" or "input is outside training distribution: FLAG with confidence reduction."
+
+**The symbolic engine does not need to understand the network.**
+
+This is the key simplification. The symbolic engine — ACL2, the gate predicates, the formal reasoning — does not need to parse the neural network's weights or architecture. It needs to:
+
+- Query the provenance store for the model's training data description
+- Compute a distribution match score for the current input against the training data
+- Compare the result to a threshold from the validity envelope
+- Output: pass, flag, or block
+
+None of these operations require understanding what the network does. They are metadata operations on the provenance store and geometric operations on the input space. The network itself is a black box — the symbolic engine treats it as a function with a known domain of applicability, the same way it treats a force field as a function with a known validity envelope.
+
+**The oracle handles model selection.**
+
+Which model to use for a given problem — traditional force field or learned neural network? The LLM oracle handles this, informed by the provenance store. The store tells the LLM what models are available, what they are validated for, and how they perform on relevant benchmarks. The LLM recommends. The gate checks the recommendation against the validity envelope before execution.
+
+This is where the architecture connects to the real world of model selection that computational scientists face daily. There is no single best force field or neural network architecture for all problems. The choice depends on the molecule class, the property of interest, the required accuracy, and the computational budget. The LLM, with its broad knowledge of the literature, is well-suited to making this recommendation — not by reasoning about the models from first principles, but by knowing which models are preferred for which use cases from training data.
+
+**The full picture: three kinds of empirical model.**
+
+The provenance store now handles three data types:
+
+| Model type | Example | Parameters | Validation method | Gate check |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Symbolic equation + fitted parameters | AMBER force field | Interpretable (spring constants, partial charges) | Per-parameter: source experiment, confidence interval | Validity envelope: temperature, solvent, molecule class |
+| Trained neural network | ANI-2x | Inscrutable (8M weights) | Per-dataset: benchmark MAE, held-out test set | Distribution match: is input like training data? |
+| Hybrid (learned correction to symbolic model) | Δ-ML corrections to DFT | Partially interpretable corrections + network weights | Per-benchmark + per-component | Both envelope + distribution match |
+
+All three are handled by the same provenance store, the same gate predicates, and the same LLM oracle. The only new infrastructure required is the **distribution match check** for neural network models — a piece of statistical machinery that computes how similar the current input is to the model's training distribution.
+
+**Where this fits in the stage plan.**
+
+- **Stage 0-1**: The provenance store does not exist. Neural network models are loaded as black boxes with no systematic validity checking. This is current practice in computational science — the user is responsible for knowing whether a model applies to their problem.
+
+- **Stage 2**: The provenance store begins operation. Initially it handles traditional symbolic-fitted models because they have clear provenance chains and validity envelopes. Neural network models require the distribution match infrastructure, which is a separate development track.
+
+- **Stage 3**: The distribution match infrastructure is operational. The gate can check whether an input is within a neural network's training distribution. The provenance store holds training dataset descriptions, validation benchmarks, and distribution summary statistics for each supported neural network model.
+
+- **Stage 4+**: Neural network models are loaded into the same address space as the symbolic engine and the provenance store. The distribution match check runs at the level of the evaluation loop itself. The gate's validity check becomes a fast native predicate — no querying a separate data store, just reading a hash table and computing a distance in the same process.
+
+**The summary.**
+
+Neural network models trained on empirical data are not a problem for the three-pronged architecture. They fit into the existing framework:
+
+- **The provenance store** tracks training data sources, validation benchmarks, and distribution statistics — instead of parameter sources and confidence intervals.
+- **The gate** checks domain match and training distribution coverage — instead of validity envelopes and parameter regimes.
+- **The symbolic engine** does not need to understand the network — it treats it as a black box with a known domain, the same way it treats a force field.
+- **The LLM oracle** handles model selection — recommending which neural network or traditional model fits the user's problem, informed by the provenance store's benchmark records.
+
+The new infrastructure required is not large — a distribution match function and a training dataset descriptor in the provenance store. Everything else is existing mechanism applied to a new data type.

ideas/open-source-wolfram-lisp.org

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       7a8b9c0d-1e2f-3a4b-5c6d-7e8f9a0b1c2d
+:END:
+#+title: Viability of an Open-Source Wolfram Language / Mathematica in Common Lisp
+#+filetags: :ideas:lisp:mathematics:open-source:
+
+An assessment of what it would take to build a viable open-source equivalent of Wolfram Language and Mathematica in Common Lisp, based on the existing ecosystem and the fundamental architectural alignment between Lisp and symbolic computation.
+
+**The alignment is natural, not forced.**
+
+Wolfram Language is, at its core, a term-rewriting system with pattern matching, rule-based transformation, and a uniform symbolic representation for everything (expressions are trees of the form head[arg1, arg2, ...] — the Wolfram equivalent of cons cells). This is very close to what Lisp is natively. A Lisp implementation of the core evaluator — pattern matching, rule application, substitution, term rewriting — is not a foreign port. It is an exercise in expressing Wolfram's semantics in a language whose semantics were designed for the same problem domain.
+
+Maxima proves this historically. It is a direct descendant of Macsyma, the MIT computer algebra system that inspired Mathematica. Macsyma was written in Lisp. Mathematica's core evaluation model inherits heavily from Macsyma. An open-source Common Lisp computer algebra system already exists, has existed for decades, and works. The question is not whether it can be done, but how much of the modern Mathematica ecosystem can be replicated and at what cost.
+
+**What already exists.**
+
+| Layer | Existing CL work | Status |
+|---|---|---|
+| Symbolic engine / term rewriting | Lisp readers, pattern matching libs (trivia, optima, fare-matcher), rule systems | Foundational primitives exist, no unified Wolfram-equivalent evaluator |
+| Computer algebra system | Maxima, FriCAS (Axiom), reduce-algebra | Mature CASes — Maxima alone has differentiation, integration, ODEs, linear algebra, tensors, series, limits, Laplace transforms |
+| Numerical computing | magicl, lla (Lisp Linear Algebra), CL-NUM, GSLL (GNU Scientific Library bindings) | Solid — covers BLAS, LAPACK, random numbers, special functions, optimization |
+| Visualization | cl-cairo2, Vecto, CLG, CommonQt, cl-zxing | Exists but scattered — no unified plotting framework like Mathematica's |
+| Notebook interface | cl-jupyter, common-lisp-jupyter, Lem | Jupyter kernel works. Lem is a native editor approaching notebook capability. No Mathematica-level notebook yet. |
+| Rule-based programming | fare-matcher, optima, prolog implementations | Pattern matching is good. Full term-rewriting system needs assembly. |
+| Knowledge graph | gbrain, various triplestore libs | Possible but would need Wolfram Alpha-level investment |
+| Deployment | ASDF, Quicklisp, SBCL standalone executables | Better than Mathematica's deployment story — Lisp produces real executables |
+
+**The hard parts.**
+
+1. **The standard library is the product, not the engine.** Mathematica ships thousands of built-in functions — every mathematical special function, every statistical distribution, every graph algorithm, every image processing filter, every string operation, every data format parser. This is not a technical challenge; it is a sheer volume problem. The open-source answer is to wrap existing C/C++ libraries (GSL for special functions, OpenCV for image processing, igraph for graph algorithms, etc.) and expose them through a unified symbolic interface. This is the Clasp approach: interop with mature C++ libraries rather than rebuilding everything from scratch in Lisp. The Wolfram equivalent would be a CLOS-based symbolic dispatch layer that wraps these libraries and makes them accessible through a consistent term-rewriting evaluator.
+
+2. **The notebook interface is a product in itself.** Mathematica's notebook is not a terminal with nice formatting. It is a computational notebook with inline typeset math, dynamic graphics, collapsible sections, live evaluation, and a rich document model. The Jupyter ecosystem solves half of this. A Lisp-native notebook would need a rendering engine for mathematical notation (LaTeX or MathJax integration), inline interactive graphics, and a document model compatible with literate computation. Lem is the most promising starting point — it already has Emacs-like extensibility, a GTK frontend, and a Lisp-native codebase. Extending Lem to support computational notebooks with inline graphics and typeset output is the shortest path.
+
+3. **Performance for specialized domains.** Mathematica's kernel is highly optimized for symbolic operations — pattern matching over large expressions, automatic algorithm selection, memoization, and incremental compilation. A naive Lisp implementation would match Mathematica for small-to-medium expressions but would need significant optimization work for the heavy cases (symbolic integration of large expressions, graph operations on million-node graphs, image processing pipelines). The advantage is that Lisp's compiler infrastructure (SBCL's type inference, VOPs, inlining) gives a much better baseline than most languages. SBCL can generate code that approaches C speed for numerical kernels.
+
+4. **The knowledge graph (Wolfram Alpha).** Mathematica's integration with Wolfram Alpha — querying computable data about chemistry, geography, finance, linguistics, etc. — is a separate product with a massive engineering investment in data curation. An open-source equivalent would not replicate this. It would either provide a local, user-curatable knowledge base (gbrain fits here) or integrate with existing open knowledge graphs (Wikidata, DBpedia). The gbrain connection is interesting: if Passepartout's knowledge store can answer factual queries with provenance, that becomes the Wolfram Alpha equivalent for the Lisp Mathematica.
+
+5. **Package ecosystem and community.** Mathematica's advantage is not just its engine but its ecosystem — thousands of paclets, the Wolfram Function Repository, the community that shares notebooks. An open-source equivalent needs a package manager (Quicklisp solves this for Lisp libraries), a repository for symbolic packages (a Wolfram Function Repository equivalent), and a critical mass of users who both use and contribute. Maxima has users but not contributors. The gap is community formation, not technical capability.
+
+**The viability assessment.**
+
+| Domain | Viability | Timeline estimate | Risk |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Core symbolic evaluator | High — Lisp was designed for this | 6-12 months for working prototype | Low — well-understood problem |
+| Computer algebra | High — Maxima already exists | Integrate now; polish 1-2 years | Low — needs UI/UX investment |
+| Numerical computing | High — wrappers exist | 3-6 months for unified interface | Low — wrapping problem |
+| Visualization | Medium — scattered pieces | 1-2 years for unified framework | Medium — needs new work |
+| Notebook interface | Medium — Lem as foundation | 1-2 years to Mathematica parity | Medium — significant UX engineering |
+| Standard library breadth | Low — volume problem | 3-5 years with community | High — needs sustained contribution |
+| Knowledge graph | Low — curation cost | 2-3 years for basic integration | High — different product category |
+| Deployment | High — Lisp executables | Works now | None |
+
+**The strategic question.**
+
+The real question is not "can we replicate Mathematica in Lisp" but "should we?" — and if so, for whom.
+
+Mathematica serves two distinct use cases:
+
+- **Interactive exploration** — a researcher types an integral, gets a result, visualizes it, iterates. Lisp + Maxima + a good notebook interface already does this, and the experience is competitive for anyone comfortable with Lisp syntax.
+- **Deployed computation** — a company builds a production pipeline around Mathematica kernels, deploying computation as a service. Lisp executables are dramatically better here — they are real compiled binaries, not managed by a proprietary kernel, deployable without license fees, embeddable anywhere.
+
+For the second use case, the open-source Lisp alternative is already superior. The gap is the first use case: the interactive exploration experience, the breadth of built-in functions, and the cultural acceptance of Lisp syntax in communities that currently write Wolfram Language.
+
+The most viable path is not to clone Mathematica but to integrate Maxima + numerical Lisp libraries under a unified symbolic interface, expose all of it through a Lem-based notebook, and make the Jupyter bridge the primary entry point for users who prefer Python notebooks. This gives you 80% of Mathematica's capability with a fraction of the development cost, and it connects to the existing scientific Python ecosystem rather than competing with it.
+
+**The deeper point.**
+
+Mathematica's architecture is Lisp-like because it was inspired by a Lisp system (Macsyma). An open-source Mathematica in Lisp is not a port. It is a return to the original architectural vision, implemented in the language that vision was originally expressed in. The question is whether the community investment materializes — and that depends on whether there is a use case that justifies it. Passepartout's verification infrastructure may be that use case: a verified symbolic computation engine that reasons about its own results is a Mathematica-like system by necessity, and building it in Lisp is the natural path.
+
+---
+
+- [[id:f4e5d6c7-b8a9-0c1d-2e3f-4a5b6c7d8e9f][Schafmeister and Clasp]] — Lisp in computational nanotechnology, existence proof for Lisp viability in scientific computing
+- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Passepartout Architecture]] — why Lisp and where the symbolic engine fits

ideas/passepartout-bootstrap-mathematica.org

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       8b9c0d1e-2f3a-4b5c-6d7e-8f9a0b1c2d3e
+:END:
+#+title: Could Passepartout Bootstrap Mathematica or mathlib by Itself?
+#+filetags: :ideas:lisp:passepartout:mathematics:
+
+This extends the previous viability analysis with a specific scenario: assuming Passepartout exists at Stage 3+ (full Lisp machine with neurosymbolic engine, verification gate, and self-modification capability), how hard would it be for it to recreate Mathematica or mathlib in pure Common Lisp on its own?
+
+**The bootstrap is architectural, not aspirational.**
+
+The neurosymbolic engine is not just a faster way to write code. It is a closed loop: the LLM proposes implementations, the symbolic engine and ACL2 prover verify correctness, and the self-modification system hot-reloads the result into the running image. This loop runs autonomously, without human intervention. The system writes code, tests it formally, improves it, and keeps the result — permanently expanding its own capability.
+
+This is fundamentally different from a human writing Mathematica. A human writes code, compiles, tests, debugs. Passepartout writes code, has it verified against a formal specification, and loads it into its own runtime. The iteration speed is not hours or days — it is seconds per function, limited only by the LLM's generation latency and the prover's checking time.
+
+**What Passepartout already has.**
+
+At Stage 3, the system ships with:
+
+- A symbolic term-rewriting engine (the evaluator itself is one)
+- Pattern matching and rule-based transformation (native to the gate architecture)
+- ACL2 as a verification backend (can prove properties of generated code)
+- An LLM oracle for proposing implementations (the probabilistic brain)
+- A self-modification system (hot-reloads verified code into the running image)
+- A knowledge store with persistent facts (gbrain-derived)
+
+These are not general-purpose tools that happen to be useful for symbolic mathematics. They are the same tools that a computer algebra system needs, expressed in the same architecture. The evaluator that rewrites a gate policy is the same mechanism that rewrites a symbolic expression.
+
+**What it needs to generate.**
+
+| Component | Can Passepartout generate it? | How |
+|---|---|---|
+| Core symbolic evaluator | Yes, trivially — this is what Lisp *is* | The existing evaluator already does term rewriting. The neurosymbolic engine would create a higher-level pattern-matching layer over it. |
+| Computer algebra (differentiation, integration, simplification) | Yes — known algorithms, formally specifiable | LLM proposes implementation of Risch algorithm, polynomial GCD, Gröbner bases. ACL2 verifies the specification. |
+| Numerical libraries (BLAS, special functions, optimization) | Partial — better to wrap | ACL2 cannot verify floating-point numerics to the same standard. Passepartout would wrap existing C/C++ libraries via Clasp-style interop and verify the interface, not the numerics. |
+| Visualization framework | Yes — UI code, not math | The environment subsystem (Nyxt/Lish) already has rendering primitives. The neurosymbolic engine generates plotting and graphics code against them. |
+| The 5,000+ function standard library | Yes — volume, not novelty | This is the dominant cost. Each function is individually trivial (differentiate x^3 → 3x^2) but there are thousands. Passepartout generates them at LLM speed — roughly one function every 10-30 seconds including verification. |
+| Formal proofs of mathematical theorems (mathlib) | Qualified yes — different logic | mathlib is in Lean's dependent type theory. Passepartout's ACL2 is first-order logic. The theorems can be re-proven in ACL2, but the proofs are not portable. The LLM proposes proof strategies, ACL2 checks them. |
+
+**The rate limit is generation, not computation.**
+
+If Passepartout generates one verified function every 20 seconds (conservative — LLM proposal time + ACL2 verification), that is 180 functions per hour, ~4,300 per day. Mathematica's standard library contains roughly 6,000 documented functions. At this rate, the standard library would take ~1.5 days of continuous generation — assuming the LLM has the domain knowledge to produce correct implementations and ACL2 can verify them.
+
+This is the critical assumption. The LLM (at, say, GPT-4 or DeepSeek level) already knows what every Mathematica function does. It has seen them in training data. The question is whether it can generate a correct Lisp implementation with a formal specification that ACL2 can verify. For most elementary functions (differentiate, integrate polynomial, singular value decomposition, string split, image histogram), the answer is yes — these are well-understood algorithms with clear specifications.
+
+For specialized domains (elliptic curve cryptography, tensor network contractions, symbolic regression of differential equations), the LLM may generate approximately correct implementations that need refinement. The neurosymbolic loop handles this: ACL2 catches the mismatch, feeds the error back, and the LLM regenerates.
+
+**mathlib is a different problem.**
+
+mathlib is not a library of algorithms but a library of formal proofs — mathematical theorems expressed in Lean's dependent type theory, structured as a hierarchy of definitions, lemmas, and tactics. It represents hundreds of person-years of community effort, formalizing undergraduate mathematics and beyond.
+
+Passepartout's verification layer is ACL2, which operates in a different logical framework (first-order logic with induction for total functions, not dependent types). There is no porting mathlib — it would have to be re-proven in ACL2's logic.
+
+The advantage is that the theorems are already known. mathlib tells you exactly what to prove. The LLM reads the Lean statement, translates it to an ACL2 theorem, proposes a proof strategy, and ACL2 attempts the proof. This is a well-structured task for the neurosymbolic loop: the LLM generates proof plans, ACL2 verifies them, and failed attempts feed back to refine the next plan.
+
+The bootstrapping advantage: early proofs (basic arithmetic, set theory) strengthen the ACL2 reasoning library, which makes later proofs (real analysis, topology) faster. The system accelerates as it goes. mathlib's proof dependency graph is the natural generation order.
+
+Estimated timeline for mathlib-equivalent in ACL2, with Passepartout generating autonomously:
+
+| Milestone | Time estimate | Note |
+|---|---|---|
+| Basic arithmetic, algebra, number theory | Days — standard library material | Well-known proofs, simple structure |
+| Real analysis, measure theory | Weeks — proof complexity increases | Non-trivial but well-studied |
+| Abstract algebra (groups, rings, fields) | Weeks — structural, builds on itself | The neurosymbolic loop excels here |
+| Topology, algebraic topology | Months — conceptual depth | Proofs are longer, more strategic |
+| Category theory, homological algebra | Months — abstraction barrier | High-level abstraction, fewer verification primitives |
+| Number theory deep results (FLT, modular forms) | Unknown — research frontier | Passepartout is not proving open problems. It formalizes known results. |
+
+**The bootstrapping compound effect.**
+
+The most interesting property is not that Passepartout can generate Mathematica's library. It is that each generated function becomes part of Passepartout's own capability. After generating the differentiation function, Passepartout uses it to generate the integration function. After generating linear algebra, it uses that to generate optimization algorithms. After generating formal proofs of real analysis, it uses those theorems to verify more complex deductions.
+
+This is not a production pipeline. It is an autodidactic loop: the system generates math, then uses that math to generate more math. The acceleration is exponential in the early phases and linear in the later phases, limited by the rate at which the LLM can produce new correct specifications.
+
+**The real barrier is not technical but oracular.**
+
+At every step, Passepartout depends on the LLM's knowledge of existing mathematics. The LLM has seen most of human mathematical knowledge in its training data. It can propose correct implementations and proof strategies because it has seen them. But for genuinely new mathematics — theorems not present in the training data, algorithms that have not been discovered — the LLM has no signal. Passepartout would be limited by its oracle.
+
+Stage 7 acknowledges this: oracular limits are fundamental. The verification subsystem can check correctness against a specification, but it cannot generate the specification itself. The LLM provides the what; ACL2 verifies the that. Neither provides the why that extends beyond existing knowledge.
+
+**Conclusion.**
+
+Recreating Mathematica's standard library: **days to weeks** of autonomous generation. The volume problem is solvable because the LLM already knows the answer space and ACL2 can verify each function. No human intervention required.
+
+Recreating mathlib's formal proof corpus: **months** of continuous formalization. The neurosymbolic loop maps naturally onto the task of converting known theorems from one logical framework to another. The dependency graph of mathlib provides the optimal generation order.
+
+Neither requires new research. Both are engineering throughput problems that Passepartout's architecture is designed to solve: generate, verify, reload, repeat. The only hard limit is the oracle — the system cannot generate mathematics that the LLM does not already know exists.
+
+---
+
+- [[id:7a8b9c0d-1e2f-3a4b-5c6d-7e8f9a0b1c2d][Viability of open-source Wolfram/Mathematica in Lisp]] — the human-driven assessment
+- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Passepartout Architecture]] — the verification and self-modification systems

ideas/patent-strategy.org

@@ -1,23 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       caaeee11-ba6f-5566-aecd-f171b4c459c0
-:END:
-#+title: Patent Strategy
-#+filetags: :passepartout:ip:patents:legal:
-
-**Likely patentable:**
-- Probabilistic-deterministic split with deterministic gates between LLM proposal and execution (vs every competitor using prompt-based guardrails)
-- Foveal-peripheral context model with Org-tree structured retrieval (targets 2,000-4,000 tokens)
-- Merkle-tree memory with copy-on-write snapshots and operation-level undo/redo
-- Gate-to-fact bootstrap with sufficiency criterion (mechanically extracting facts from gate stack data structures)
-- Macro-layer-as-skill bootstrapping architecture (theorem-proving as hot-reloadable skills)
-
-**Likely not patentable (known techniques):**
-- ACL2 itself (decades old)
-- Screamer for consistency checking (obvious application)
-- Hot-reloadable skills (40 years old)
-- Org-mode as a data format
-
-**Strongest single claim:** The specific combination of probabilistic model + deterministic zero-token safety gates + Merkle memory + symbolic engine with sufficiency criterion. Each element is known; the combination is novel and non-obvious.
-
-**Counterargument:** A patent examiner will argue these are standard OS microkernel architecture, locality of reference, content-addressed storage, and capability-based security applied to an AI agent. The defense: they have never been *combined* in an AI agent, producing emergent effects no single principle produces. These patents would feed into a [[id:67faf52f-9126-50a7-b87e-2bedc610dac7][licensing]] strategy and create [[id:aa6d062e-a520-5d14-8773-00687ed9c689][moats]] against competitors.

ideas/practical-powers-three-pronged.org

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       2f3a4b5c-6d7e-8f9a-0b1c-2d3e4f5a6b7c
+:END:
+#+title: Practical Powers of the Three-Pronged System
+#+filetags: :ideas:passepartout:architecture:
+
+What can Passepartout do with its three layers — deductive proofs, provenance-tracked empirical models, and probabilistic oracle — that a conventional system cannot? This note catalogs the practical powers that fall out of the architecture, not as abstract potential but as concrete capabilities.
+
+**1. It can tell you how wrong every result might be.**
+
+This is the single most important power. Computational science today produces precise-looking numbers with no error bars. A molecular dynamics simulation outputs "binding free energy: −9.2 kcal/mol" and the number looks definitive. It is not. It depends on a chain of models (force field, solvation, sampling, scoring) each with its own uncertainty.
+
+Passepartout traces the chain automatically. It reports: "binding free energy: −9.2 kcal/mol ± 1.4 kcal/mol. Breakdown: force field uncertainty ±0.8 kcal/mol, solvation model ±0.5 kcal/mol, conformational sampling ±0.3 kcal/mol, scoring function ±0.6 kcal/mol. Model validity regime: proteins in water at 298K ± 25K. Your conditions fall within this regime."
+
+No computational chemistry package does this today. Every one outputs a precise number and leaves the uncertainty to the scientist's judgment.
+
+**2. It can prevent you from using a model outside its valid range.**
+
+A force field parameterized for soluble proteins at room temperature gives plausible-looking numbers for a membrane protein at body temperature, but those numbers are not physically meaningful. The simulation runs, produces output, and a human who does not know the force field's history may trust the result.
+
+Passepartout's gate catches this at the check level: "This force field was validated for aqueous solutions of soluble proteins at 273-373K. Your simulation involves a lipid bilayer environment at 310K. Three of the lipid-specific parameters are outside their validated range. Recommendation: use a membrane-specific force field (CHARMM36m) instead. Confidence reduction: 40% if you proceed with current selection."
+
+This is a fundamentally new kind of safety. Not "is this action malicious?" but "is this computation sound?"
+
+**3. It can detect when a model is getting worse.**
+
+Empirical models degrade over time. A force field fitted to 1990s experimental data may be worse than a later version fitted to more data, but there is no automatic mechanism to detect this. A scientist who has been using the same force field for a decade may not realize it has been superseded.
+
+Passepartout tracks every model version. When it processes a new publication with updated parameters, it can compare: "The AMBER ff99 parameters you are using were superseded by ff14SB in 2014 and ff19SB in 2019. The newer parameter sets improve backbone dihedral prediction by 30% for the protein class you are simulating. Migrate to ff19SB?" It does this because every parameter has a timestamp, a source, and a validation record.
+
+**4. It can compare predictions to experiments automatically.**
+
+Every time Passepartout makes a computational prediction and receives (or the user provides) an experimental measurement for the same system, it records the comparison. Over hundreds of comparisons, it builds a systematic bias profile for each model: "This force field consistently underestimates binding affinity for charged ligands by 0.5-1.0 kcal/mol. This solvation model overestimates solubility for aromatic compounds."
+
+These bias profiles are not research papers. They are accumulated operational knowledge that makes future predictions more interpretable. No existing system does this because no existing system treats models as entities with provenance rather than as files on disk.
+
+**5. It can red-team its own reasoning.**
+
+The probabilistic oracle (LLM) proposes a conclusion. The deductive layer (ACL2) checks the formal steps. The provenance layer (empirical knowledge base) checks whether the models used are valid for the context. If all three agree, the conclusion is as reliable as the system can make it. If they disagree, the conflict itself is informative: "The formal mathematics checks out, but the models supporting it are outside their validated range. Your conclusion may be mathematically correct but physically unsupported."
+
+This is a kind of epistemic hygiene that no single-layer system can achieve. A purely probabilistic system (LLM alone) can be confidently wrong. A purely deductive system (prover alone) can only reason within its formal domain. A purely empirical system (database alone) cannot synthesize across domains. The three layers cross-check each other.
+
+**6. It can build a community knowledge graph of what works.**
+
+When multiple Passepartout instances use the same model in different conditions and compare to experimental data, the combined record extends the model's validity envelope. One instance validates a force field for ethanol. Another validates it for DMSO. A third validates it for mixed solvents. The model's validity envelope grows across the network without any single instance having to run all the experiments.
+
+The social protocol becomes the mechanism for this sharing: instances publish validation results as signed, provenance-tracked claims. The network aggregates them. A model that starts with a narrow validity envelope (water, 298K) gradually accumulates enough validation data to cover a wide range of conditions.
+
+No existing scientific software network does this. Journals publish individual validation studies; nobody aggregates them into a living validity map for each model.
+
+**7. It can generate a defensible record for regulatory submission.**
+
+If a pharmaceutical company uses Passepartout in a drug discovery pipeline, every simulation result carries a full provenance chain: force field version and source, solvation model parameters and validation benchmark, conformational sampling algorithm and integrator settings, gate checks that passed, uncertainty budget per component.
+
+This record is essentially a compliance document. It answers the question "how do I know this result is reliable?" with a traceable chain of evidence, not a scientist's assertion. For industries regulated by the FDA, EMA, or similar bodies, this is the difference between a simulation being used for guidance and a simulation being accepted as evidence.
+
+**8. It can be wrong honestly.**
+
+This sounds trivial but it is the hardest thing for software to do. Every scientific software package presents its outputs with equal authority. A result from a high-quality QM calculation and a rough empirical estimate look the same in the output file — just numbers.
+
+Passepartout would output: "This result is deductively proven (ACL2-verified, level 0-7)." or "This result is computationally rigorous within an empirical model (provenance-tracked, level 8-14, validity envelope intact)." or "This result is an extrapolation outside the model's validated range. Confidence is low. Here is what would need to be measured to increase confidence."
+
+Honesty about uncertainty is a power because it changes what you can do with the result. A deductively proven result can be used as a building block for further proofs. An empirical result within its validity envelope can be used for design decisions with known risk. An extrapolation should only be used for hypothesis generation. Passepartout would know which is which and tell you.
+
+**9. It can refuse an unsound instruction.**
+
+Today, if you ask a computational chemistry package to run a simulation, it runs the simulation. It does not check whether the settings are physically meaningful. The error is not caught until a human reviews the output — if they ever do.
+
+Passepartout's gate can say: "I will not run this simulation. The requested temperature (500K) exceeds the force field's validated range (273-373K). The solvent (hexane) has no validated parameters in this force field version. The simulation will produce numerically precise but physically meaningless results. If you want to proceed, I will flag all output as extrapolation with a confidence score of 0.3 out of 1.0."
+
+The power is not that Passepartout prevents the simulation. It is that Passepartout makes the choice explicit: the human can override, but the override is recorded, and the result is tagged with its true reliability rather than appearing to be definitive.
+
+**10. It can connect mathematics to reality without faking it.**
+
+This is the deepest power. A conventional system either stays in the pure formal domain (proof assistants, CAS) or stays in the empirical domain (simulation software, ML). Passepartout bridges them by making the boundary explicit.
+
+A mathematician can prove a theorem (layers 0-3). An engineer can build a bridge using empirical models (layers 8-12). Passepartout can connect the two: "The finite element equations for this bridge are verified against classical mechanics (layer 4). The material parameters come from ASTM standard tests on this specific steel alloy (layer 8-9, validity envelope: −20°C to 60°C, validated by 200+ measurements). The load calculations carry ±3% uncertainty based on material parameter variance." The bridge is not proven safe — no software can prove a physical structure is safe — but the chain from mathematical foundation to empirical measurement is fully transparent.
+
+**Summary: three kinds of power.**
+
+| Layer | What it verifies | What it enables |
+|---|---|---|
+| Deductive proofs | Correctness against axioms | Autonomous generation of verified algorithms |
+| Provenance-tracked models | Implementation fidelity + data source | Scientific integrity, uncertainty budgets, audit trails |
+| Probabilistic oracle | N/A (generates hypotheses) | Synthesis, model selection, natural language interface |
+
+Alone, each layer is a tool. Together, they form a system that can reason formally, model empirically, communicate naturally — and tell you which mode is in effect for every result it produces.

ideas/revenue-hub.org

@@ -1,167 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:ID:       ed05cab4-88e9-4e25-b7c9-346fa39c69a0
-:ID:       revenue-hub
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-23 Sat]
-:END:
-#+title: Revenue Streams — Overview
-#+filetags: :passepartout:revenue:index:business-model:
-
-This page is the entry point for revenue generation thinking across all three triad components. Revenue splits cleanly across the two development phases defined in [[id:dc2e4f22-1c4c-5d4a-a151-f96e5d3b0d70][time estimates]]. Each component enables different revenue primitives.
-
-* Revenue by Triad Component
-
-** Logos (the mind) — Revenue streams
-
-Existing coverage — [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][Verification appliance]], [[id:c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c][Domain gate packages]], [[id:45258a2d-1675-562c-9024-5d1eb2f1ea56][Evaluation harness]], [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][Compute marketplace]], [[id:d84679f1-c0c5-5be4-b19c-6573560640ee][Verified skill marketplace]]:
-
-| Stream | Phase | Description |
-|--------+-------+-------------|
-| Verification appliance | Zero | FPGA/Tenstorrent pre-loaded with [[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout]] + gate rules |
-| Domain gate packages | Zero | SaaS subscriptions per compliance domain |
-| Evaluation harness | Zero | Certification-as-a-service, regression suite access |
-| Compute marketplace | Both | Verified symbolic engine cycles via [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] |
-| Verified skill marketplace | End State | Commission on third-party gate rules |
-
-*** Unexplored Logos streams
-
-| Stream | Phase | Rationale |
-|--------+-------+-----------|
-| Verified API gateway | Zero | Drop-in proxy for LLM calls. Passepartout verifies inputs, outputs, and provenance. Enterprise customers get a verifiable audit trail for every API call. Near-term product: run your OpenAI/Anthropic calls through Passepartout and get proof. |
-| Agent-as-a-service | Zero | Cloud-hosted Passepartout instances. Pay-per-verification or monthly subscription. The compute marketplace for individuals who don't self-host. |
-| Continuous compliance monitoring | Zero | Watch a deployment, continuously verify it against regulatory gate rules, alert on drift. Annual contract per monitored system. The evaluation harness as a product. |
-| Gate rule SDK [[id:67faf52f-9126-50a7-b87e-2bedc610dac7][licensing]] | Both | Commercial license for the gate rule development toolkit. Free for open-source rules, paid for proprietary enterprise rule development. |
-| Migration pipeline | Zero | Convert existing codebases to verified Lisp. Automated SaaS (point at a repo, get back a verified version). Per-enterprise: $50K-$500K for full migration. |
-| Forensics / incident response | Zero | Merkle memory provides tamper-proof audit. Post-incident: produce an irrefutable chain of what happened, who authorized it, what gates were triggered. Service offering. |
-| Proof repository marketplace | End State | Pre-verified proof libraries per domain (crypto, medical device, finance). Access to accumulated proof strategies from thousands of runs. |
-| Training & certification | Zero | Certified Gate Rule Developer program. Developer camps, certification exams, continuing education. The Red Hat / AWS training model. |
-| Enterprise support SLA | Zero | Guaranteed verification pipeline uptime, priority bug fixes, custom gate rule development. Red Hat subscription model. |
-
-/Verified API gateway/ is notable because it requires zero buy-in to the triad vision. Any company using LLM APIs today can deploy Passepartout as a verification proxy and immediately get value (audit trail, gate compliance, prompt injection detection). It's a standalone product that seeds the ecosystem.
-
-** Stoa (the body) — Revenue streams
-
-This is the /least developed/ revenue arm. Existing docs essentially say people buy hardware and the lock-in compounds. There is a gap:
-
-Existing coverage: essentially none beyond hardware sales.
-
-| Stream | Phase | Rationale |
-|--------+-------+-----------|
-| Lisp Machine hardware | End State | Tenstorrent/FPGA appliances. Hardware margins + recurring gate rules. |
-| [[id:c3b3dc41-945f-54e9-84eb-ca014114f1be][Stoa]] premium | Both | Enterprise features: SSO, audit logging, compliance reports, team management, centralized policy enforcement. Annual seat license. |
-| Plugin and theme marketplace | End State | Verified plugins for Stoa (editors, browsers, shells, tools). Commission on each sale. Developer ecosystem. App Store for the Lisp Machine. |
-| Commercial Lisp image distribution | Both | Verified, signed, compatibility-guaranteed Stoa images. Free self-build (AGPL), paid for certified builds with SLAs. |
-| Enterprise Stoa deployment | Zero | Tools for deploying Stoa across an organization: fleet management, unified gate policy, compliance dashboard. Annual license. |
-| Backup and archive service | Both | Verified snapshots of Stoa Lisp images. Tamper-proof archival of development environments. |
-| Stoa extension SDK | Both | Commercial license for developing proprietary Stoa extensions. Tools, documentation, support. |
-
-Key insight: Stoa does not need the full Lisp Machine to generate revenue. Stoa premium (SSO, audit, compliance reports) and enterprise deployment tools ship on Linux, use the existing Stoa terminal UI, and sell to the same enterprise buyer who buys gate packages. Compliance teams want verified environments — Stoa premium delivers that without waiting for custom hardware.
-
-** Agora (the society) — Revenue streams
-
-Existing coverage — [[id:2e390c1d-65f3-5fb3-b898-ac3fc4291ee7][Agora usernames]], [[id:1a2b38df-20ba-58ca-ba55-a072be67bd0d][PDS as a service]], [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][Compute marketplace]]:
-
-| Stream | Phase | Description |
-|--------+-------+-------------|
-| Premium username registry | Zero | $5-50/yr per handle, auction for high-value names |
-| PDS as a service | Both | $10-1000/mo per hosted personal data store |
-| Compute marketplace | Both | Commission on verified compute transactions |
-
-The most fertile ground is contracts. DIDs provide identity, DIDComm provides communication, PDS provides state, gate rules encode terms, ACL2 verifies execution, and the symbolic engine runs deterministically. This is a full smart contract platform, strictly stronger than existing ones because ACL2 verifies the /rules themselves/, not just execution trace validity.
-
-*** Unexplored Agora streams — contracts
-
-| Stream | Phase | Rationale |
-|--------+-------+-----------|
-| Verified smart contract platform | End State | Deploy contracts on Agora with ACL2-verified correctness. Every contract call produces a machine-checkable proof. Revenue: transaction fees per execution + deployment fee per verified contract. |
-| Contract template marketplace | Zero | Pre-verified contract templates for common use cases (escrow, DAO constitution, SLA, data licensing). Sell templates or take commission on template-based contracts. |
-| Dispute resolution service | End State | When two Agora instances disagree on contract execution, submit to a verified arbitrator. Fee per resolution. |
-| Attestation marketplace | Zero | DIDs + verified actions = verifiable reputation. Attest that a DID meets certain criteria. Revenue: attestation fees, verification fees. |
-| Multi-instance governance | Zero | Cross-instance policy enforcement, unified compliance reporting, federated identity. Enterprise tier, annual license. |
-| Liquid democracy infrastructure | End State | DAO governance as a service. Verified proxy voting, governance contracts. Per-vote transaction fee. |
-| Insurance marketplace | End State | Reputable providers sell proof insurance. Premiums, reinsurance pool fees, actuarial gate rules. |
-| Namespace sub-leasing | Both | Premium handles sub-leased between DIDs. Commission on each lease. |
-| Data sharing contracts | Both | PDS-to-PDS data sharing agreements encoded as gate rules. Commission on each data transaction. |
-
-The contract platform is the kill application for Agora. Ethereum proved demand for verifiable contracts at $20B+/yr in transaction fees. Agora's version is strictly better: ACL2 proves contract /correctness/ (not just valid execution), gate rules encode real-world regulations directly, and the PDS provides persistent state without a global trie bottleneck.
-
-See [[id:64708e1f-00e9-4cb7-b44b-ea0b98e5296d][Agora contracts]] for the full analysis.
-
-* Revenue by Development Phase
-
-** Phase Zero streams (ships with MVP, 1-3 months, Linux-hosted)
-
-| Stream | Component | TAM | Buyer | Revenue type |
-|--------+----------+-----+-------+--------------|
-| Domain gate packages | Logos | Large | CISO/Compliance | SaaS |
-| Verification appliance | Logos | Medium | Enterprise infra | Hardware + subs |
-| Evaluation harness | Logos | Medium | Compliance | Certification |
-| Agora premium usernames | Agora | Small | Individual | Subscription |
-| PDS hosting (basic) | Agora | Medium | Individual | Hosting |
-| Verified API gateway | Logos | Large | Eng teams | Per-call |
-| Continuous compliance monitoring | Logos | Large | Compliance | Annual contract |
-| Migration pipeline | Logos | Medium | Enterprise | Per-engagement |
-| Enterprise support SLA | Logos/Stoa | Medium | Enterprise | Annual |
-| Gate rule SDK (commercial) | Logos | Small | Developers | License |
-| Stoa premium (enterprise) | Stoa | Medium | Enterprise | Annual seat |
-| Enterprise Stoa deployment | Stoa | Medium | Enterprise Ops | Annual |
-| Training and certification | All | Small | Developers | Per-seat |
-| Forensics / incident response | Logos | Small | Enterprise | Per-incident |
-| Contract templates | Agora | Medium | Developers | Per-template |
-| Attestation marketplace | Agora | Medium | Enterprise | Per-attestation |
-| Data sharing contracts | Agora | Medium | Enterprise | Per-transaction |
-| Multi-instance governance | Agora | Large | Enterprise | Annual |
-| Namespace sub-leasing | Agora | Small | Individuals | Per-transaction |
-
-Phase Zero target: $2M-$12M/year (from [[id:5961e469-53a3-5f3c-ab72-3c83ef91963f][investment thesis]]), with upside from verified API gateway and compliance monitoring pushing toward $15-20M.
-
-** End State streams (full Lisp Machine, 2-5 years)
-
-| Stream | Component | TAM | Revenue type |
-|--------+----------+-----+--------------|
-| [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][Verification monopoly]] | Logos/All | $1B+ | Certification |
-| Infrastructure lock-in | All | $100B+ | Rent extraction |
-| Compute marketplace | Agora | Venture-scale | Transaction fees |
-| Lisp Machine hardware | Stoa | Large | Hardware + subs |
-| Smart contract platform | Agora | Very large ($20B+) | Transaction fees |
-| Liquid democracy infra | Agora | Large | Per-vote |
-| Insurance marketplace | Agora | Very large | Premiums + fees |
-| Dispute resolution | Agora | Medium | Per-resolution |
-| Plugin/theme marketplace | Stoa | Large | Commission |
-| Commercial image distribution | Stoa | Medium | Subscription |
-| Proof repository marketplace | Logos | Medium | Subscription |
-| Verified skill marketplace | Logos | Medium | Commission |
-
-* Orders-of-Magnitude Risk Map
-
-Using the [[id:2cdca4b0-6b41-44b4-acb0-af21d0e27b00][orders-of-magnitude framework]], each revenue stream lives at a different scale:
-
-| Scale | Representative streams | Failure mode |
-|-------+-----------------------+--------------|
-| Weeks | Gate packages, appliance pre-orders, training | Wrong pricing, too early |
-| Months | Compliance monitoring, API gateway, PDS, Stoa premium | Churn, incumbents respond |
-| Years | Compute marketplace, contract platform, monopoly | Competition catches up |
-| Generations | Infrastructure lock-in, insurance marketplace | Technology shift |
-
-The phase-zero streams are all direct enterprise sales with short cycles and clear buyers. The end-state streams require installed base — you cannot have a verification monopoly without deployed triads.
-
-* Risk-Ordered Investment Priority
-
-1. Gate rule packages — Lowest risk. Clear buyer, existing budget, no dependency on full stack. Ship first.
-2. Verified API gateway — Standalone product, anyone using LLMs is a customer. Zero triad buy-in required.
-3. Verification appliance — Customers pay for hardware + ongoing subs. Verifiable revenue, long contracts.
-4. Continuous compliance monitoring — Annual contracts, compliance teams budget for it.
-5. Agora usernames — Trivial to implement, tests the namespace concept.
-6. Contract templates + attestation — Seeds the Agora economy without needing full smart contracts.
-7. Compute marketplace — High risk/reward. Requires critical mass. Phase Zero bootstraps with cloud arbitrage.
-8. Verification monopoly — Thesis-level bet. Invest when installed base justifies it.
-
-* Detailed References
-
-- [[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout economics (full thesis)]] — the unified economics document
-- [[id:5961e469-53a3-5f3c-ab72-3c83ef91963f][Investment thesis]] — three revenue horizons, $2M to $1B+
-- [[id:0b5a8a74-cfd6-542d-bc88-4eb3cd8626f9][Cost structure and zero marginal cost]]
-- [[id:81a815ee-bf2b-4365-9894-b814e4196850][revenue table]] — concrete pricing per framework
-- [[id:e4a7b3d2-1c9f-4b6e-8a2d-5f3c7e1b9a0c][Compliance framework index]] — 41 frameworks by region and priority
-- [[id:558154ea-e63a-4c45-998c-26ce8588585b][First-mover window analysis]]
-- [[id:dc2e4f22-1c4c-5d4a-a151-f96e5d3b0d70][Development timeline]] — Phase Zero vs End State
-- [[id:67faf52f-9126-50a7-b87e-2bedc610dac7][Licensing strategy]] — AGPL + commercial

ideas/schafmeister-clasp-nanotechnology.org

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       f4e5d6c7-b8a9-0c1d-2e3f-4a5b6c7d8e9f
+:END:
+#+title: Christian Schafmeister — Common Lisp in Computational Nanotechnology
+#+filetags: :ideas:lisp:nanotechnology:
+
+Christian Schafmeister is a chemistry professor at Temple University in Philadelphia. He created [[https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp][Clasp]], a Common Lisp implementation that interoperates with C++ libraries using LLVM compilation, specifically to solve a problem most Lisp implementers never face: designing molecules at the nanoscale.
+
+**The problem.**
+
+Schafmeister's research focuses on spiroligomers — large, shape-programmable molecules built from synthetic monomers. These are programmable at the level of both shape and functional groups, meaning they can be designed to bind specific proteins as therapeutics or accelerate chemical reactions the way enzymes do. The goal is to create molecules that can do everything proteins do in nature, but that are designable and evolvable by human beings.
+
+This is a computational problem of enormous complexity. Designing these molecules requires simulating their behavior, computing binding affinities, searching conformational space, and iterating designs rapidly based on experimental feedback. The compute pipelines involved typically live in the C++ ecosystem (a vast array of scientific computing libraries), but the workflow itself — rapid prototyping, interactive exploration, incremental development — demands the kind of environment that C++ alone cannot provide.
+
+**Why Lisp won.**
+
+Schafmeister's argument for Common Lisp in computational nanotechnology mirrors the same reasoning that drives Passepartout's architecture:
+
+- **Interactivity.** Molecular design requires exploration. A researcher needs to load data, inspect it, try a transformation, undo it, try another — all within a live environment. Lisp's REPL-driven development provides this in a way that compile-link-run cycles cannot match.
+- **Incremental development.** The design space for spiroligomers is too large to simulate exhaustively. You need to build up models piece by piece, testing each step. Lisp's incremental compilation and hot-reloading make this natural.
+- **Unified representation.** In Lisp, the code that describes a molecule and the code that simulates it share the same structure. There is no translation barrier between the design language and the simulation language.
+
+But the scientific computing ecosystem lives in C++. Schafmeister could not afford to rebuild every computational chemistry library from scratch. So he built Clasp: a Common Lisp implementation that compiles to native code via LLVM and interoperates seamlessly with C++. Clasp can call any C++ library natively, and C++ can call back into Lisp. The result is that the entire scientific computing ecosystem becomes available from within a Lisp environment — programmable, interactive, introspectable.
+
+**The architecture.**
+
+Clasp is not a wrapper or a bridge. It is a full Common Lisp implementation where the C++ interoperation is part of the language runtime itself. The clbind library provides declarative bindings — you describe how C++ classes and functions map to Lisp, and Clasp generates the glue code automatically. This is fundamentally different from CFFI-style foreign function interfaces, which require manual marshaling and are inherently fragile.
+
+From the Lisp perspective, a C++ class appears as a CLOS class. You can subclass it, specialize methods on it, inspect its instances. The boundary between Lisp and C++ is transparent to the programmer.
+
+**Funding and validation.**
+
+Clasp has been funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the National Institutes of Health (NIGMS), and the National Science Foundation. These are agencies that fund computational chemistry and materials design, not programming language research. They funded Clasp because it solved a real problem in molecular design that no other approach addressed: making C++-scale scientific computing work within an interactive Lisp environment.
+
+**Relevance to Passepartout.**
+
+Schafmeister's work is existence proof for two of Passepartout's core claims:
+
+1. Lisp is not a niche language for academic AI research or Emacs configuration. It is being used today to design therapeutic molecules that bind proteins, in environments funded by the NIH and NSF. The interactivity and homoiconicity that Passepartout relies on are the same properties that make this work possible.
+
+2. The single-address-space model is not a limitation but an enabling constraint. Clasp proves that you can run C++ libraries inside a Lisp image, not alongside it. The "Lisp machine" is not a retro fantasy — it is a practical architecture being used today for computationally demanding scientific work.
+
+The main difference is direction: Schafmeister brought C++ into Lisp to access the scientific computing ecosystem. Passepartout replaces the C++ scientific computing ecosystem with verified Lisp-native alternatives. The architectural principle — one representation, one address space, no translation boundaries — is the same in both cases.
+
+---
+
+- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Passepartout Architecture]] — why Lisp is the choice for verified infrastructure

ideas/stoa-overview.org

@@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       42c86e6f-4f27-4993-8238-b7bc7d15fb7b
-:ID:       c3b3dc41-945f-54e9-84eb-ca014114f1be
-:END:
-#+title: Stoa — The Porch (Environment)
-#+filetags: :passepartout:stoa:editor:browser:hardware:
-
-Stoa is the user environment — a single Lisp image where editor, browser, shell, and agent coexist.
-
-**Roadmap:**
-- v2.0.0: Lish editor + Nyxt browser (Stage 1, Qt/WebKit) + Lish shell
-- v3.0.0+: Cannibalization — replace Qt with Lisp-native layout, reduce WebKit to pixel-painting, eventually pure-Lisp browser and window management
-- v4.0.0: Native inference — llama.cpp FFI in-process, DSL-compiled model architectures, live surgery on cognition
-- v5.0.0: [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][Hardware]] — tagged RISC-V architecture via TinyTapeout, FPGA prototype, hardware GC via dedicated bus master
-- v6.0.0: True agency — world models, temporal reasoning, goal persistence across restarts
-
-The architectural principle: Stoa is not a collection of clients connecting to a daemon. The Dispatcher gate stack [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][verifies every action]] regardless of who initiated it. The distinction between "tool" and "self" dissolves. The ultimate goal is a [[id:13e6ae54-2d24-5aa0-b1cd-a7e8e749aa70][self-driving Lisp Machine]] running on custom hardware.

ideas/stoa/_index.org

@@ -1,28 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       c3b3dc41-945f-54e9-84eb-ca014114f1be
-:END:
-#+title: Stoa — The Porch (Environment)
-#+filetags: :passepartout:stoa:editor:browser:hardware:
-
-Stoa (Στοά) is the body/environment layer of the [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][triad]] — editor, browser, shell, and infrastructure all running in a single [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][verified Lisp image]]. The [[id:c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c][Dispatcher gate stack]] verifies every action regardless of who initiated it. The distinction between "tool" and "self" dissolves.
-
-The full roadmap is documented across seven stages on this page, each covering engineering, security, cost, timeline, and practical implications. Start reading from [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 0 — Now]].
-
-The three layers of the triad:
-- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Logos]] — the mind: recorded discourse, verified reasoning, the gate
-- Stoa — the porch: environment, infrastructure, the verified Lisp machine
-- [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] — the society: identity, communication, contracts
-
-Key features across all stages:
-- **No kernel, no process boundaries, no memory corruption** — the verified Lisp evaluator is the only computation substrate
-- **Merkle-verified memory graph** — every object has a [[id:1c95ce7d-a2db-506a-9608-df68f9ae211b][structural hash]], composable proofs of integrity
-- **[[id:45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d][Gate-stack authorization]]** — the Dispatcher is the only path to state mutation, verified in [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][ACL2]]
-- **Dual-unit ASIC** — symbolic core (tagged RISC-V) + tensor unit (cons-cell-native matmul), one chip, one proof
-- **In-process LLM inference** under [[id:45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d][gate-level token interception]] — no API calls, no sandbox to escape
-- **Plist-native weights** — every weight Merkle-verified, provenance from training to inference
-- **[[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][Verified fine-tuning]]** — every gradient step authorized against policy, data consent per example
-- **Neural world model** (LeCun type) — sensory-physical prediction, falsified against the accumulated observation DAG
-- **Common sense** enters through three channels (LLM, world model, causal inference) and is brought under gate control through falsification
-
-The ultimate goal is a [[id:13e6ae54-2d24-5aa0-b1cd-a7e8e749aa70][self-driving Lisp Machine]] running on custom dual-unit silicon.

ideas/stoa/stoa-vision-roadmap.org

@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
----
-title: Stoa Vision Roadmap — The Porch
-type: reference
-tags: :reference:architecture:stoa:
-created: 2026-05-24
----
-
-→ [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 0 — Now]]
-
-Stoa (Στοά) is the body/environment layer of the [[id:d71df46b-9012-433c-86ce-ec21b78eac5f][triad]]:
-
-| Logos  | The mind — recorded discourse (memex + agent) |
-| Stoa   | The porch — editor, browser, shell, infrastructure |
-| [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]  | The society — identity, communication, contracts |
-
-The name comes from the Stoa Poikile (Painted Porch) in ancient Athens,
-where Zeno taught Stoic philosophy. The porch was not the philosophy
-itself — it was the environment that made discourse possible. Stoa is
-the same: not the agent, not the network, but the infrastructure that
-hosts both.
-
-The roadmap and threat model are merged into a single document.
-Each stage covers: what is added, what threats are eliminated, what it
-costs, what it enables, when it is viable, and what it means in practice.
-Appendices at the end cover common sense, the bootstrap axiom, and a
-summary table of eliminated threats.
-
-| Stage | Delivers | Key cost | Timeline |
-|-------+----------+----------+----------|
-| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][0 — Now]] | Baseline: conventional computing | Patching treadmill, no deductive guarantees | Today |
-| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef][1 — Agora]] | Communication integrity, provable DAG | Crypto overhead, key management | Today |
-| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef][2 — Logos]] | Verified gate, capability auth | Policy formalization burden | Today (limited) |
-| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef][3 — Stoa]] | Lisp machine, Merkle memory, no kernel | Lisp tax, no backward compat, single address space | 2-5yr (soft) / 5-10yr (ASIC) |
-| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc5-4def-9876-543210abcdef][4 — Inference]] | In-process LLM, token interception | ~10x compute/RAM/storage | Server now; consumer 3-5yr |
-| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc6-4def-9876-543210abcdef][5 — Weights]] | Plist-native weights, weight-level provenance | ~100x GPU / ~2-5x ASIC | GPU hybrid now; ASIC 5-10yr |
-| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc7-4def-9876-543210abcdef][6 — Training]] | Verified fine-tuning, neural world model | ~100x fine-tuning only | 3-5yr fine-tuning |
-| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc8-4def-9876-543210abcdef][7 — Remaining]] | Physical threats, oracles, speculation, bootstrap axiom | Mitigations are non-computational | Forever |
-
-→ [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 0 — Now]]
-
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       3f24ad65-0845-4e75-a3d7-dc4de734a6ac
-:END:

ideas/triad-index.org

@@ -1,45 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f
-:END:
-#+title: Passepartout Triad — Knowledge Base
-#+filetags: :passepartout:triad:economics:index:
-
-The triad replaces every layer of the modern computing stack with Lisp-native, user-owned, ACL2-verified alternatives. Three components:
-
-- [[id:a1fac32a-47de-5fbd-b67d-29152c851747][Logos (Passepartout) — the cognitive agent]]
-- [[id:c3b3dc41-945f-54e9-84eb-ca014114f1be][Stoa (The Porch) — the environment]]
-- [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora (The Society) — the network]]
-
-Total addressable market: ~$960B/year across cloud, AI, OS, social media, payments, productivity, and compliance.
-
-The business model is the AWS of provable computing: AGPL infrastructure is free, revenue comes from verification appliances, gate rules, certification, namespace registry, hosted PDS, and a [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][compute marketplace]]. Network effects are positive sum — every instance feeds the regression suite and grows the marketplace.
-
-[[id:1c95ce7d-a2db-506a-9608-df68f9ae211b][Lisp Machine security — unified memory threat model]]
-[[id:04c2f221-c54f-51e5-b40a-48822cd16d45][Common Logic (ISO 24707) — relevance to the triad]]
-[[id:a5d59d12-b23e-58d6-a81b-9b8b06556949][Collective regression suite — how it compounds]]
-
-Key analytical frames:
-- [[id:5961e469-53a3-5f3c-ab72-3c83ef91963f][Investment thesis — the unified view]]
-- [[id:9af13fff-9725-542b-93b1-a555bc74ad72][Why Lisp is economically viable now]]
-- [[id:efc76898-03f7-57ba-923d-35d65da88bb7][The per-domain sufficiency flip]]
-- [[id:dc2e4f22-1c4c-5d4a-a151-f96e5d3b0d70][Development velocity and timeline estimates]]
-- [[id:0b5a8a74-cfd6-542d-bc88-4eb3cd8626f9][Cost structure and zero marginal cost]]
-- [[id:aa6d062e-a520-5d14-8773-00687ed9c689][Competitive moats analysis]]
-
-Revenue paths (short to long term):
-- [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][Verification appliance]][[id:c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c][  Domain gate packages]][[id:45258a2d-1675-562c-9024-5d1eb2f1ea56][  Evaluation harness]]
-- [[id:2e390c1d-65f3-5fb3-b898-ac3fc4291ee7][Agora premium usernames]][[id:1a2b38df-20ba-58ca-ba55-a072be67bd0d][  PDS as a service]][[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][  Compute marketplace]]
-- [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][Verification monopoly — the big money]][[id:2f783eb4-638e-5afa-9b59-6224d086a712][  Infrastructure lock-in]]
-
-Strategy and IP:
-- [[id:caaeee11-ba6f-5566-aecd-f171b4c459c0][Patent strategy]][[id:67faf52f-9126-50a7-b87e-2bedc610dac7][  Licensing (AGPL + commercial)]]
-- [[id:5f55bbe6-d243-5766-8ccf-5c5cc88a6542][Impact on the AI/GPU industry]]
-- [[id:29e4dbf3-cf19-589c-8b14-389e8a39d564][Upgrade and distribution lifecycle]]
-- [[id:45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d][Gate rule encoding from codified domains]]
-- [[id:2afd9a3c-e96a-54c7-ac77-a05a28065b4b][Biology as proof of the Lisp model]]
-- [[id:00ab3a4d-e3de-5605-a67d-12935bb36ab5][Comparison with Symbolics Genera]]
-
-The [[id:b25bf753-9799-41ab-82f5-1a1416db756b][Agora protocol overview]] and [[id:a3243dd0-3209-423b-98e1-51c3eada2658][advanced integration]] requirements define how the gate stack connects to Agora's network layer. The [[id:72570648-d943-42e5-a781-3b09791ac6ec][realistic assessment]] covers deployment timelines and adoption risks.
-
-*The lines that run the modern internet (tens of millions across Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft) are replaced by a single coherent architecture where one gate stack verifies everything and one prover proves everything consistent.*

ideas/triad-overview.org

@@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       a1fac32a-47de-5fbd-b67d-29152c851747
-:END:
-#+title: Triad Overview — Logos, Stoa, Agora
-#+filetags: :passepartout:triad:architecture:
-
-The full triad is a self-bootstrapping replacement for the entire computing stack, not a single product.
-
-**Logos ([[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout]])** — The mind. Cognitive agent combining a probabilistic LLM (10% of work) with a deterministic symbolic engine (80%) at near-zero marginal cost. Gate stack, fact store, ACL2 prover, Screamer constraint solver.
-
-**Stoa (The Porch)** — The body. Editor (Lish), browser (Nyxt), shell (Lish), Org-mode filesystem, Qt/EQL5 UI. A single Lisp image where everything coexists. Roadmap: v2.0.0 (Qt/WebKit) → v6.0.0 (pure Lisp, hardware).
-
-**Agora (The Society)** — The network. Self-sovereign DID identity, DIDComm encrypted messaging, [[id:1a2b38df-20ba-58ca-ba55-a072be67bd0d][Personal Data Store]], Relay Network, [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][compute marketplace]], liquid democracy.
-
-All three speak plists. All three operate in Lisp address space. All three are verified by the same ACL2 prover. The gate stack that verifies a shell command also verifies a DIDComm message. See [[id:5961e469-53a3-5f3c-ab72-3c83ef91963f][The See the [[id:b25bf753-9799-41ab-82f5-1a1416db756b][Agora protocol overview]] for how the three triad components fit into Agora's network architecture. [[id:5961e469-53a3-5f3c-ab72-3c83ef91963f][The investment thesis]]]] for the economic rationale and [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][Verification appliance]] for the hardware that enables this unified architecture.

ideas/verification-monopoly.org

@@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
-:PROPERTIES:
-:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
-:ID:       827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920
-:END:
-#+title: The Verification Monopoly (UL for AI)
-#+filetags: :passepartout:economics:monopoly:certification:big-money:
-
-The accumulated regression suite — thousands of edge cases from every deployed instance, every bug fix, every regulatory change — becomes the most comprehensive test of autonomous agent correctness ever assembled.
-
-Any organization claiming a "safe AI agent" needs [[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout]] certification to prove it. This is Underwriters Laboratory for AI — a certification nobody can ignore.
-
-**Revenue:** [[id:67faf52f-9126-50a7-b87e-2bedc610dac7][licensing]] the certification mark to every AI vendor that ships an agent. **Margins:** near-100% once the suite exists.
-
-This is the venture-scale outcome. It depends on the [[id:45258a2d-1675-562c-9024-5d1eb2f1ea56][evaluation harness]] reaching critical mass, which depends on enough instances deploying the software to accumulate edge cases in the regression suite. The [[id:5961e469-53a3-5f3c-ab72-3c83ef91963f][investment thesis]] is built on the recognition that every deployed instance makes this more valuable.
-
-The unique structural advantage: every free instance of the triad feeds the regression suite. The more people use the free software, the more valuable the certification monopoly becomes. Positive sum. This creates deep [[id:2f783eb4-638e-5afa-9b59-6224d086a712][infrastructure lock-in]] and powerful [[id:aa6d062e-a520-5d14-8773-00687ed9c689][moats]] — a competitor cannot replicate the certification without the accumulated history. The ultimate impact is a transformation of the entire [[id:5f55bbe6-d243-5766-8ccf-5c5cc88a6542][AI industry]], where safety certification becomes a prerequisite for market access.

ideas/wider-implications-three-pronged.org

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-25 Mon]
+:ID:       5c6d7e8f-9a0b-1c2d-3e4f-5a6b7c8d9e0f
+:END:
+#+title: Wider Practical Implications of the Three-Pronged System
+#+filetags: :ideas:passepartout:implications:
+
+Beyond Passepartout itself, the three-pronged model — deductive proofs, provenance-tracked empirical models, and probabilistic oracle, all under one gate — has implications for how computation is trusted, regulated, and used across every domain that relies on simulation or AI.
+
+**1. The end of the trust-the-tool default.**
+
+Today, if you run a molecular dynamics simulation in AMBER or a finite element analysis in ANSYS, you trust the result because the tool is widely used. "Everyone uses this software" is the epistemic warrant. The three-pronged system replaces this with an explicit chain: this equation was verified against classical mechanics, these parameters come from a specific experimental paper, this validity envelope covers the conditions you specified. The trust moves from "the tool is popular" to "the chain is traceable."
+
+The implication: a less popular tool with good provenance becomes more trustworthy than an industry-standard tool with none. This changes the competitive dynamics of scientific software — the lock-in shifts from ecosystem size to provenance quality.
+
+**2. AI safety as an architectural constraint, not a training target.**
+
+Current AI safety is probabilistic. We train models not to lie, not to harm, not to be biased. The training is never perfect, the guardrails can be jailbroken, and every new model generation requires retraining the safety layer.
+
+The three-pronged system offers a structural alternative: the LLM can propose anything, but the gate enforces what is actually executed. The LLM cannot write a file, send a message, or run a command — it can only propose. The gate decides. The safety is in the gate's predicates, not in the LLM's training.
+
+The implication: safety becomes provable. You can verify that a gate predicate is correct (it blocks rm -rf / for all inputs). You cannot verify that a trained model is honest. This is the difference between "we hope the AI behaves well" and "the AI physically cannot execute a disallowed action."
+
+**3. Regulatory science with defensible evidence chains.**
+
+Pharmaceutical, aerospace, and medical device companies spend billions on computational simulations that regulators review. Currently, the review relies on the submitting company's assertion that the simulation was run correctly. The provenance chain is in lab notebooks and internal documents, not in the output itself.
+
+A three-pronged system produces outputs with built-in defensibility: every parameter has a source, every approximation is tagged, every gate check is recorded, every uncertainty is budgeted. A regulator can read the output and see: "the force field was parameterized against these 50 experimental measurements, the DFT calculation used this functional and basis set, the validity envelope covers the conditions of interest, the total uncertainty is ±X."
+
+The implication: regulatory review shifts from auditing the company's process to auditing the computation's chain. This is faster, more transparent, and less dependent on the reviewer's expertise in every specific tool.
+
+**4. The reproducibility crisis has a technical solution.**
+
+A major cause of the reproducibility crisis in computational science is incomplete specification of methods. "We used the AMBER force field" is not enough — which version? which parameter set? which cutoff scheme? which solvation model? Which experimental validation was it based on?
+
+The three-pronged system's provenance chain is a complete specification by construction. Every computation is fully described by its model, its parameters, its validity envelope, and its gate checks. Reproducing the computation is a matter of loading the same provenance chain and running it.
+
+The implication: computational reproducibility shifts from a social norm ("please share your code and parameters") to an automated property of the output. If the output does not carry a full provenance chain, it is not fully specified.
+
+**5. Engineering safety margins become explicit.**
+
+Every engineered structure — bridge, aircraft, medical implant — is designed using simulation. The safety margins are specified in standards (factor of 2, factor of 5, etc.) but the actual uncertainty in the simulation is rarely quantified. A civil engineer running a finite element analysis of a bridge does not know the combined uncertainty of the material model, the mesh resolution, the boundary conditions, and the load assumptions.
+
+The three-pronged system would propagate uncertainty through the entire design chain. The output would include: "the failure probability under maximum load is 0.03%, with the following breakdown: material parameter uncertainty contributes 0.02%, mesh discretization contributes 0.005%, load modeling contributes 0.005%."
+
+The implication: safety margins in standards can be replaced or supplemented by model-specific uncertainty budgets. A design with low uncertainty can use a smaller safety factor; a design with high uncertainty must use a larger one. This saves material and weight where the simulation is reliable, and forces conservatism where it is not — the opposite of today's one-size-fits-all approach.
+
+**6. Education in how knowledge works.**
+
+Current STEM education teaches equations and methods. Students learn to compute binding affinities, solve differential equations, run simulations. What they do not systematically learn is the difference between a proven result, a validated model prediction, and a reasonable guess.
+
+A three-pronged system, used in education, would make this distinction visible for every computation. A student simulating a chemical reaction would see: "this reaction barrier was computed at the CCSD(T) level of theory with a complete basis set extrapolation — this is the gold standard in quantum chemistry and is well within the formal domain. The solvation correction uses an implicit solvent model validated against 200 experimental free energies of solvation for neutral organic molecules — this is an empirical model with known accuracy of ±0.5 kcal/mol. The conformational search used a genetic algorithm that may not have found the global minimum — this is a heuristic with no guaranteed completeness."
+
+The implication: students develop epistemic hygiene as a side effect of using the system, not as a graduate-level skill acquired through years of trial and error.
+
+**7. The economics of computational trust.**
+
+Not all computations are equally valuable. A result that is deductively proven can be used as a building block for further proofs — its truth is inherited by any derivation that uses it. A result that is empirically validated is useful for decisions with known risk, but cannot be used as a deductive foundation. A result that is an LLM extrapolation is useful only for hypothesis generation.
+
+The three-pronged system makes this distinction explicit, which has economic implications. A pharmaceutical company might pay more for a binding affinity prediction that carries a full provenance chain and uncertainty budget than for one that is just a number. A patent application based on a proven result is stronger than one based on a simulated one.
+
+The implication: computational results become differentiated products, not interchangeable commodities. The provenance quality is the differentiator.
+
+**8. The social protocol as a scientific knowledge commons.**
+
+When multiple Passepartout instances share validated model parameters through the social protocol, the network accumulates a collective knowledge base that no single instance could build alone. A force field validated by one group for water, another for ethanol, another for DMSO — all shared with full provenance — becomes a model whose validity envelope has been extended across many conditions by distributed effort.
+
+The implication: the social protocol is not just a communication mechanism. It is an infrastructure for distributed scientific knowledge curation. The network effect is not just more users; it is more validated knowledge.
+
+**9. The gate as a universal integrity layer.**
+
+The gate currently checks security and scientific validity. There is no reason it could not check other dimensions of integrity: ethical constraints (do not simulate chemical warfare agents), legal constraints (do not export restricted technology), economic constraints (do not run a compute job that exceeds the user's budget), or institutional constraints (only use models approved by the lab's review board).
+
+The implication: the gate becomes a **configurable integrity layer** that enforces any policy that can be expressed as a predicate over the computation's inputs, models, and parameters. Different users, institutions, or jurisdictions can configure different gate policies without changing anything else in the system. Compliance becomes configuration.
+
+**10. The shift from "what does the software do?" to "how does the system know what it knows?"**
+
+This is the deepest implication. Most software today answers "what does this program output?" The three-pronged system answers "how does the system know that this output is reliable?" — by checking which domain it was produced in, tracing the provenance chain, and reporting the uncertainty budget.
+
+This changes the fundamental question users ask of software. Instead of "is this tool well-regarded?" they ask "is this result proven, validated, or generated?" — and get a different answer for every specific result, not a blanket trust judgment about the tool.
+
+The implication: computation becomes epistemically transparent. The system does not ask the user to trust it. It shows the user what it knows and how it knows it, and lets the user decide what to do with that information.

ideas/world-models-middle-domain.org

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       0d1e2f3a-4b5c-6d7e-8f9a-0b1c2d3e4f5a
+:END:
+#+title: The Middle Domain as World Models
+#+filetags: :ideas:passepartout:world-models:
+
+The middle of the knowledge tree — layers 8 through 14, from quantum chemistry approximations to molecular design heuristics — corresponds almost exactly to what the AI and robotics communities call world models. Recognizing this connection reveals a structural requirement for Passepartout that the current architecture does not explicitly address.
+
+**What a world model is.**
+
+In the AI sense, a world model is a predictive representation that an agent uses to anticipate the consequences of actions. It answers the question: if I do X, what happens next? The classic formulation decomposes this into:
+
+1. A sensory encoder that compresses observations into a latent state
+2. A dynamics predictor that predicts the next latent state given an action
+3. A reward or value predictor that evaluates states
+
+Every layer of the knowledge tree from 8 upward fits this description — it predicts how some aspect of reality evolves given initial conditions, parameters, and boundary conditions.
+
+**The deductive world models (layers 0-7).**
+
+Logic, algebra, analysis, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, electrodynamics — these are world models where the dynamics are deductively complete. Given the state (a wavefunction, a phase space point, a metric tensor) and the equations of motion (Schrödinger equation, Hamilton's equations, Maxwell's equations), the time evolution is determined. No parameters to fit. No learning required. The model is provably correct against its axioms.
+
+These are the world models that ACL2 can verify. The prover can confirm that the Schrödinger solver correctly implements the Schrödinger equation for any input. The correctness is total — not statistical, not empirical.
+
+**The empirical world models (layers 8-14).**
+
+Quantum chemistry approximations, molecular mechanics, molecular dynamics, solvation models, docking scoring functions, reaction mechanism models, molecular design heuristics — these are world models where the dynamics are known in form but empirically parameterized. The functional form of the force field (bond stretching + angle bending + torsions + non-bonded) is a modeling choice. The parameters (force constants, equilibrium lengths, partial charges) are fitted to data. The solvation model has a mathematical structure, but its parameters are calibrated against measured solubilities.
+
+These world models cannot be verified against axioms. They can only be validated against experiment. The validation is always provisional — valid for the molecules and conditions tested, uncertain outside that domain.
+
+**The composition is layered world models, not a single one.**
+
+The critical structural insight: the world models are not independent. They form a dependency hierarchy.
+
+A docking prediction (layer 12) depends on:
+- A solvation model (layer 11) with its own parameters and validity domain
+- A molecular dynamics simulation (layer 10) that samples conformational space
+- A force field (layer 9) that predicts energies and forces
+- Quantum chemistry calculations (layer 8) that parameterize the force field
+- Statistical mechanics (layer 6) that relates ensemble averages to binding free energies
+- Classical mechanics (layer 4) that governs the MD integration
+
+Each layer's uncertainty propagates upward. The docking prediction's error is not the scoring function's error in isolation — it is the compound uncertainty of the force field, the solvation model, the conformational sampling, the MD integrator, and the scoring function, all composed.
+
+**The Passepartout world model formula.**
+
+A world model in Passepartout's architecture is a triple:
+
+**World Model = Verified Equations ⊗ Provenance-Tracked Parameters ⊗ Validity Envelope**
+
+- **Verified Equations** — the formal skeleton: the differential equations, the integration scheme, the force field functional form. Verified by the ACL2 prover against the deductive layer below. This is what the gate can definitively check.
+
+- **Provenance-Tracked Parameters** — the numbers that make the model match reality: force constants, partial charges, solvation parameters, scoring weights. Each carries a source (experimental paper, QM calculation, benchmark dataset), a confidence interval, a validity regime (temperature range, molecular class, solvent type), and a last-validation date.
+
+- **Validity Envelope** — the region of input space where the model has been experimentally validated. A force field parameterized for soluble proteins at 298K in water is valid there; applying it to a membrane protein at 350K in ethanol may produce plausible numbers with no physical meaning. The validity envelope is a learned or specified boundary that the gate checks.
+
+**The neurosymbolic engine's role in world models.**
+
+The neurosymbolic split maps onto world model construction and use as follows:
+
+- The **ACL2 prover** verifies the equations — the form of the model, the correctness of the implementation, the composition of multiple world models into a pipeline. This is deductive assurance.
+
+- The **LLM oracle** handles synthesis — selecting which world model to apply to a given problem, interpreting the model's output in natural language, generating hypotheses about why a prediction failed, proposing new parameterizations or model forms when the existing ones are insufficient.
+
+- A **new provenance layer** (described below) handles the third component — tracking parameters, maintaining validity envelopes, propagating uncertainty, and validating predictions against experiment.
+
+**What this changes in the architecture.**
+
+The architecture describes verification (the gate) and knowledge (the memex). World models require a third subsystem: the **empirical knowledge base** — a structured store of fitted parameters, experimental benchmarks, and validity regimes, with full provenance.
+
+The empirical knowledge base would:
+
+1. Store every parameter used by every world model (force field parameters, DFT functional constants, solvation model coefficients, docking scoring weights).
+2. Attach provenance to each parameter: the paper, dataset, or calculation it came from, the confidence interval, the validity domain.
+3. Track validation history: which experimental measurements have been compared to this model's predictions, with what outcome, and whether the parameters were updated as a result.
+4. Enforce validity regimes at the gate level: if a computation applies a model outside its validity envelope, the gate either blocks it (safe default) or flags it with a reduced confidence score.
+
+This is not the same as the symbolic index (which stores formal facts) or the neural index (which stores embedding vectors). It is a third index over empirical knowledge — parameteric, uncertain, and provisional, but no less essential for its lack of deductive certainty.
+
+**The connection to self-improvement.**
+
+The neurosymbolic engine's self-modification capability applies differently to each part of the world model triple:
+
+- **Verifying new equations** (updating the deductive core): the system generates a new algorithm, ACL2 proves it correct against the specification, it is hot-reloaded. This is the Mathematica-bootstrapping scenario — the system improves its own deductive world models autonomously.
+
+- **Updating parameters** (improving the empirical core): the system compares predictions to experimental measurements, detects systematic bias in a force field, and proposes updated parameters. The update is validated by checking whether the new parameters improve predictions on a held-out benchmark. No proof, just statistical improvement. The provenance trail records the change.
+
+- **Expanding the validity envelope** (learning where models work): the system accumulates computational predictions and experimental results, and learns the boundaries where each model is reliable. This is a continuous process, not a one-time formalization.
+
+The self-improvement loop for empirical world models is slower and more uncertain than for deductive ones — it requires experimental feedback, not just formal verification. But it is equally essential for any system that needs to operate in the real physical world rather than inside a closed formal system.
+
+**The test case.**
+
+Schafmeister's spiroligomer pipeline is the test case for all three components:
+
+- The **equations** — QM calculations (layer 8), force field predictions (layer 9), MD integration (layer 10), thermodynamic integration (layer 11), docking (layer 12), design rules (layer 14) — all need verified implementations.
+- The **parameters** — force field parameters for novel monomer types, solvation parameters for non-standard solvents, scoring function weights for spiroligomer-protein binding — need provenance and validity envelopes.
+- The **validation** — experimental binding assays, catalytic rate measurements, structural characterization (NMR, crystallography) provide the feedback that updates parameter confidence and expands validity regimes.
+
+If Passepartout can handle this pipeline correctly — distinguishing what is verified from what is empirically parameterized, tracking provenance through the composition of multiple world models, and propagating uncertainty from the bottom of the hierarchy to the top — then the architecture is complete. If it cannot, then the architecture only works for pure mathematics.
+
+**Summary.**
+
+| Layer | Type of world model | Verification mode | Key data |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 0-7 | Deductive | ACL2 proof against axioms | Theorems, equations, algorithms |
+| 8-14 | Empirical | Validation against experiment | Parameters, benchmarks, validity envelopes |
+| All | Composed | Provenance + correctness | Traceability through pipeline |
+
+The middle domain is world models. The architecture needs to be built to reflect that.
+
+---
+
+- [[id:9c0d1e2f-3a4b-5c6d-7e8f-9a0b1c2d3e4f][The Middle of the Knowledge Tree]] — the layers from logic to nanotechnology
+- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Passepartout Architecture]] — current architecture

ideas/world-models-plain-language.org

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       1e2f3a4b-5c6d-7e8f-9a0b-1c2d3e4f5a6b
+:END:
+#+title: What the World Model Idea Means — Plain Language
+#+filetags: :ideas:explanation:
+
+An explanation of the world model idea and its implications, written for someone who does not want to parse architectural jargon.
+
+**The basic idea in one sentence.**
+
+Some things you can prove are true (like 2+2=4), and some things you can only model approximately because you have to fit the numbers to real-world measurements (like how strongly a particular molecule bends or twists). Most practically useful knowledge is the second kind.
+
+**The deductive vs. empirical split.**
+
+There is a floor in the building of human knowledge. Below the floor, everything is provable from first principles. This includes:
+
+- Logic (if A implies B and A is true, then B is true)
+- Mathematics (calculus, linear algebra, number theory)
+- Fundamental physics (Newton's laws, the Schrödinger equation, Maxwell's equations)
+
+In theory, a computer with enough power can prove things at this level. Given the right axioms and enough time, it can derive any true statement. This is what ACL2 does — it proves that a piece of code is correct for all possible inputs.
+
+Above the floor, things change. The equations have a known form (bonds stretch like springs, molecules attract each other at long range and repel at short range), but the precise numbers in those equations have to be fitted to experimental measurements. There is no way to derive a spring constant from first principles — you have to measure it.
+
+This includes:
+
+- Chemistry (how strongly does this bond bend? how fast does this reaction happen?)
+- Biology (how tightly does this drug bind to this protein? how fast does this enzyme work?)
+- Engineering (how much weight can this beam hold before it cracks?)
+- Medicine (does this drug work? what dose is safe?)
+- Materials science (how strong is this alloy at high temperature?)
+- Climate science, geology, pharmacology, and almost every other applied science
+
+**The critical observation.**
+
+Most of what humans actually care about lives above the floor. Pure mathematics is beautiful and foundational, but nobody builds a bridge, cures a disease, or designs a drug using only proofs from first principles. Every practical domain works with approximate models that are useful but not deductively certain.
+
+Passepartout's verification engine can handle the stuff below the floor. It can prove that a numerical integration routine is correct, that a sorting algorithm works, that an algebraic simplification is valid. But above the floor, "verification" means something different — not "proven correct from axioms" but "the implementation correctly executes the model, and the model's parameters are traceable to experimental data."
+
+**The three parts of a useful computation.**
+
+In the deductive zone (below the floor), every computation has two parts:
+1. The algorithm (how you compute it)
+2. The verification (the proof that the algorithm is correct)
+
+In the empirical zone (above the floor), every useful computation has three parts:
+1. The equations (the known mathematical form of the model)
+2. The parameters (the numbers fitted to experimental data)
+3. The validity envelope (the range of conditions where the model is reliable)
+
+The equations can be verified — ACL2 can prove that your force field code correctly implements Hooke's law. The parameters cannot be verified; they can only be validated against experimental data. The validity envelope cannot be proven either — it is a learned or declared boundary that says "we checked this model works for these kinds of molecules at these temperatures; outside that range, we don't know."
+
+**What this means for Passepartout.**
+
+**First, the architecture needs three subsystems, not two.**
+
+The neurosymbolic split (probabilistic brain + deterministic prover) only covers the deductive zone. The empirical zone needs a third subsystem — a provenance tracker that stores where every parameter came from, what its confidence interval is, and what range of conditions it has been validated for.
+
+This subsystem does not prove anything. It curates. It ensures that when Passepartout simulates a molecule, every force constant, every partial charge, every solvation parameter has a source that can be checked. If the same parameter was determined by two different experiments with different results, the system can report both and flag the uncertainty.
+
+**Second, the gate gets a new job.**
+
+The gate currently asks "is this action safe?" — should this shell command run, should this file be written, should this network message be sent. With the world model insight, the gate also asks "is this model valid for the context?" — this force field was parameterized for soluble proteins; you are applying it to a membrane protein. The answer may be "block" or "allow with reduced confidence" or "flag for human review."
+
+This is not a security check. It is a scientific integrity check. But it uses the same mechanism — a policy evaluated before the computation proceeds.
+
+**Third, self-improvement splits into two speeds.**
+
+- **Fast loop** (below the floor): Passepartout generates a new algorithm, verifies it with ACL2, and hot-reloads it. This is what the Mathematica-bootstrapping scenario describes — days to generate thousands of provably correct functions. This loop runs autonomously.
+
+- **Slow loop** (above the floor): Passepartout makes a prediction using an empirical model, gets experimental data back (either by performing an experiment or reading a paper), and updates the model's parameters or validity envelope. This loop requires real-world feedback. It cannot run autonomously — it needs data from the physical world.
+
+Both loops matter. The fast loop makes Passepartout mathematically powerful. The slow loop makes it useful for real-world science and engineering.
+
+**What this does not mean.**
+
+This does not mean Passepartout cannot handle empirical science. It means Passepartout handles it differently — with explicit uncertainty, provenance tracking, and validity boundaries, instead of pretending the model is deductively certain.
+
+This is actually a design advantage. Most scientific software treats its parameters as if they were provably correct. Force field databases ship as flat files with no provenance. Passepartout would be the first system that can say: "I am running the AMBER force field. The bond-stretching parameters come from a 1995 paper by Cornell et al., validated against 50 small molecules. The partial charges come from the RESP fitting procedure, applied to HF/6-31G* calculations. The validity envelope covers proteins and nucleic acids in aqueous solution at 273-373K. Your simulation involves a lipid membrane at 350K, which is outside the validated range. The results may be qualitatively correct but the quantitative predictions should be treated with caution."
+
+No existing chemistry software does this. A system that can is more useful than one that cannot, even if the underlying simulation is the same.
+
+**The broader implication.**
+
+The deductive/empirical floor is not a weakness in Passepartout's design. It is a correct description of how knowledge actually works in the physical world. Most systems pretend everything is deductively certain and hide their assumptions. Passepartout would make the assumptions explicit, trace every number to its source, and report uncertainty alongside every result.
+
+This is what it means to build a system that does not lie to you.

projects/_index.org

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       a0b1c2d3-e4f5-6a7b-8c9d-0e1f2a3b4c5d
+:END:
+#+title: Projects
+#+filetags: :index:
+
+All projects documented in this brain. Each project has its own architecture, strategy, and reference material.

projects/flags/_index.org

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       1e5f6a7b-8c9d-0e1f-2a3b-4c5d6e7f8a9b
+:END:
+#+title: Flags — Legal Structures
+#+filetags: :index:
+
+Legal structure analysis for the Passepartout project — entity types, jurisdictional considerations, asset protection, practical setup guides.

projects/flags/asset-protection-structures.org

@@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ Research on corporate structures for a US-incorporated tech company with offshor
 
 * The Assets to Protect
 
-The triad has three distinct asset classes, each with different protection needs:
+Passepartout has three distinct asset classes, each with different protection needs:
 
-1. /IP (Logos):/ [[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout]] codebase, gate rules, ACL2 proof libraries, the [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][verification monopoly]]. This is the core defensible IP. Needs to be owned separately from the operating company so that if the operating company is sued, the IP is not reachable.
+1. /IP (verification subsystem):/ [[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout]] codebase, gate rules, ACL2 proof libraries, the [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][verification monopoly]]. This is the core defensible IP. Needs to be owned separately from the operating company so that if the operating company is sued, the IP is not reachable.
 
-2. /Platform ([[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]):/ The network itself — user base, reputation graph, contract history, protocol specification. This is harder to value and harder to protect because its value is partly in the user base. But the code, protocol spec, and network infrastructure can be owned separately.
+2. /Platform ([[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][the social protocol]]):/ The network itself — user base, reputation graph, contract history, protocol specification.
 
 3. /[[id:ed05cab4-88e9-4e25-b7c9-346fa39c69a0][Revenue streams]]:/ Enterprise compliance contracts, transaction fees, PDS hosting subscriptions. These flow through the operating company. A judgment against the operating company attaches to the revenue in that entity.
 
@@ -33,8 +33,8 @@ Assessment: Fine for Phase 0. Upgrade when revenue exceeds liability risk tolera
 
 ** Structure B: Delaware C-Corp + Offshore IP Holding Company
 
-- Delaware C-Corp is the operating company (sells verification, runs the Agora PDS infrastructure)
+- Delaware C-Corp is the operating company (sells verification, runs the social protocol PDS infrastructure)
-- A separate IP holding company in BVI, Cayman, or Nevis owns the Passepartout code, gate rules, ACL2 libraries, and the Agora protocol spec
+- A separate IP holding company in BVI, Cayman, or Nevis owns the Passepartout code, gate rules, ACL2 libraries, and the social protocol spec
 - The operating company licenses the IP from the holding company at arm's-length royalty rates
 - The holding company accumulates IP [[id:67faf52f-9126-50a7-b87e-2bedc610dac7][licensing]] revenue in the offshore jurisdiction
 
@@ -53,11 +53,11 @@ Cons: Complex, expensive to set up and maintain. Many investors are uncomfortabl
 ** Structure D: Delaware C-Corp + Delaware LLC Series + Offshore
 
 - Delaware C-Corp as parent
-- Each business line (Logos verification, Agora network, [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][compute marketplace]], PDS hosting) is a separate Delaware series LLC
+- Each business line (verification, social protocol network, [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][compute marketplace]], PDS hosting) is a separate Delaware series LLC
 - IP held in an offshore company, licensed to each series LLC
 - Series LLCs protect assets within each series from liabilities arising in other series
 
-Pros: Good liability separation between business lines. If the social network (Agora) generates liability, the verification business (Logos) assets are in a separate series. Each series can be spun out independently.
+Pros: Good liability separation between business lines. If the social network (the social protocol) generates liability, the verification business assets are in a separate series.
 Cons: Series LLC is legally untested in many jurisdictions. Some states don't recognize them. Tax complexity.
 
 * Key Considerations for This Specific Venture
@@ -66,13 +66,13 @@ Cons: Series LLC is legally untested in many jurisdictions. Some states don't re
 
 [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][The verification monopoly]] /is/ the moat. The ACL2 proof libraries, gate rule library, and regression suite are accumulated over years and cannot be recreated quickly. These must be owned by a separate entity from the operating company. If the operating company is sued, the IP survives.
 
-** The Agora network is harder to protect**
+** The social protocol network is harder to protect**
 
-The Agora's value is partly in its decentralized architecture (no central entity controls the network) and partly in the code that runs the PDS infrastructure and protocol. The AGPL license means anyone can run the code — the network value is in the user base, not the software. This is a structural asset protection advantage: even if the operating company fails, the network continues.
+The social protocol's value is partly in its decentralized architecture (no central entity controls the network) and partly in the code that runs the PDS infrastructure and protocol. The AGPL license means anyone can run the code — the network value is in the user base, not the software. This is a structural asset protection advantage: even if the operating company fails, the network continues.
 
 ** Revenue splits suggest separate entities**
 
-Enterprise compliance revenue ($2-12M/year) is high-margin, low-volume, and comes from a small number of customers. Agora transaction fees (0.5-2%) are low-margin, high-volume, and come from millions of users. Mixing these in the same entity creates regulatory complexity — compliance contracts have different liability profiles than payment processing.
+Enterprise compliance revenue ($2-12M/year) is high-margin, low-volume, and comes from a small number of customers. Social protocol transaction fees (0.5-2%) are low-margin, high-volume, and come from millions of users.
 
 ** Jurisdiction for the IP company**
 
@@ -98,20 +98,20 @@ Action items for Phase 0:
 
 ** Phase 1: Separate IP + OpCo (before significant revenue)
 
-Before enterprise compliance revenue exceeds $5M cumulative or Agora users exceed 10K, establish the IP holding company structure. The IP must be /out/ of the operating company before a significant lawsuit is plausible.
+Before enterprise compliance revenue exceeds $5M cumulative or social protocol users exceed 10K, establish the IP holding company structure.
 
 Structure: Delaware C-Corp (OpCo) + BVI IP Co
 - OpCo licenses verification IP from BVI Co
-- OpCo licenses Agora protocol IP from BVI Co
+- OpCo licenses social protocol IP from BVI Co
 - Founders own both entities (same cap table or mirror ownership)
 
 Timing: The IP transfer is a taxable event if the IP has appreciated. Transfer early, when the IP has minimal appraised value (before the verification monopoly exists), to avoid a tax hit.
 
-** Phase 2: Series Separation (when Agora has significant users or revenue)
+** Phase 2: Series Separation (when the social protocol has significant users or revenue)
 
-If the Agora has 100K+ users and payment volume, separate the business lines into different entities under the same parent:
+If the social protocol has 100K+ users and payment volume, separate the business lines into different entities under the same parent:
-- Logos LLC (verification, enterprise compliance)
+- Verification LLC (verification, enterprise compliance)
-- Agora LLC (social network, transactions, PDS hosting)
+- Social Protocol LLC (social network, transactions, PDS hosting)
 - Compute LLC (marketplace operations)
 - BVI IP Co (owns all IP, licenses to all three)
 
@@ -121,11 +121,11 @@ When the cumulative value justifies the cost and complexity: move the BVI IP Co
 
 * What This Means for the [[id:d28adac8-08a1-40c4-ae43-b5d8d7b1743f][Growth Strategy]]
 
-The institution-first path (enterprise compliance) and the social-first path (Agora communities) have /different liability profiles/ that push toward different structures:
+The institution-first path (enterprise compliance) and the social-first path (social protocol communities) have /different liability profiles/ that push toward different structures:
 
-Enterprise compliance: Higher liability per contract. A single compliance engagement gone wrong could be a $1M+ claim. The IP separation in Phase 1 is /more urgent/ for the Logos revenue stream.
+Enterprise compliance: Higher liability per contract. A single compliance engagement gone wrong could be a $1M+ claim. The IP separation in Phase 1 is /more urgent/ for the verification revenue stream.
 
-Agora network: Lower liability per user but higher aggregate surface. Payment processing regulations, content liability, data protection. The series LLC separation becomes relevant when users cross 10K.
+Social protocol network: Lower liability per user but higher aggregate surface. Payment processing regulations, content liability, data protection.
 
 The combined strategy (both engines) makes the Phase 1 structure (Delaware OpCo + BVI IP Co) more important rather than less — the diversification of revenue streams also diversifies liability sources, and the IP needs to be protected from /both/.
 
@@ -134,6 +134,6 @@ The combined strategy (both engines) makes the Phase 1 structure (Delaware OpCo
 This is preliminary research. Specific recommendations require a US corporate lawyer (incorporation), an international tax lawyer (offshore structure), and an asset protection specialist (trust/AP structure). The right order: incorporate in Delaware when ready, then hire a lawyer to plan the offshore structure before significant revenue or users accumulate.
 
 - [[id:d28adac8-08a1-40c4-ae43-b5d8d7b1743f][Combined growth strategy]]
-- [[id:1bc22b89-d3eb-4f6d-bcfc-2b0c19c8ed8f][Agora competitive landscape]]
+- [[id:1bc22b89-d3eb-4f6d-bcfc-2b0c19c8ed8f][Social protocol competitive landscape]]
 - [[id:8c7b9812-f8d6-4347-8915-ce8e520b7914][Entry strategy — organized communities]]
 - [[id:98364e9d-a8a9-42b7-a9dc-b643fd2ccc4b][Outbound sales compliance framework]]

projects/flags/legal-structure-alternatives.org

@@ -44,21 +44,21 @@ Wyoming passed HB 185 in 2025 creating the "Decentralized Autonomous Organizatio
 
 ** Relevance to This Venture
 
-The [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]'s governance modules (liquid democracy, Collective Personas, GEM) map /directly/ onto the DAO LLC concept. If a community on the Agora wants to be a legal entity — own a shared website domain, hold a pooled treasury, sign a contract with a vendor — they could incorporate as a Wyoming DAO LLC. The Agora's existing governance infrastructure (voting, constitutions, role management) becomes the DAO LLC's management mechanism.
+The [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][social protocol]]'s governance modules (liquid democracy, Collective Personas, GEM) map /directly/ onto the DAO LLC concept. If a community on the social protocol wants to be a legal entity — own a shared website domain, hold a pooled treasury, sign a contract with a vendor — they could incorporate as a Wyoming DAO LLC. The social protocol's existing governance infrastructure (voting, constitutions, role management) becomes the DAO LLC's management mechanism.
 
 ** This Is Not the OpCo or IP Co Structure
 
-The Wyoming DAO LLC is not a replacement for the Delaware/Texas OpCo or the BVI IP Co. It is an offering /for Agora communities/. The communities themselves become legal entities, not just digital spaces. This creates a product feature:
+The Wyoming DAO LLC is not a replacement for the Delaware/Texas OpCo or the BVI IP Co. It is an offering /for social protocol communities/. The communities themselves become legal entities, not just digital spaces. This creates a product feature:
 
-- Community in the Agora hits 25 members who pool $5K in dues
+- Community in the social protocol hits 25 members who pool $5K in dues
 - Community clicks "Incorporate as Wyoming DAO LLC"
-- The Agora generates the filing (name, registered agent, governance document mapping)
+- The social protocol generates the filing (name, registered agent, governance document mapping)
 - The community's voting modules become the LLC's management structure
 - The community now holds assets, signs contracts, and has liability protection
 
 ** Practical Considerations
 
-Wyoming DAO LLCs are new (2025). Case law is essentially nonexistent. Banks may not open accounts for them. Tax treatment is unclear. But for Agora communities that need legal entity status, it's the least friction option.
+Wyoming DAO LLCs are new (2025). Case law is essentially nonexistent. Banks may not open accounts for them. Tax treatment is unclear. But for social protocol communities that need legal entity status, it's the least friction option.
 
 * Panama LLC (Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada / SRL)
 

projects/flags/legal-structure-practical-setup.org

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Recommended structure: Delaware C-Corp (US OpCo) + BVI Business Company (IP Co).
                                       │
                             owns the IP assets
                             ([[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout]] code, gate rules,
-                             ACL2 libraries, [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] protocol
+                             ACL2 libraries, [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][social protocol]] protocol
                              spec, trademarks, domain names)
 
 The OpCo pays the IP Co an arm's-length royalty for the right to use the IP in its business (compliance sales, PDS hosting, marketplace operations). The IP Co accumulates royalty income in a tax-neutral jurisdiction (BVI has 0% corporate tax). The founders own both entities under the same cap table.
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ A BVI Business Company (IBC) incorporated under the BVI Business Companies Act (
 
 This is the most important document. It must:
 
-1. /Define the IP:/ List every asset being licensed — the Passepartout source code, gate rules, ACL2 proof libraries, Agora protocol specification, trademarks, domain names, trade secrets. This needs to be specific enough for tax authorities but broad enough to cover future developments.
+1. /Define the IP:/ List every asset being licensed — the Passepartout source code, gate rules, ACL2 proof libraries, social protocol specification, trademarks, domain names, trade secrets.
 
 2. /Set the royalty rate:/ Must be at arm's-length. For software/tech IP, typical royalty rates are 2-10% of gross revenue, depending on how central the IP is to the business. Verification IP is 100% central to the business (the product /is/ the IP) — rates at the higher end are defensible.
 
@@ -202,4 +202,4 @@ The IP transfer must happen /before/ the IP has significant value. Incorporating
 
 - [[id:0a4e0b8f-25e0-4b78-9633-fc37d03cefe9][Asset protection structures — options analysis]]
 - [[id:98364e9d-a8a9-42b7-a9dc-b643fd2ccc4b][Outbound sales compliance — data protection law]]
-- [[id:d28adac8-08a1-40c4-ae43-b5d8d7b1743f][Combined growth strategy — Logos + Agora]]
+- [[id:d28adac8-08a1-40c4-ae43-b5d8d7b1743f][Combined growth strategy — Passepartout]]

projects/passepartout/_index.org

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       7a1b2c3d-4e5f-6a7b-8c9d-0e1f2a3b4c5d
+:END:
+#+title: Passepartout
+#+filetags: :index:
+
+**What Passepartout is.**
+
+Passepartout is a project that builds toward a personal computing environment where you own your computation, your data, and your agency — and the architecture proves it, not promises it.
+
+It is a single system that is simultaneously:
+
+- Your editor, browser, shell, and AI agent — not separate programs but a single environment where everything works together because everything shares the same structure.
+- Your knowledge base — a living [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][memex]] of everything you read, write, and decide, stored in a format you can read and your machine can read, with no translation layer between them.
+- Your gatekeeper — a system that checks every action against your rules before taking it, whether the action comes from you, from the AI, or from the network.
+- Your identity and communication protocol — cryptographic identity, encrypted messaging, and provable exchanges between instances.
+
+These are not separate products. They are one project, one architecture, one machine.
+
+**Why it exists.**
+
+The modern computing stack is built from independently built, independently untrusted layers: hardware, firmware, operating system, compilers, runtime, network protocols, applications. Each layer assumes the layers below it are either trusted or someone else's problem. The gaps between layers are where exploits live.
+
+Security is reactive. We find bugs, we patch them, we run antivirus, we monitor logs. The model is probabilistic: "no known vulnerabilities" does not mean none exist, only that none have been found. The patching treadmill has been running for forty years and shows no sign of slowing.
+
+Passepartout asks a different question: what if you eliminated the boundaries between layers instead of trying to secure them? What if the entire stack shared one structure, one verification, one proof — from the rules that authorize an action to the hardware that executes it?
+
+This eliminates entire categories of threats by structural design, not by patching. Memory corruption exploits, compiler backdoors, malware with execution paths that bypass the rules — these are not mitigations you add on top of an unsafe system. They are classes of threat that cannot exist in a system built on this principle.
+
+**What it replaces.**
+
+| Current approach | Passepartout |
+|---|---|
+| Separate editor, browser, shell, agent — each a different program with different trust assumptions | One environment where all are functions in the same memory space |
+| Knowledge stored in a database you cannot inspect | Knowledge stored in a file format you read and edit directly |
+| Security through permissions, firewalls, antivirus, audits | Security through a rule system that checks every action before it executes |
+| Separate identity systems for every service (Google login, GitHub, Slack) | One cryptographic identity you control |
+| Vulnerabilities found and patched reactively | Categories of threat eliminated by architecture |
+
+**How we get there.**
+
+The full system is the destination, but every intermediate stage delivers value on its own. The project is designed as a staged migration from conventional hardware to the full architecture, with no rewrite required between stages. Stage 0 is running today.
+
+**What it means.**
+
+A system built this way shifts computing from an empirical trust model — "this has passed our tests" — to a deductive one: "this is structurally impossible for the following reasons." The downstream effects cascade beyond any single user:
+
+- A company's compliance obligations become a set of rules the system enforces by construction, not a binder of documents an auditor reviews once a year.
+- AI safety becomes a rule system between the AI and the actions it can take, not a set of probabilities and guardrails.
+- Software certification becomes a shared suite of proofs from every deployed instance — a public attestation that a system behaves as specified.
+
+Passepartout creates a new category: verified infrastructure. Not a safer operating system, not a better AI agent, not another social network — but the foundation beneath all three, built on a principle that the current approach cannot offer: that the system, by its structure, is trustworthy.
+
+---
+
+- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Architecture]] — the system in detail
+- [[id:b9fa4b7b-bc61-4d7f-918d-ff687b80f2ba][Systemic Effects]] — what verification cascades into
+- [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Staged Roadmap]] — from today to Stage 7

projects/passepartout/architecture/_index.org

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       5e7f1d2a-3b4c-5d6e-7f8a-9b0c1d2e3f4a
+:END:
+#+title: Architecture
+#+filetags: :passepartout:index:
+
+Architecture overview — narrative introduction, staged build-out, systemic effects, and the analytical frames that justify the design.
+
+[[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Architecture]] — the narrative introduction to the project.
+
+**Staged roadmap:**
+
+| Stage | Delivers | Key cost | Timeline |
+|-------+----------+----------+----------|
+| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][0 — Now]] | Baseline: conventional computing | Patching treadmill, no deductive guarantees | Today |
+| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef][1 — Social Protocol]] | Communication integrity, provable DAG | Crypto overhead, key management | Today |
+| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef][2 — Verification]] | Verified gate, capability auth | Policy formalization burden | Today (limited) |
+| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef][3 — Lisp Machine]] | Lisp image, Merkle memory, no kernel | Lisp tax, no backward compat, single address space | 2-5yr (soft) / 5-10yr (ASIC) |
+| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc5-4def-9876-543210abcdef][4 — Inference]] | In-process LLM, token interception | ~10x compute/RAM/storage | Server now; consumer 3-5yr |
+| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc6-4def-9876-543210abcdef][5 — Weights]] | Plist-native weights, weight-level provenance | ~100x GPU / ~2-5x ASIC | GPU hybrid now; ASIC 5-10yr |
+| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc7-4def-9876-543210abcdef][6 — Training]] | Verified fine-tuning, neural world model | ~100x fine-tuning only | 3-5yr fine-tuning |
+| [[id:4a1f23b0-abc8-4def-9876-543210abcdef][7 — Remaining]] | Physical threats, oracles, speculation, bootstrap axiom | Mitigations are non-computational | Forever |
+
+**Systemic analysis:**
+- [[id:b9fa4b7b-bc61-4d7f-918d-ff687b80f2ba][Systemic effects over time]] — how verification cascades across society, economics, and geopolitics
+
+**Key analytical frames:**
+- [[id:5961e469-53a3-5f3c-ab72-3c83ef91963f][Investment thesis — the unified view]]
+- [[id:9af13fff-9725-542b-93b1-a555bc74ad72][Why Lisp is economically viable now — zero marginal cost]]
+- [[id:efc76898-03f7-57ba-923d-35d65da88bb7][The per-domain sufficiency flip]]
+- [[id:dc2e4f22-1c4c-5d4a-a151-f96e5d3b0d70][Development velocity and timeline estimates]]
+- [[id:aa6d062e-a520-5d14-8773-00687ed9c689][Competitive barriers — moats and infrastructure lock-in]]
+
+**Revenue streams:**
+Total addressable market: ~$960B/year across cloud, AI, OS, social media, payments, productivity, and compliance. The business model is the AWS of provable computing: AGPL infrastructure is free, revenue comes from verification appliances, gate rules, certification, namespace registry, hosted PDS, and a [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][compute marketplace]].
+
+Short to long term:
+- [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][Verification appliance]] — certified Lisp Machine at scale
+- [[id:c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c][Domain gate packages]] — compliance encoded as gate rules
+- [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][Evaluation harness / certification monopoly]] — UL for AI
+- [[id:1a2b38df-20ba-58ca-ba55-a072be67bd0d][PDS as a service]] — hosted personal data stores
+- [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][Compute marketplace]] — verified compute cycles
+
+**Strategy and IP:**
+- [[id:67faf52f-9126-50a7-b87e-2bedc610dac7][IP strategy — licensing + patents]]
+- [[id:5f55bbe6-d243-5766-8ccf-5c5cc88a6542][Impact on the AI/GPU industry]]
+- [[id:29e4dbf3-cf19-589c-8b14-389e8a39d564][Upgrade and distribution lifecycle]]
+- [[id:c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c][Domain gate packages — encoding and products]]
+- [[id:2afd9a3c-e96a-54c7-ac77-a05a28065b4b][Biology as proof of the Lisp model]]
+- [[id:00ab3a4d-e3de-5605-a67d-12935bb36ab5][Comparison with Symbolics Genera]]

projects/passepartout/architecture/architecture.org

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f
+:ID:       a1fac32a-47de-5fbd-b67d-29152c851747
+:ID:       42c86e6f-4f27-4993-8238-b7bc7d15fb7b
+:END:
+#+title: Architecture
+#+filetags: :passepartout:architecture:
+
+The project index introduces Passepartout as a personal computing environment. This page describes the architecture in detail: the four subsystems, how they compose, how the gate works, how the memex is structured, and why the stack compresses into a single address space.
+
+**The four subsystems, one address space.**
+
+Passepartout is one system built from four subsystems that share one evaluation semantics, one memory graph, and one proof chain:
+
+- **Environment** — the personal computing environment
+- **Knowledge** — the unified memex
+- **Verification** — the gate
+- **Social Protocol** — provable communication between instances
+
+Each is described below.
+
+**The environment: one address space.**
+
+The environment eliminates the layered trust model of a conventional OS by eliminating the layers. Instead of an editor that sends keystrokes through a terminal emulator to a shell that forks processes that read files through a kernel VFS layer — each boundary a potential vulnerability — the environment runs everything in a single Lisp address space. (Lisp is a family of programming languages where code and data share the same representation. This property means the machine can verify what code does and modify itself without restarting. It is the foundation that makes the entire architecture possible.)
+
+The editor is a Lisp function that manipulates text buffers in the evaluated memory graph. The shell is a Lisp read-eval-print loop that compiles to the same evaluator. The browser renders HTML through a Lisp-based rendering engine, not a separate process. The agent runtime invokes Lisp functions, not subprocesses. (The specific implementations that realize this today use Lish for the shell and editor, Nyxt for the browser, and SBCL as the host Lisp — but the architectural principle is uniform semantics in one address space, not these particular packages.)
+
+There is no MMU boundary between components because there are no separate processes. There is no IPC because there is nothing to communicate between. Everything shares the same memory graph. Your editor buffer, your shell history, your agent's state, and your social protocol messages all live in the same evaluated object graph, protected by the same gate, verified by the same prover.
+
+**The knowledge subsystem: Org-mode as unified memex.**
+
+The knowledge subsystem makes a bet that most systems consider too expensive: that humans and machines should share the same file format. That bet is Org-mode.
+
+Most systems separate human-readable notes from machine-readable data. The user writes Markdown. The system stores it, indexes it, searches it. But the system maintains its own internal model — a database, a knowledge graph — disconnected from the Markdown. When the user leaves, the Markdown survives but the model must be reconstructed.
+
+Passepartout refuses this separation. The Org file is not a representation of the data; the Org file IS the data. The same text the user reads and edits is what the system parses and operates on. There is no translation layer between human and machine — no schema, no import/export, no API boundary between what you write and what the system knows.
+
+Sparse tree retrieval makes this efficient at scale. Org-mode's headline hierarchy is a semantic structure the system can query. When the agent needs information about a specific function, it retrieves exactly the subtree under that heading — not the entire file. Context stays lean (2,000 to 4,000 tokens) while the full knowledge base remains accessible through structural retrieval. This is fundamentally different from Markdown, where retrieval is either imprecise (grep) or entire-file (expensive).
+
+The knowledge subsystem maintains two indices over the Org prose:
+
+1. A neural index using vector embeddings for semantic search — the gateway to the full richness of natural language.
+2. A symbolic index storing formal assertions about what the prose says — predicates, relations, constraints — each grounded to a specific heading or block.
+
+The prose is always ground truth. Both indices are derived views that can be rebuilt from scratch. Nothing is lost in the indices that was not already in the Org files.
+
+This is what sovereignty means in technical terms: the user owns the data in a format they can access, and the system operates on the data in the same format they own. The format is stable — Org-mode has been in active development since 2003. There is no schema migration, no database upgrade, no vendor lock-in. Your notes survive the system.
+
+**The verification subsystem: the gate.**
+
+The gate is a function that takes (action, context, policy) and returns (permit | deny). Every action passes through it — a shell command from the user, a proposal from the LLM, a message from the network, a file write by a scheduled job. There is no privileged path around the gate. Root is not a concept in the gate model — root is a convention enforced by an OS that the gate replaces.
+
+The gate combines two decision layers:
+
+1. ACL2-verified decision procedures for security-critical checks — access control, message authentication, capability resolution. (ACL2 is a theorem prover and programming language for formal verification. It proves that code behaves correctly for all possible inputs, not just the ones tested.)
+2. An LLM for natural-language reasoning — parsing the user's intent, evaluating whether an action falls within policy boundaries that require human judgment.
+
+The LLM layer is probabilistic. The ACL2 layer is deductive. The gate architecture ensures the deductive layer is authoritative where it applies and the probabilistic layer is bounded by it — the LLM cannot overrule a verified denial.
+
+The gate does not depend on OS privilege boundaries because it is in the evaluation loop itself. This is the architectural reason for the Lisp machine: a conventional OS interposes between the gate and the hardware. A Lisp machine eliminates that interposition by making the gate part of the evaluator.
+
+**The social protocol: provable communication.**
+
+The social protocol extends the verified semantics beyond a single machine. It provides:
+
+- Self-sovereign DID identity (every instance has a cryptographic identity it controls)
+- DIDComm encrypted messaging (end-to-end encrypted, signed, DAG-tracked)
+- Personal data stores (user-owned, gate-controlled)
+- Relay network (asynchronous message delivery across trust boundaries)
+- Compute marketplace (provision verified compute you rent)
+- Liquid democracy (delegable voting over protocol governance)
+
+Every message is signed by the sender's DID, tracked in a content-addressed DAG, and optionally notarized. Communication is provable when you choose it to be — you can prove what you sent, to whom, when, without revealing content.
+
+The social protocol is not a blockchain. DAG-based ordering handles causality; delegable trust replaces proof of work.
+
+**The staged progression.**
+
+The full architecture — gate-verified Lisp machine on custom silicon — is the destination. The staged roadmap describes how each successive replacement eliminates a class of threat:
+
+- Stage 0: Conventional Linux, Python agent (Hermes), SQLite knowledge store (gbrain). The starting point. Zero days exist; patches are manual.
+- Stage 1: Message-level authentication via the social protocol. Communication becomes provable.
+- Stage 2: The gate operates as a software layer over the host OS. Shell commands, LLM proposals, and network messages all pass through the same decision procedure. Root is eliminated as an attack path.
+- Stage 3: The host OS is replaced by a bare-metal Lisp image. One address space, one evaluator, no MMU to attack.
+- Stage 4: LLM inference moves into the Lisp process. No API calls across network boundaries. The LLM becomes a function in the same evaluated graph.
+- Stage 5: Neural weights stored as plist-native data structures. The gap between symbolic and neural representations closes.
+- Stage 6: Verified fine-tuning. Every weight update is gate-checked against policy.
+- Stage 7: What remains. Physical theft, electronic warfare, holes in the specification itself, and the fallibility of the LLM oracle. Limits of computation, not of this design.
+
+Each stage is independently useful. Stage 0 is running today. The migration is progressive component swap, not a cut-over.
+
+**Downstream effects.**
+
+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. The downstream effects cascade beyond personal computing:
+
+- **Compliance** becomes executable gate rules instead of annual audits. A SOC 2 report is a gate configuration, not a PDF.
+- **AI safety** becomes a verified gate between the LLM and the action stream instead of probabilistic guardrails or RLHF.
+- **Software certification** becomes the accumulated regression suite of every deployed instance — the Underwriters Laboratory for AI.
+- **Operating systems** become obsolete. The gate replaces the kernel, the address space replaces process isolation, and the verified evaluator replaces the privilege model.

projects/passepartout/architecture/lisp-machine-security.org

@@ -104,5 +104,5 @@ None of this is in the architecture documents. The following are not yet specifi
 7. ACL2 trust documentation — the bootstrap chain and what it means for the gate stack's verification
 8. The boot attestation protocol — how the gate core verifies the gate stack before loading it
 9. 
-See the [[id:6fe67db6-25bd-4d11-bd1d-b44ec809e858][Agora Identity specification]] for how user identity, key derivation, and DID management integrate with the gate stack's boot chain and privilege zones.
+See the [[id:6fe67db6-25bd-4d11-bd1d-b44ec809e858][Social protocol identity specification]] for how user identity, key derivation, and DID management integrate with the gate stack's boot chain and privilege zones.
  — how many cycles does an ECALL take, and does that affect the 10-80-10 ratio

projects/passepartout/architecture/self-driving-lisp-machine.org

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 #+title: The Self-Driving Lisp Machine
 #+filetags: :passepartout:lisp-machine:hardware:riscv:tenstorrent:
 
-A Tenstorrent P150 (~72 RISC-V Tensix cores) running [[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout]]: 72 RISC-V cores running Lisp microcode, one core dedicated to ACL2, one to Screamer, the rest to gate verification and fact store operations.
+A Tenstorrent P150 (~72 RISC-V Tensix cores) running Passepartout: 72 RISC-V cores running Lisp microcode, one core dedicated to ACL2, one to Screamer, the rest to gate verification and fact store operations.
 
 The self-driving threshold: the system can synthesize and load its own FPGA microcode or Tensix dispatch programs from within the running Lisp image. The system profiles its own gate verification latency, proposes a new microcoded instruction for the hot path, compiles RISC-V assembly from ACL2-verified specifications, loads it via PCIe DMA from within SBCL, benchmarks it — and rolls back if slower.
 

projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-0-now.org

@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
 ---
 title: Stage 0 — Now (Conventional Computing)
 type: reference
-tags: :stoa:roadmap:
+tags: :passepartout:roadmap:
 created: 2026-05-24
 ---
 
-← [[id:329a30cd-55fb-496d-a60b-91388c211bba][Stoa Index]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 1 — Agora]]
+← [[id:329a30cd-55fb-496d-a60b-91388c211bba][Passepartout]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 1 — Social Protocol]]
 
 # Stage 0: Now
 
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ is seen as prohibitively expensive. This roadmap is the argument that the
 provable alternative is not only possible, but the inevitable destination.
 The question is not whether to build it, but at what pace.
 
-← [[id:329a30cd-55fb-496d-a60b-91388c211bba][Stoa Index]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 1 — Agora]]
+← [[id:329a30cd-55fb-496d-a60b-91388c211bba][Passepartout]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 1 — Social Protocol]]
 
 :PROPERTIES:
 :CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]

projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-1-social-protocol.org

@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
 ---
-title: Stage 1 — Agora (In-Transit Integrity)
+title: Stage 1 - Social Protocol (In-Transit Integrity)
 type: reference
-tags: :stoa:roadmap:agora:
+tags: :passepartout:roadmap:social-protocol:
 created: 2026-05-24
 ---
 
-← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 0 — Now]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 2 — Logos]]
+← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 0 — Now]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 2 — Verification]]
 
-# Stage 1: [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]
+# Stage 1: [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]]
 
 *Summary: Every message is signed, DAG-tracked, and content-addressed.
-Communication becomes provable — when you choose it to be.*
+Communication becomes provable - when you choose it to be.*
 
 ## What is added
 
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Communication becomes provable — when you choose it to be.*
 - **Message tampering in transit** — envelopes are authenticated; tampering changes the CID and breaks the chain
 - **Impersonation / spoofing** — DID identity keys, not usernames
 - **Replay attacks** — nonces and sequence numbers per message
-- **MITM on Agora-mediated channels** — end-to-end signatures; relays need no trust
+- **MITM on social protocol-mediated channels** — end-to-end signatures; relays need no trust
 - **Loss of message history** — DAG is append-only and content-addressed
 
 ## What does this cost?
@@ -54,30 +54,30 @@ knowledge that later stages use for falsification.
 
 ## When is this viable?
 
-Today. Agora is a protocol design that can be deployed on existing networks.
+Today. The social protocol is a protocol design that can be deployed on existing networks.
 The infrastructure (PDS, Relay, Gateway) runs on conventional [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][hardware]].
 
 ## In practice
 
-Communication becomes provable — but only when the user chooses. Agora's Note
+Communication becomes provable - but only when the user chooses. The social protocol's Note
 primitive supports the full spectrum: persistent DAG-stored messages for audit
 and compliance, ephemeral Notes that self-destruct, and full Off-the-Record
 (OTR) mode that bypasses PDS storage entirely.
 
 The user chooses per-channel or per-message: permanent and attributable for
 contracts and governance, ephemeral and deniable for private conversation. The
-infrastructure enforces each choice — PDS garbage-collects expired CIDs, Relays
+infrastructure enforces each choice - PDS garbage-collects expired CIDs, Relays
-drop them from routing tables, clients shed message keys after display. Agora
+drop them from routing tables, clients shed message keys after display. The social protocol
 replaces trust with evidence where evidence is wanted; elsewhere it provides
 privacy by design.
 
-Agora does not secure the endpoint. The machines running Agora clients can
+The social protocol does not secure the endpoint. The machines running social protocol clients can
 still be compromised at the OS, compiler, or hardware level. The keys are on
-those machines — malware that compromises an endpoint can sign messages using
+those machines - malware that compromises an endpoint can sign messages using
-the endpoint's keys. The messages are authentic; the sender wasn't. Agora
+the endpoint's keys. The messages are authentic; the sender wasn't. The social protocol
 carries the authorization; it doesn't evaluate it.
 
-← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 0 — Now]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 2 — Logos]]
+← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc1-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 0 — Now]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 2 — Verification]]
 
 :PROPERTIES:
 :CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]

projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-2-verification.org

@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
 ---
-title: Stage 2 — Logos (Verified Reasoning Layer)
+title: Stage 2 — Verification Subsystem
 type: reference
-tags: :stoa:roadmap:logos:
+tags: :passepartout:roadmap:
 created: 2026-05-24
 ---
 
-← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 1 — Agora]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 3 — Stoa]]
+← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 1 — Social Protocol]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 3 — Lisp Machine]]
 
-# Stage 2: [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Logos]]
+# Stage 2: Verification Subsystem
 
 *Summary: A verified gate evaluates every action against formal policy.
 Capability-based authorization. "Root" as an attack target no longer exists.*
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Capability-based authorization. "Root" as an attack target no longer exists.*
 - **Privilege escalation** — no amount of subversion below the gate can grant
   capabilities the policy doesn't allow. The gate checks capability tokens,
   not caller identity.
-- **"Root" as a meaningful attack target** — there is no root in Logos. There
+- **"Root" as a meaningful attack target** — there is no root in Passepartout. There
   are capabilities, and capabilities are checked.
 
 ## What does this cost?
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Capability-based authorization. "Root" as an attack target no longer exists.*
   policy is not. Each policy change needs new proof
 - **The gate runs on untrusted hardware** — if the OS or hardware is
   compromised, the gate's guarantees are meaningless. The attacker can skip
-  the gate or modify its output. Logos's full power arrives at Stage 3
+  the gate or modify its output. Full gate guarantees arrive at Stage 3
 
 ## What does this enable?
 
@@ -73,10 +73,10 @@ blocked) against the operational cost (everything must be explicitly authorized
 in policy). For high-stakes environments, the trade-off is worth it. For casual
 use, the friction may lead users to bypass the gate.
 
-*Logos's full power arrives when it runs on Stoa. Before that, it's a
+*Full gate guarantees arrive when Passepartout runs on its own Lisp machine
-correctness proof running on an untrusted substrate.*
+(Stage 3). Before that, it's a correctness proof running on an untrusted substrate.*
 
-← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 1 — Agora]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 3 — Stoa]]
+← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc2-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 1 — Social Protocol]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 3 — Lisp Machine]]
 
 :PROPERTIES:
 :CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]

projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-3-lisp-machine.org

@@ -1,21 +1,20 @@
 ---
-title: Stage 3 — Stoa (Verified Infrastructure)
+title: Stage 3 — Lisp Machine
 type: reference
-tags: :stoa:roadmap:
+tags: :passepartout:roadmap:
 created: 2026-05-24
 ---
 
-← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 2 — Logos]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc5-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 4 — Inference]]
+← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 2 — Verification]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc5-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 4 — Inference]]
 
-# Stage 3: Stoa
+# Stage 3: Lisp Machine
 
 *Summary: The [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][verified Lisp machine]]. One image, one [[id:1c95ce7d-a2db-506a-9608-df68f9ae211b][memory graph]], one [[id:45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d][gate stack]].
-No kernel, no process boundaries, no memory corruption. [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] and Logos are no
+No kernel, no process boundaries, no memory corruption. The verification subsystem, the environment subsystem, and the social protocol are no longer separate components — they are properties of the same machine.*
-longer separate components — they are properties of the same machine.*
 
 ## What is added
 
-Stoa spans three engineering phases that converge on the same architecture:
+Passepartout spans three engineering phases that converge on the same architecture:
 
 ### Phase A — Software emergence (2-3 years)
 
@@ -81,16 +80,17 @@ and tensor computation. Persistent NVRAM: boot to exactly where you left off.
   the gate. The evaluator only runs objects in the verified memory graph.
 - **Supply chain at binary level** — every object has a Merkle chain to its
   origin. A dependency is a pointer, not a file.
-- **The Stoa ↔ Logos ↔ Agora composition problem** — one address space, one
+- **The subsystem composition problem** — one address space, one
-  semantics, one proof. The interface between them is an internal relationship.
+  semantics, one proof. The interface between verification, environment, and
+  protocol is an internal relationship.
 
 ## What does this cost?
 
 - **Lisp tax on everything** — verified execution is 2-10x slower than
   optimized C on equivalent hardware. Symbolic core is designed to minimize
   this; tensor unit sidesteps it for neural compute
-- **No backward compatibility** — existing software doesn't run on Stoa. No
+- **No backward compatibility** — existing software doesn't run on the Lisp
-  Linux binaries, no x86 drivers, no GPU compute stacks (without mirror path)
+  machine. No Linux binaries, no x86 drivers, no GPU compute stacks (without mirror path)
 - **Single address space fragility** — no process isolation. A bug in the
   editor can corrupt the browser. One crash radius, one machine
 - **Massive engineering investment** — shortest plausible timeline to a usable
@@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ and gate stack are intact.
 
 Memory bugs — the dominant attack vector for decades — are structurally
 eliminated. No more patching for CVEs. No antivirus, no firewall (at the
-machine level — network boundaries remain). A Stoa machine that boots
+machine level — network boundaries remain). A Passepartout Lisp machine that
-correctly will not crash from a memory corruption bug, ever.
+boots correctly will not crash from a memory corruption bug, ever.
 
 But you've given up the entire existing software world. You cannot run Firefox,
 Postgres, nginx, Python, or any Linux binary. The machine is a Lisp machine
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ and everything must be written in Lisp. The practical trade is: absolute
 memory safety at the cost of adopting an entirely new computing paradigm.
 This is not an upgrade path — it is a replacement.
 
-← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 2 — Logos]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc5-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 4 — Inference]]
+← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc3-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 2 — Verification]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc5-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 4 — Inference]]
 
 :PROPERTIES:
 :CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]

projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-4-inference.org

@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
 ---
 title: Stage 4 — Inference (In-Process LLM)
 type: reference
-tags: :stoa:roadmap:
+tags: :passepartout:roadmap:
 created: 2026-05-24
 ---
 
-← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 3 — Stoa]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc6-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 5 — Weights]]
+← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 3 — Lisp Machine]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc6-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 5 — Weights]]
 
 # Stage 4: Inference
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ during generation. No external API, no separate trust domain.*
 - [[id:45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d][Gate-level token interception]]: the Dispatcher inspects every partial token
   sequence during generation. Trajectories that would produce unauthorized
   actions are suppressed mid-stream, not filtered after the fact
-- Weights loaded from Stoa's Merkle-verified store as a macro-tag blob (one
+- Weights loaded from the Lisp machine's Merkle-verified store as a macro-tag blob (one
   tagged Lisp object pointing to flat binary)
 - Deterministic inference: same input, same output, same hash — auditable
   and replayable
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ gate handles both through different procedures.
   A 70B param model at 4-bit takes ~35GB. At 10x multiplier, effective
   conventional-equivalent cost is ~350GB
 - **Determinism is double-edged** — auditable but cannot adapt or creatively drift
-- **No model parallelism** — Stoa runs on one machine. Frontier-scale models
+- **No model parallelism** — Passepartout runs on one machine. Frontier-scale models
   may be too large for a single address space
 
 ## What does this enable?
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ The weights are still a verified *blob* — you know the file's hash but can't
 prove anything about individual weights. Training provenance is not tracked.
 The inference is FFI-mediated, so trust in llama.cpp remains.
 
-← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 3 — Stoa]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc6-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 5 — Weights]]
+← [[id:4a1f23b0-abc4-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 3 — Lisp Machine]]  → [[id:4a1f23b0-abc6-4def-9876-543210abcdef][Stage 5 — Weights]]
 
 :PROPERTIES:
 :CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]

projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-5-weights.org

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 title: Stage 5 — Weights (Plist-Native)
 type: reference
-tags: :stoa:roadmap:
+tags: :passepartout:roadmap:
 created: 2026-05-24
 ---
 
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ viability.
 
 ## When is this viable?
 
-- **GPU hybrid path:** today. Works on any Stoa system with a GPU
+- **GPU hybrid path:** today. Works on any Passepartout with a GPU
 - **ASIC native path:** 5-10 years (tensor unit on the dual-unit chip)
 
 ## In practice

projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-6-training.org

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 title: Stage 6 — Training (Verified Fine-Tuning + World Model)
 type: reference
-tags: :stoa:roadmap:
+tags: :passepartout:roadmap:
 created: 2026-05-24
 ---
 
@@ -72,10 +72,10 @@ same verified training pipeline:
 - **Storage per training step** — every Merkle-tracked state transition adds
   to the memory graph. A fine-tuning run could produce hundreds of terabytes
   of deltas
-- **Only fine-tuning is practical** — full pretraining on Stoa never makes
+- **Only fine-tuning is practical** — full pretraining on the Lisp machine never makes
   sense. The 100x overhead is structural. Practical workflow: pretrain on
   conventional GPU cluster → import as verified blob → convert to plist-native
-  under gate → fine-tune in Stoa
+  under gate → fine-tune on the Lisp machine
 - **Data gate latency** — every training example passes through the
   authorization gate. For datasets with millions of examples, this pre-
   processing step can take days
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ But this system is not for training frontier models — it is for auditing
 training runs that happen elsewhere.
 
 The practical workflow is: pretrain on a conventional GPU cluster, import the
-weights into Stoa as a verified blob (Stage 4), then fine-tune within Stoa
+weights into the Lisp machine as a verified blob (Stage 4), then fine-tune on the Lisp machine
 under the verified training loop. The pretraining phase remains unverified,
 but the fine-tuning phase — where the model gains knowledge of private data
 and user preferences — is verified. This is the pragmatic sweet spot.

projects/passepartout/architecture/stage-7-remaining.org

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 title: Stage 7 — What Remains
 type: reference
-tags: :stoa:roadmap:
+tags: :passepartout:roadmap:
 created: 2026-05-24
 ---
 
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ None can be eliminated by computation alone.*
 | Power/EM side channels | Constant-power design, shielding | Power overhead |
 
 Physical hardening is expensive in direct proportion to the threat level.
-If someone steals your Stoa machine, they have your data. Hardware hashing
+If someone steals your Lisp machine, they have your data. Hardware hashing
 and encryption slow them down, but the security boundary is now physical.
 
 ## 2. Side channels in the verified model
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ contacted at 3am are likely to be annoyed.
 These are distinct from the accumulated knowledge in the [[id:1c95ce7d-a2db-506a-9608-df68f9ae211b][Merkle DAG]], which records
 specific observations. Common sense is the *generalization engine*.
 
-**Three channels in the Stoa architecture:**
+**Three channels in the Passepartout architecture:**
 
 | Channel | Origin | Verification | Granularity |
 |---------|--------|-------------|-------------|
@@ -134,13 +134,13 @@ store for beliefs that survive falsification.
 
 | Threat | Eliminated at stage |
 |--------|---------------------|
-| Memory corruption | 3 — Stoa |
+| Memory corruption | 3 — Lisp Machine |
-| OS exploitation | 3 — Stoa |
+| OS exploitation | 3 — Lisp Machine |
-| Malware / viruses / worms | 3 — Stoa |
+| Malware / viruses / worms | 3 — Lisp Machine |
-| Compiler backdoors | 3 — Stoa |
+| Compiler backdoors | 3 — Lisp Machine |
-| Message forgery / tampering | 1 — [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] |
+| Message forgery / tampering | 1 — [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]] |
-| MITM on communication | 1 — Agora |
+| MITM on communication | 1 — Social Protocol |
-| Unauthorized actions | 2 — Logos (fully at 3) |
+| Unauthorized actions | 2 — Gate stack (fully at 3) |
 | Prompt injection bypassing gate | 4 — In-process inference |
 | Weight tampering (blob level) | 4 — Verified blob hash |
 | Weight tampering (fine-grained) | 5 — Plist-native weights |

projects/passepartout/architecture/systemic-effects.org

@@ -1,12 +1,11 @@
 :PROPERTIES:
 :ID:       b9fa4b7b-bc61-4d7f-918d-ff687b80f2ba
-:ID:       triad-systemic-effects
 :CREATED:  [2026-05-23 Sat]
 :END:
-#+title: Triad — Systemic Effects Over Time
+#+title: Passepartout — Systemic Effects Over Time
 #+filetags: :passepartout:strategy:effects:geopolitics:society:
 
-The triad (Logos + [[id:c3b3dc41-945f-54e9-84eb-ca014114f1be][Stoa]] + [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]) is not a product in an existing category. Verified infrastructure is a new category, and every existing category — cloud, AI, OS, social, payments, compliance, governance — eventually migrates into it because the alternative becomes indefensible.
+Passepartout is not a product in an existing category. Verified infrastructure is a new category, and every existing category — cloud, AI, OS, social, payments, compliance, governance — eventually migrates into it because the alternative becomes indefensible.
 
 Using the [[id:2cdca4b0-6b41-44b4-acb0-af21d0e27b00][orders-of-magnitude framework]], the effects cascade across time scales. Each scale is qualitatively different, not just more of the same.
 
@@ -14,7 +13,7 @@ Using the [[id:2cdca4b0-6b41-44b4-acb0-af21d0e27b00][orders-of-magnitude framewo
 
 ** Scientific: verification becomes the publishing standard
 
-[[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout]] gate rules turn every computational result into a machine-checkable proof. Papers carry proof logs, not just dataset citations. The replication crisis in compute-heavy fields (ML, climate science, genomics) meets its match — if the code doesn't verify, the result doesn't publish.
+Passepartout's gate rules turn every computational result into a machine-checkable proof. Papers carry proof logs, not just dataset citations. The replication crisis in compute-heavy fields (ML, climate science, genomics) meets its match — if the code doesn't verify, the result doesn't publish.
 
 The effect compounds: proof repositories accumulate lemma libraries across fields, so each paper stands on verified shoulders, not on trust.
 
@@ -26,7 +25,7 @@ The first enterprise that replaces a [[id:ed65031c-cbd2-4ad2-bd53-a67791e183cd][
 
 ** Political: regulation becomes executable
 
-The first regulation encoded as a gate rule sets a precedent. Regulators realize they can specify compliance in /executable form/ rather than prose. This changes the regulator-regulated relationship from adversarial interpretation to formal specification.
+The first regulation encoded as a gate rule sets a precedent. Regulators realize they can specify compliance in executable form rather than prose. This changes the regulator-regulated relationship from adversarial interpretation to formal specification.
 
 A regulation that says "access logs must be tamper-proof" is a negotiation. A gate rule that enforces Merkle-chain logging is a fact. Compliance shifts from "did you follow the intent" to "does the proof pass."
 
@@ -34,13 +33,13 @@ A regulation that says "access logs must be tamper-proof" is a negotiation. A ga
 
 ** Technological: AI safety becomes engineering, not policy
 
-The verified API gateway ([[id:ed05cab4-88e9-4e25-b7c9-346fa39c69a0][revenue hub]]) proves that AI safety is a /software engineering problem/, not a policy problem. Companies don't need AI regulation — they need Passepartout gate rules between the LLM and production.
+The verified API gateway ([[id:ed05cab4-88e9-4e25-b7c9-346fa39c69a0][revenue hub]]) proves that AI safety is a software engineering problem, not a policy problem. Companies don't need AI regulation — they need Passepartout gate rules between the LLM and production.
 
 This shifts the entire AI safety discourse. The question stops being "what should we ban?" and becomes "what gates should we verify?" Prompt injection, jailbreaks, data leakage, hallucination in critical paths — all become gate rule specifications, not white papers.
 
 ** Social: institutional trust gives way to computational trust
 
-/I verified it/ replaces /I trust the auditor/. DIDs make platform-owned identity look like a historical anomaly. The [[id:1a2b38df-20ba-58ca-ba55-a072be67bd0d][PDS model]] makes surveillance advertising technically impossible without the user's active consent gate.
+"I verified it" replaces "I trust the auditor." DIDs make platform-owned identity look like a historical anomaly. The [[id:1a2b38df-20ba-58ca-ba55-a072be67bd0d][PDS model]] makes surveillance advertising technically impossible without the user's active consent gate.
 
 The social contract around data shifts: companies don't own user data because the architecture literally prevents them from accessing it without a permission gate. The [[id:513d5996-4ac7-4567-a992-18fc01599104][GDPR]] model (notice + consent) was a regulation trying to fix bad architecture. The PDS model is architecture that makes bad behaviour impossible.
 
@@ -48,23 +47,23 @@ The social contract around data shifts: companies don't own user data because th
 
 The Lisp renaissance is not retro — it is the first time a language of proof carries cultural cachet outside academia. A new generation of developers grows up with verification as a default, not an afterthought.
 
-The /move fast and break things/ ethos ages overnight. In the C-suite, saying /we don't verify our deployments/ becomes as embarrassing as saying /we don't test our code/ was in the 2000s. The cultural shift precedes and enables the economic shift.
+The "move fast and break things" ethos ages overnight. In the C-suite, saying "we don't verify our deployments" becomes as embarrassing as saying "we don't test our code" was in the 2000s. The cultural shift precedes and enables the economic shift.
 
 * Years — End State consolidates
 
 ** Economic: [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][the verification monopoly]]
 
-If every transaction on Agora, every plugin on Stoa, every gate rule on Logos passes through Passepartout's verification, then the early player collects a tax on the entire verified economy. This is the [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][verification monopoly]].
+If every transaction on the social protocol, every plugin in the environment, every gate rule passes through Passepartout's verification, then the early player collects a tax on the entire verified economy. This is the [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][verification monopoly]].
 
-The $960B TAM ([[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][triad index]]) is not aspirational — it is the cost of admission to the verified stack. Every dollar spent on cloud, AI, OS, social media, payments, and compliance eventually flows through the verification layer. The early player does not capture 100% of that, but the spread on even 5-10% is venture-scale money.
+The $960B TAM ([[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][architecture index]]) is not aspirational — it is the cost of admission to the verified stack. Every dollar spent on cloud, AI, OS, social media, payments, and compliance eventually flows through the verification layer. The early player does not capture 100% of that, but the spread on even 5-10% is venture-scale money.
 
-The switching cost to unverified infrastructure becomes infinite. No enterprise can justify / why would we go back to unverified code / once verification is in place. This is the [[id:2f783eb4-638e-5afa-9b59-6224d086a712][infrastructure lock-in]].
+The switching cost to unverified infrastructure becomes infinite. No enterprise can justify "why would we go back to unverified code" once verification is in place. This is the [[id:2f783eb4-638e-5afa-9b59-6224d086a712][infrastructure lock-in]].
 
 ** Geopolitical: compute becomes a strategic asset
 
 The [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][compute marketplace]] becomes a geopolitical asset on the order of SWIFT or the dollar. Whoever provisions the largest verified compute capacity becomes the default infrastructure provider for any nation that wants verified digital sovereignty.
 
-The triad is inherently anti-surveillance-capitalist architecture. The PDS model does not do bulk surveillance. This makes it threatening to both:
+Passepartout is inherently anti-surveillance-capitalist architecture. The PDS model does not do bulk surveillance. This makes it threatening to both:
 
 - /Authoritarian states/ — they lose dragnet access to citizen data
 - /Surveillance capitalists/ — they lose the data moat their business model depends on
@@ -73,9 +72,9 @@ The nations that adopt verified infrastructure are in one economic sphere. The n
 
 ** Political: liquid democracy infrastructure at scale
 
-Verifiable proxy voting, delegation chains, quadratic funding for [[id:64708e1f-00e9-4cb7-b44b-ea0b98e5296d][public goods (Agora contracts)]] — these are not experiments. They become infrastructure that nation-states adopt because the alternative (unverifiable voting, opaque governance) becomes indefensible.
+Verifiable proxy voting, delegation chains, quadratic funding for [[id:64708e1f-00e9-4cb7-b44b-ea0b98e5296d][public goods (Social protocol contracts)]] — these are not experiments. They become infrastructure that nation-states adopt because the alternative (unverifiable voting, opaque governance) becomes indefensible.
 
-The effect is not that democracy becomes digital. The effect is that /trust in institutions/ becomes a measurable property rather than a polling number. Did the government follow its own rules? The proof log says yes or no. This is the political equivalent of the scientific reproducibility shift: institutions that can produce proof logs are trusted; institutions that cannot are not.
+The effect is not that democracy becomes digital. The effect is that trust in institutions becomes a measurable property rather than a polling number. Did the government follow its own rules? The proof log says yes or no. This is the political equivalent of the scientific reproducibility shift: institutions that can produce proof logs are trusted; institutions that cannot are not.
 
 * Generations — End State mature
 
@@ -83,11 +82,11 @@ The effect is not that democracy becomes digital. The effect is that /trust in i
 
 The verification network defines the digital order in the same way the internet defined the 1990s. Nations on verified infrastructure are in one economic sphere; nations that are not are in another.
 
-Lisp Machine hardware becomes a strategic export control — like advanced semiconductors today. The triad is not a product category; it is infrastructure sovereignty.
+Lisp Machine hardware becomes a strategic export control — like advanced semiconductors today. Passepartout is not a product category; it is infrastructure sovereignty.
 
 ** Cultural: the break-everything era becomes a historical curiosity
 
-The /move fast and break things/ era is remembered like bloodletting or lead paint. A developer who does not verify is like a civil engineer who does not do structural calculations. The entire profession shifts from /write code/ to /write verified code/ as the default.
+The "move fast and break things" era is remembered like bloodletting or lead paint. A developer who does not verify is like a civil engineer who does not do structural calculations. The entire profession shifts from "write code" to "write verified code" as the default.
 
 The cultural residue of the unverified era (daily security patches, ransomware as an industry, "works on my machine") becomes a teaching example of how things used to be done.
 
@@ -95,7 +94,7 @@ The cultural residue of the unverified era (daily security patches, ransomware a
 
 ACL2 proof libraries are the arxiv of verified knowledge. The accumulation of proof strategies across millions of domains — every edge case ever encountered, every lemma ever proven — becomes a shared inheritance that no single human could assemble. The system bootstraps itself into regions of proof space that no unassisted human could reach.
 
-The frontier shifts. The question is no longer /can we verify this/ but /what new things become possible when verification is free/. The corollary: what new kinds of error become possible when the proof is wrong? The proof is machine-checkable; the /specification/ is human. Specification errors become the dominant failure mode — and that is a more tractable problem than runtime bugs, because specifications can be verified against /other/ specifications.
+The frontier shifts. The question is no longer "can we verify this" but "what new things become possible when verification is free." The corollary: what new kinds of error become possible when the proof is wrong? The proof is machine-checkable; the specification is human. Specification errors become the dominant failure mode — and that is a more tractable problem than runtime bugs, because specifications can be verified against other specifications.
 
 ** Economic: the old economy becomes a historical layer
 
@@ -105,10 +104,10 @@ The insurance industry, which prices based on risk, shifts to pricing based on p
 
 * References
 
-- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Triad index]] — the full architecture
+- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Architecture index]] — the full Passepartout architecture
-- [[id:a1fac32a-47de-5fbd-b67d-29152c851747][Triad overview]] — Logos, Stoa, Agora
+- [[id:a1fac32a-47de-5fbd-b67d-29152c851747][Architecture overview]] — the three subsystems
 - [[id:ed05cab4-88e9-4e25-b7c9-346fa39c69a0][Revenue streams overview]] — economic effects quantified
-- [[id:64708e1f-00e9-4cb7-b44b-ea0b98e5296d][Agora contracts]] — governance, insurance, liquid democracy
+- [[id:64708e1f-00e9-4cb7-b44b-ea0b98e5296d][Social protocol contracts]] — governance, insurance, liquid democracy
 - [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][Verification monopoly]] — the big money
 - [[id:2f783eb4-638e-5afa-9b59-6224d086a712][Infrastructure lock-in]] — switching costs
 - [[id:2cdca4b0-6b41-44b4-acb0-af21d0e27b00][Orders of magnitude — time]] — the framework that structures this analysis

projects/passepartout/common-logic-iso-24707.org

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Three standard dialects: CLIF (Common Logic Interchange Format), CGIF (Conceptua
 
 **Relevance to [[id:28c46769-c14b-42aa-ac7a-69d310157f8f][Passepartout]]**
 
-The fact store interchange format. Passepartout's fact store uses plists internally — fast, native to Lisp, zero serialization cost. But between instances ([[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] sync, backup/restore, export), a standardized format is needed. CLIF is a strong candidate because its first-order logic is a direct match for the [[id:45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d][gate rules]] ACL2 verifies. A CLIF-to-ACL2 translator is mechanically straightforward — both operate on first-order formulas.
+The fact store interchange format. Passepartout's fact store uses plists internally — fast, native to Lisp, zero serialization cost. But between instances ([[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][social protocol]] sync, backup/restore, export), a standardized format is needed. CLIF is a strong candidate because its first-order logic is a direct match for the [[id:45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d][gate rules]] ACL2 verifies. A CLIF-to-ACL2 translator is mechanically straightforward — both operate on first-order formulas.
 
 The dialect architecture mirrors Passepartout. CL's defining insight: define abstract semantics, let any concrete syntax map to it, get interoperability for free. This is the exact same pattern as Passepartout's "one gate stack, many skills" — the gate stack defines the security ontology (abstract semantics), and skills (dialects) map their operations to it. CL's approach validates Passepartout's design choice and provides a theoretical framework for it.
 
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ Multiple implementations exist. There are CL reference implementations (some in
 
 Not a replacement for ACL2. CL is a knowledge representation standard, not a theorem prover. ACL2 proves theorems about gate rules. CLIF encodes the gate rules themselves. They are complementary: ACL2 verifies CLIF-encoded rule sets.
 
-Not the internal representation. CLIF is verbose and not optimized for in-process use. The fact store should stay as plists internally. CL is the serialization layer — on the wire between Agora instances, in export files, in backup archives. This is the same pattern as JSON for web APIs: internal data structures are whatever is fastest, JSON is the interchange format.
+Not the internal representation. CLIF is verbose and not optimized for in-process use. The fact store should stay as plists internally. CL is the serialization layer — on the wire between social protocol instances, in export files, in backup archives. This is the same pattern as JSON for web APIs: internal data structures are whatever is fastest, JSON is the interchange format.
 
 Not a dialect to implement. Passepartout should not implement a full CLIF parser. The right approach is a thin translation layer: export plist → CLIF, import CLIF → ACL2-verified → plist. The AC Lisp ecosystem likely has CLIF libraries that can be wrapped.
 
@@ -38,10 +38,10 @@ CL's treatment of higher-order features is instructive: it extends first-order s
 **Verdict**
 
 Common Logic is relevant not as something to implement or replace, but as:
-1. A natural serialization format for the fact store (Agora Notes, inter-instance sync)
+1. A natural serialization format for the fact store (social protocol Notes, inter-instance sync)
 2. An enterprise procurement checkbox (ISO standard)
 3. A theoretical validation of Passepartout's dialect-based architecture
 4. A bridge to RDF/OWL data sources
 5. A cautionary example for the CIC prover design (careful about higher-order scope)
 
-The right time to integrate it: when Agora Notes need a standard knowledge interchange format for inter-instance communication. Before that, it is a reference worth reading but not implementing. The CL approach informs the [[id:efc76898-03f7-57ba-923d-35d65da88bb7][sufficiency flip]] strategy and the [[id:0b5a8a74-cfd6-542d-bc88-4eb3cd8626f9][cost structure]] of encoding domain knowledge.
+The right time to integrate it: when social protocol Notes need a standard knowledge interchange format for inter-instance communication. Before that, it is a reference worth reading but not implementing. The CL approach informs the [[id:efc76898-03f7-57ba-923d-35d65da88bb7][sufficiency flip]] strategy and the [[id:0b5a8a74-cfd6-542d-bc88-4eb3cd8626f9][cost structure]] of encoding domain knowledge.

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/_index.org

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       8b2c3d4e-5f6a-7b8c-9d0e-1f2a3b4c5d6e
+:END:
+#+title: Social Protocol
+#+filetags: :index:
+
+The Passepartout Social Protocol specification — identity, communication, contracts, and governance requirements.

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-00-readme.org

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#+title: Agora: Decentralized Social Network
+#+title: Social Protocol: Decentralized Social Network
 #+AUTHOR: Amr
 #+CREATED: [2026-03-17 Tue]
 #+BEGIN_COMMENT
@@ -9,13 +9,13 @@ A decentralized social network protocol for the ATmosphere (AT Protocol) ecosyst
 :CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
 :ID:       10289e64-a4ff-4c34-828f-f3a9c769b73d
 :END:
-* [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]: Decentralized Social Network
+* [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]]: Decentralized Social Network
 
 This project contains the specification and analysis for a decentralized social network built on open protocols.
 
 * Project Tasks
 
-See the actionable tasks for this project in GTD.org (Agora project)
+See the actionable tasks for this project in GTD.org (Social Protocol project)
 
 * Key Documents
 

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-01-overview.org

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#+title: Agora Requirements - 01: Protocol Overview and Foundational Principles
+#+title: Social Protocol Requirements - 01: Protocol Overview and Foundational Principles
 #+author: Amero Garcia
 #+created: [2026-03-19 Thu 21:07]
 #+DATE: 2026-03-20
@@ -9,63 +9,63 @@
 :CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
 :ID:       b25bf753-9799-41ab-82f5-1a1416db756b
 :END:
-* 1. Introduction to the [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] Protocol
+* 1. Introduction to the [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]]
 
-The Agora Protocol defines a novel architecture for decentralized digital interaction. Its primary objective is to replace extractive, centralized platforms—the era of *"Digital Feudalism"* where corporations own user data and control visibility via secret algorithms—with a decentralized *"Social Operating System"* that provides Identity, Justice, and Commerce for sovereign individuals and communities. 
+The social protocol defines a novel architecture for decentralized digital interaction. Its primary objective is to replace extractive, centralized platforms—the era of *"Digital Feudalism"* where corporations own user data and control visibility via secret algorithms—with a decentralized *"Social Operating System"* that provides Identity, Justice, and Commerce for sovereign individuals and communities. 
 
-Agora returns power to the edges by providing a modular protocol stack where trust is cryptographic, privacy is inherent, and freedom is architectural. This document provides a comprehensive overview of Agora's foundational principles, core technical differentiators, and a detailed exploration of its capabilities across various use cases, including communication, content creation, e-commerce, collaboration, and liquid democracy. It serves as a high-level technical summary, articulating the design philosophy and the synergistic effects of its integrated components.
+The protocol returns power to the edges by providing a modular protocol stack where trust is cryptographic, privacy is inherent, and freedom is architectural. This document provides a comprehensive overview of the protocol's foundational principles, core technical differentiators, and a detailed exploration of its capabilities across various use cases, including communication, content creation, e-commerce, collaboration, and liquid democracy. It serves as a high-level technical summary, articulating the design philosophy and the synergistic effects of its integrated components.
 
 * 2. Foundational Principles
 
-Agora's design is predicated upon a set of core principles that collectively ensure a robust, user-centric [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][decentralized network]].
+The protocol's design is predicated upon a set of core principles that collectively ensure a robust, user-centric [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][decentralized network]].
 
 ** 2.1. User Sovereignty and Data Ownership
 
-Central to Agora is the tenet of user sovereignty. Unlike centralized paradigms where platforms intermediate and often monetize user data, Agora's architecture ensures that all user-generated content and personal data are exclusively owned and controlled by the originating user. This is achieved through client-side encryption, self-hosted or user-controlled Personal Data Stores (PDS), and audience-defined access controls (`access_control`).
+Central to the protocol is the tenet of user sovereignty. Unlike centralized paradigms where platforms intermediate and often monetize user data, the protocol's architecture ensures that all user-generated content and personal data are exclusively owned and controlled by the originating user. This is achieved through client-side encryption, self-hosted or user-controlled Personal Data Stores (PDS), and audience-defined access controls (`access_control`).
 
 ** 2.2. Decentralization and Censorship Resistance
 
-The protocol is designed to eliminate single points of failure and control. By distributing data storage across user-controlled PDSs and routing communication through a permissionless Relay Network, Agora inherently resists censorship and external manipulation. There is no central authority capable of unilaterally restricting access, altering content, or deplatforming users.
+The protocol is designed to eliminate single points of failure and control. By distributing data storage across user-controlled PDSs and routing communication through a permissionless Relay Network, the protocol inherently resists censorship and external manipulation. There is no central authority capable of unilaterally restricting access, altering content, or deplatforming users.
 
 ** 2.3. Authenticity and Verifiability
 
-Every action and piece of content within Agora is cryptographically signed by the originating Persona. This provides an immutable and auditable record, ensuring the authenticity and integrity of all interactions. The content-addressed nature of all data, via Content Identifiers (CIDs), guarantees that content cannot be altered without changing its unique identifier, thereby establishing verifiable provenance.
+Every action and piece of content within the protocol is cryptographically signed by the originating Persona. This provides an immutable and auditable record, ensuring the authenticity and integrity of all interactions. The content-addressed nature of all data, via Content Identifiers (CIDs), guarantees that content cannot be altered without changing its unique identifier, thereby establishing verifiable provenance.
 
 ** 2.4. Privacy by Design
 
-Agora incorporates privacy-enhancing technologies at every layer. End-to-end encryption is a default for private communications, and mechanisms such as Blinded Sharding for social recovery and "Off-the-Record" modes for ephemeral interactions are integrated to minimize metadata leakage and ensure user confidentiality.
+The protocol incorporates privacy-enhancing technologies at every layer. End-to-end encryption is a default for private communications, and mechanisms such as Blinded Sharding for social recovery and "Off-the-Record" modes for ephemeral interactions are integrated to minimize metadata leakage and ensure user confidentiality.
 
 * 3. Core Technical Differentiators
 
-Agora's unique capabilities stem from the synergistic integration of three primary technical differentiators: The Note Primitive, Self-Sovereign Identity (Personas and Master Key), and a Distributed Infrastructure (PDS and Relay Network).
+The protocol's unique capabilities stem from the synergistic integration of three primary technical differentiators: The Note Primitive, Self-Sovereign Identity (Personas and Master Key), and a Distributed Infrastructure (PDS and Relay Network).
 
 ** 3.1. The Note Primitive: Atomic Unit of Information
 
-At the heart of Agora's data model is the "Note"—the atomic, universal unit of information. Every piece of content or interaction within the protocol, regardless of its semantic meaning (e.g., a social post, a message, a contract, an encyclopedia entry, a product listing), is encapsulated within a Note.
+At the heart of the protocol's data model is the "Note"—the atomic, universal unit of information. Every piece of content or interaction within the protocol, regardless of its semantic meaning (e.g., a social post, a message, a contract, an encyclopedia entry, a product listing), is encapsulated within a Note.
 
 For a comprehensive technical breakdown of the Note's structure, cryptographic hashing, and content flag schema, see *[[id:f6cfc54b-919b-4311-bcbf-65e976755d40][04: The Primitive]]*.
 
 *** 3.1.2. Benefits of the Unified Note Primitive
 
 The "Everything is a Note" paradigm yields significant architectural advantages:
--   *Universal Interoperability:* A single, standardized data model allows any Agora-compatible client application to understand and process any Note, fostering an open ecosystem where diverse applications can seamlessly interact.
+-   *Universal Interoperability:* A single, standardized data model allows any compatible client application to understand and process any Note, fostering an open ecosystem where diverse applications can seamlessly interact.
 -   *Immutable Audit Trail:* The content-addressed and signed nature of Notes inherently creates an unalterable, verifiable history of all digital interactions and content evolution.
 -   *Simplified Development:* Developers can focus on application-layer semantics and user experience, leveraging a robust and consistent underlying data primitive.
 
 ** 3.2. Self-Sovereign Identity: Personas and the Master Key
 
-Agora's identity system grants users absolute control over their digital presence, leveraging Hierarchical Deterministic (HD) cryptography to derive and manage multiple functional identities.
+The protocol's identity system grants users absolute control over their digital presence, leveraging Hierarchical Deterministic (HD) cryptography to derive and manage multiple functional identities.
 
 *** 3.2.1. The Master Key (Anima)
 
-The Master Key serves as the absolute root of a user's digital being within Agora.
+The Master Key serves as the absolute root of a user's digital being within the protocol.
 -   *Root of Trust:* A single, securely generated and stored secret seed from which all other identities are derived.
 -   *Hierarchical Derivation:* Utilizes a BIP-44 compatible HD derivation path (`m/44'/1'/account'/persona'/key_purpose/key_index`) to generate an infinite number of unlinkable Personas, each acting as a sovereign sub-root for its own functional keys.
 -   *Secure Storage:* Recommended for offline storage or within [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][Hardware]] Security Modules (HSMs) to ensure maximum protection.
 
 *** 3.2.2. Personas: Functional Digital Identities
 
-Personas are the active, functional identities through which users interact with the Agora network.
+Personas are the active, functional identities through which users interact with the protocol network.
 -   *Distinct Identities:* Each Persona represents a distinct Decentralized Identifier (DID), allowing users to maintain separate digital roles (e.g., personal, professional, anonymous) with granular control.
 -   *Key Management:* Each Persona possesses its own signing and encryption keypairs, which can be revoked or rotated independently without affecting the Master Key or other Personas.
 -   *Asset Ownership & Rights:* Personas are analogous to legal entities, capable of owning digital assets (e.g., Bitcoin wallets), entering into binding contracts, and claiming protected rights such as due process and freedom of expression.
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ Personas are the active, functional identities through which users interact with
 
 ** 3.3. Distributed Infrastructure: PDS, Relays, and Thin Clients
 
-Agora's infrastructure is specifically engineered to underpin user sovereignty, data ownership, and censorship resistance.
+The protocol's infrastructure is specifically engineered to underpin user sovereignty, data ownership, and censorship resistance.
 
 *** 3.3.1. Personal Data Store (PDS): The User's Digital Vault
 
@@ -87,29 +87,29 @@ The PDS is the central component for data ownership, acting as the user's sovere
 -   *Exclusive Control:* Every user controls their own PDS, whether self-hosted or through a trusted provider.
 -   *Master Archive:* Stores all user content (client-side encrypted) and identity data.
 -   *Access Gatekeeper:* Enforces access control, issuing decryption keys based on validated credentials or payments.
--   *PDS-as-a-Service:* Services can integrate seamlessly, offering free sign-ups with grace periods and requiring in-Agora payments (e.g., Lightning) for continued service, bypassing traditional financial intermediaries.
+-   *[[id:1a2b38df-20ba-58ca-ba55-a072be67bd0d][PDS-as-a-Service]]:* Services can integrate seamlessly, offering free sign-ups with grace periods and requiring in-protocol payments (e.g., Lightning) for continued service, bypassing traditional financial intermediaries.
 
 *** 3.3.2. Relay Network: The Intelligent Communication Backbone
 
-The Relay Network forms the intelligent communication backbone of Agora, efficiently routing encrypted Notes between Personas.
+The Relay Network forms the intelligent communication backbone of the protocol, efficiently routing encrypted Notes between Personas.
 -   *Ephemeral Routing:* Relays route ciphertext based on CIDs and Persona subscriptions, without long-term storage of user data.
 -   *Pub/Sub Model:* Facilitates efficient, real-time delivery of Notes based on user subscriptions.
 -   *Censorship Resistance:* Users can publish to multiple Relays, ensuring availability and resilience against censorship.
 
 *** 3.3.3. Agile Client Architecture: Broad Accessibility and Adaptability
 
-Agora adopts a flexible client architecture to balance user sovereignty with broad accessibility, particularly concerning app store ecosystems.
+The protocol adopts a flexible client architecture to balance user sovereignty with broad accessibility, particularly concerning app store ecosystems.
 -   *PDS-Proximate Logic:* Core application logic can reside and execute securely on the user's PDS.
 -   *Thin Clients:* Edge devices (mobile, desktop) run lightweight applications that interface with the PDS, mitigating app store restrictions and reducing device resource demands.
--   *Strategic Imperative:* This architecture ensures Agora's reach to a wider user base while maintaining security and privacy.
+-   *Strategic Imperative:* This architecture ensures the protocol's reach to a wider user base while maintaining security and privacy.
 
-* 4. Agora Use Cases: A Paradigm Shift
+* 4. Use Cases: A Paradigm Shift
 
-The synergistic combination of Agora's core differentiators enables a wide array of transformative use cases, redefining digital interaction across multiple domains.
+The synergistic combination of the protocol's core differentiators enables a wide array of transformative use cases, redefining digital interaction across multiple domains.
 
 ** 4.1. Decentralized Social Interaction
 
-Agora provides a robust framework for secure, private, and censorship-resistant interaction, moving beyond traditional platform-controlled silos.
+The protocol provides a robust framework for secure, private, and censorship-resistant interaction, moving beyond traditional platform-controlled silos.
 
 *** 4.1.1. Asynchronous Interaction (The Note Primitive)
 
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ Agora provides a robust framework for secure, private, and censorship-resistant
 
 ** 4.2. Social Publishing and Knowledge Management
 
-Agora fundamentally reshapes how content is created, published, and managed, empowering creators and ensuring verifiable knowledge.
+The protocol fundamentally reshapes how content is created, published, and managed, empowering creators and ensuring verifiable knowledge.
 
 *** 4.2.1. Feeds and Pages
 
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ Agora fundamentally reshapes how content is created, published, and managed, emp
 
 ** 4.3. Decentralized E-commerce and Markets
 
-Agora enables peer-to-peer economic interaction without intermediaries, fostering transparent and auditable marketplaces for goods and services.
+The protocol enables peer-to-peer economic interaction without intermediaries, fostering transparent and auditable marketplaces for goods and services.
 
 *** 4.3.1. Market Interaction Contracts
 
@@ -157,12 +157,12 @@ Agora enables peer-to-peer economic interaction without intermediaries, fosterin
 
 *** 4.3.2. Fungible vs. Non-fungible Assets
 
--   *Non-Fungible:* Agora's *Contract Note* model is inherently well-suited for unique goods and services (e.g., digital art, custom work), with each contract representing a distinct agreement.
+-   *Non-Fungible:* The protocol's *Contract Note* model is inherently well-suited for unique goods and services (e.g., digital art, custom work), with each contract representing a distinct agreement.
--   *Fungible:* While Agora provides the identity, communication, and settlement rails (e.g., Lightning micropayments), high-speed trading of fungible assets (e.g., cryptocurrencies, commodities) would require specialized architectural layers (e.g., decentralized exchanges or AMMs) built *on top of* the Agora protocol for order matching and liquidity.
+-   *Fungible:* While the protocol provides the identity, communication, and settlement rails (e.g., Lightning micropayments), high-speed trading of fungible assets (e.g., cryptocurrencies, commodities) would require specialized architectural layers (e.g., decentralized exchanges or AMMs) built *on top of* the protocol for order matching and liquidity.
 
 ** 4.4. Decentralized Collaboration and Project Management
 
-Agora offers robust primitives for secure, auditable collaboration, empowering teams and communities.
+The protocol offers robust primitives for secure, auditable collaboration, empowering teams and communities.
 
 *** 4.4.1. Version-Controlled Documents and Code
 
@@ -184,28 +184,28 @@ The convergence of native hosting, identity, and contracts enables a unified pro
 
 ** 4.5. Liquid Democracy and Governance: Evolvable Collectives
 
-Agora's identity and contract primitives lay the groundwork for a dynamic, adaptive model of decentralized governance that moves beyond the rigidity of traditional blockchain-based DAOs.
+The protocol's identity and contract primitives lay the groundwork for a dynamic, adaptive model of decentralized governance that moves beyond the rigidity of traditional blockchain-based DAOs.
 
 *** 4.5.1. Adaptive Constitutions and Policy Execution
 
--   *Signed Votes and Execution:* Individual votes are signed Notes that `references` a proposal CID. Unlike immutable blockchain code, Agora governance is built around *Adaptive Constitutions*. 
+-   *Signed Votes and Execution:* Individual votes are signed Notes that `references` a proposal CID. Unlike immutable blockchain code, the protocol's governance is built around *Adaptive Constitutions*. 
 -   *Recursive Rule-Making:* Successful votes trigger the Governance Executable Module (GEM) to automatically update the Collective's policy parameters (e.g., membership fees, arbitration rules) in its active Smart Constitution.
 -   *Immutable History, Mutable State:* While the complete audit trail of every vote and version is permanently recorded as a chain of CIDs, the organization can evolve its logic over time without requiring complex migrations.
 
 *** 4.5.2. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)
 
 -   *Foundation Contracts:* DAOs are formalized as `Collective Personas` governed by a set of foundational `Contract Notes` that define membership, treasury management, and decision-making processes.
--   *Forks as Safety Valves:* Because Agora is permissionless, minorities can "fork" a Collective by creating a new Persona based on an earlier constitutional CID, ensuring protection against majority tyranny and preserving community intent.
+-   *Forks as Safety Valves:* Because the protocol is permissionless, minorities can "fork" a Collective by creating a new Persona based on an earlier constitutional CID, ensuring protection against majority tyranny and preserving community intent.
 -   *Transparent Operations:* All operational decisions, proposals, and expenditures within a DAO are conducted and recorded as signed Notes and Contracts, providing 100% transparency to participants.
 
 * 5. Conclusion: Towards a Self-Sovereign Digital Future
 
-The Agora Protocol is meticulously designed to serve as the foundational layer for a new era of decentralized digital interaction. By unifying identity, data, and communication under the immutable, verifiable, and user-owned "Note" primitive, coupled with a distributed infrastructure and self-sovereign identity management, Agora offers a robust and resilient alternative to centralized systems. Its capabilities span from secure personal communication to complex global e-commerce, from collaborative knowledge creation to transparent democratic governance. Agora empowers individuals and collectives to reclaim their digital sovereignty, fostering an internet where trust is cryptographic, privacy is inherent, and freedom is architectural.
+The social protocol is meticulously designed to serve as the foundational layer for a new era of decentralized digital interaction. By unifying identity, data, and communication under the immutable, verifiable, and user-owned "Note" primitive, coupled with a distributed infrastructure and self-sovereign identity management, the protocol offers a robust and resilient alternative to centralized systems. Its capabilities span from secure personal communication to complex global e-commerce, from collaborative knowledge creation to transparent democratic governance. The protocol empowers individuals and collectives to reclaim their digital sovereignty, fostering an internet where trust is cryptographic, privacy is inherent, and freedom is architectural.
 * Bootstrapping & Progressive Decentralization
 
 ** The Cold Start Problem
 
-A decentralized social network faces an existential network effect challenge. Users will not join if there is no content, and creators will not post if there are no users. Agora solves this through *Progressive Decentralization*.
+A decentralized social network faces an existential network effect challenge. Users will not join if there is no content, and creators will not post if there are no users. The protocol solves this through *Progressive Decentralization*.
 
 ** Bootstrap Sequence
 
@@ -245,18 +245,18 @@ Reduce "empty feed" problem by immediately showing relevant content based on use
 *** Privacy Considerations
 - Migration is *opt-in*, not mandatory.
 - Users choose which platforms to import from.
-- Imported data is stored locally; only new Agora follows are public.
+- Imported data is stored locally; only new protocol follows are public.
 - Users can audit and remove imported suggestions before
  confirming follows.
 
 *** Discovery Expansion
 - Suggest high-reputation personas in imported interest areas.
-- Show "Your Twitter follows on Agora" for easy reconnecting.
+- Show "Your Twitter follows on the protocol" for easy reconnecting.
 - Surface collectives matching imported community memberships.
 
 ** The "Four Orders of [[id:26f3e845-5eb4-4bcd-9cff-28e219934841][Growth]]" (Scaling Sequence)
 
-Scaling a decentralized network requires shifting from "Hand-holding" to "Protocol Incentives." Agora follows a strictly defined orders-of-magnitude [[id:26f3e845-5eb4-4bcd-9cff-28e219934841][growth strategy]]:
+Scaling a decentralized network requires shifting from "Hand-holding" to "Protocol Incentives." The protocol follows a strictly defined orders-of-magnitude [[id:26f3e845-5eb4-4bcd-9cff-28e219934841][growth strategy]]:
 
 *** Order 1: The First 1,000 (The "Founders")
 - *Target:* Technical enthusiasts, privacy advocates, and niche professional guilds (e.g., decentralized AI devs).
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ Scaling a decentralized network requires shifting from "Hand-holding" to "Protoc
 
 *** Order 4: The 1M+ (The "Ecosystem")
 - *Target:* The general public.
-- *Tactics:* The Algorithm Marketplace becomes the draw. People join because "The Scientific Lens" or "The Family Lens" on Agora provides a better mental health experience than the addictive AI of centralized apps.
+- *Tactics:* The Algorithm Marketplace becomes the draw. People join because "The Scientific Lens" or "The Family Lens" on the protocol provides a better mental health experience than the addictive AI of centralized apps.
 - *Success Metric:* Total P2P bandwidth (Seeding) exceeds the capacity of a mid-sized centralized CDN.
 
 ** Progressive Decentralization Phases
@@ -290,53 +290,53 @@ Scaling a decentralized network requires shifting from "Hand-holding" to "Protoc
 
 *** Phase 3: Full Decentralization (Year 3+)
 - *No Central Authority:* The original developers become just one of many PDS and Relay providers.
-- *Protocol Stability:* The V1.0 spec is finalized, and development is driven by the *Agora Governance Model*.
+- *Protocol Stability:* The V1.0 spec is finalized, and development is driven by the *Protocol Governance Model*.
 
 ** Incentivized Growth
 
 - *Referral Satoshis:* Early users can be rewarded in satoshis for successful referrals that lead to high-reputation personas.
-- *Micro-Grant Bounties:* Funding developers to build "Must-Have" Agora apps through the economic layer.
+- *Micro-Grant Bounties:* Funding developers to build "Must-Have" protocol apps through the economic layer.
 
 * Strategic Positioning
 
 ** Platform Replacement Strategy
 
-Rather than positioning Agora as an existential threat to Big Tech (Apple, Google, Meta), Agora should first target underserved communities and platforms with clear pain points:
+Rather than positioning the protocol as an existential threat to Big Tech (Apple, Google, Meta), the protocol should first target underserved communities and platforms with clear pain points:
 
 *** Phase 1: Niche Community Platforms
 
 ** Forums (Reddit, phpBB, vBulletin)
 - *Pain Point:* Centralized moderation, censorship, data mining.
-- *Agora Advantage:* Sovereign moderation, portable identity, no platform lock-in.
+- *Social Protocol Advantage:* Sovereign moderation, portable identity, no platform lock-in.
 - *Target Communities:* Developer forums, hobbyist communities, support forums.
 
 ** Visual Discovery (Pinterest)
 - *Pain Point:* Algorithmic manipulation, advertising-driven discovery.
-- *Agora Advantage:* User-chosen discovery algorithms, no surveillance capitalism.
+- *Social Protocol Advantage:* User-chosen discovery algorithms, no surveillance capitalism.
 
 ** Professional Communities (LinkedIn, corporate intranets)
 - *Pain Point:* Professional data exploitation, platform-controlled networking.
-- *Agora Advantage:* Sovereign professional identity, portable reputation.
+- *Social Protocol Advantage:* Sovereign professional identity, portable reputation.
 
 ** Creator Platforms (Medium, Substack)
 - *Pain Point:* Platform fees (10-50%), censorship risk, no portability.
-- *Agora Advantage:* Near-zero fees, content ownership, subscriber portability.
+- *Social Protocol Advantage:* Near-zero fees, content ownership, subscriber portability.
 
 ** Marketplaces (eBay, Etsy)
 - *Pain Point:* High fees (10-15%), centralized dispute resolution, account bans.
-- *Agora Advantage:* Low fees (<5%), transparent reputation, sovereign stores.
+- *Social Protocol Advantage:* Low fees (<5%), transparent reputation, sovereign stores.
 
 ** Adult Content (Pornhub, OnlyFans)
 - *Pain Point:* Censorship, payment processor discrimination, lack of privacy.
-- *Agora Advantage:* Censorship-resistant, Lightning-native payments, pseudonymous.
+- *Social Protocol Advantage:* Censorship-resistant, Lightning-native payments, pseudonymous.
 
 ** Specialized Communities (QRZ, Logbook of the World)
 - *Pain Point:* Aging infrastructure, lack of modern features, centralization.
-- *Agora Advantage:* Modern protocol, extensible, community-governed.
+- *Social Protocol Advantage:* Modern protocol, extensible, community-governed.
 
 ** Decentralized Communities (Nostr, Fediverse)
 - *Pain Point:* Fragmentation, lack of economic layer, UI/UX challenges.
-- *Agora Advantage:* Unified protocol, Lightning integration, polished UX.
+- *Social Protocol Advantage:* Unified protocol, Lightning integration, polished UX.
 
 *** Phase 2: Horizontal Expansion
 
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ Once established in niche communities:
 
 ** Big Tech Analysis (Long-term)
 
-While not the immediate focus, Agora's architecture eventually threatens Big Tech:
+While not the immediate focus, the protocol's architecture eventually threatens Big Tech:
 
 *** Meta/Facebook
 - *Risk:* Portable identity undermines social graph lock-in.
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ While not the immediate focus, Agora's architecture eventually threatens Big Tec
 
 *** Apple
 - *Opportunity:* Privacy alignment, hardware security integration.
-- *Risk:* App Store policies may restrict Agora clients.
+- *Risk:* App Store policies may restrict protocol clients.
 
 *** Google
 - *Risk:* Search dominance challenged by social-graph-first discovery.
@@ -366,7 +366,7 @@ While not the immediate focus, Agora's architecture eventually threatens Big Tec
 - *Start Small:* Win over frustrated communities on Reddit, forums, Discord.
 - *Build Bridges:* ActivityPub/Mastodon integration, Twitter migration tools.
 - *Demonstrate Value:* Show "You trade 2 seconds for freedom" is worth it.
-- *Let Giants React:* By the time Big Tech notices, Agora is entrenched.
+- *Let Giants React:* By the time Big Tech notices, the protocol is entrenched.
 
 ** Strategic Assessment
 
@@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ While not the immediate focus, Agora's architecture eventually threatens Big Tec
 
 ** The Jurisdictional Challenge
 
-As a decentralized protocol with no central authority, Agora is designed to operate across international jurisdictions.
+As a decentralized protocol with no central authority, the protocol is designed to operate across international jurisdictions.
 
 ** Content Moderation & Liability
 
@@ -387,14 +387,14 @@ As a decentralized protocol with no central authority, Agora is designed to oper
 - *PDS Sovereignty:* The user (the PDS owner) is the only entity with the ability to decrypt and view the content.
 
 *** The CSAM Challenge
-- *Zero Tolerance Policy:* Agora's governance model includes protocol-level consensus for universally illegal content.
+- *Zero Tolerance Policy:* The protocol's governance model includes protocol-level consensus for universally illegal content.
 - *Network-Level Blocking:* High-reputation Relays can block CIDs associated with CSAM.
 - *Fundamental Tension:* The trade-off between total privacy (E2EE) and the ability to detect illegal content.
 
 ** Financial Regulation & AML
 
 - *Micro-Payments:* Lightning Network payments generally fall below traditional AML/KYC thresholds.
-- *Non-Custodial:* Agora is non-custodial. Users control their own keys and funds.
+- *Non-Custodial:* The protocol is non-custodial. Users control their own keys and funds.
 
 ** Data Privacy ([[id:c0fdec00-8a44-43f0-ac81-e8dc61411865][GDPR]]/CCPA)
 
@@ -424,5 +424,5 @@ As a decentralized protocol with no central authority, Agora is designed to oper
 
 * Related Documents
 
-- Agora Strategic Positioning
+- Protocol Strategic Positioning
-- Agora Legal & Regulatory Strategy
+- Protocol Legal & Regulatory Strategy

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-02-identity.org

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 
 ** Master Key (Psyche)
 
-The Master Key, often referred to as "Psyche" (Latin for soul or animating principle), is the absolute foundation of your digital identity in [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]. It serves as your unassailable root of trust, from which every other functional identity (your Personas) is cryptographically derived. This section meticulously outlines the Master Key's core requirements, elucidates how it empowers flexible organizational structures, and details the robust mechanisms for its secure management and resilient recovery. It is the ultimate key to your self-sovereignty.
+The Master Key, often referred to as "Psyche" (Latin for soul or animating principle), is the absolute foundation of your digital identity in [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]]. It serves as your unassailable root of trust, from which every other functional identity (your Personas) is cryptographically derived. This section meticulously outlines the Master Key's core requirements, elucidates how it empowers flexible organizational structures, and details the robust mechanisms for its secure management and resilient recovery. It is the ultimate key to your self-sovereignty.
 
 *** Requirements & The Root of Trust
 
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ The Master Key, often referred to as "Psyche" (Latin for soul or animating princ
 - The Master Key MUST be generated from a minimum of 256 bits of high-quality, cryptographically secure entropy.
 - The Master Key MUST be encoded as a BIP-39 mnemonic phrase (typically 24 words) for human-readable, offline backup and disaster recovery.
 - The Master Key MUST be stored offline (e.g., on paper, engraved metal) or within a tamper-resistant [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][hardware]] security module (HSM) for maximum protection against compromise.
-- The system MUST utilize a custom HD derivation path: `m/44'/1'/account'/persona'/key_purpose/key_index`, uniquely identifying Agora's identity structure within the broader BIP-44 ecosystem. (*Note: Index `1'` is utilized for the experimental/testnet phase; a unique permanent index will be registered for the Agora Mainnet via SLIP-0044.*)
+- The system MUST utilize a custom HD derivation path: `m/44'/1'/account'/persona'/key_purpose/key_index`, uniquely identifying the protocol's identity structure within the broader BIP-44 ecosystem. (*Note: Index `1'` is utilized for the experimental/testnet phase; a unique permanent index will be registered for the protocol Mainnet via SLIP-0044.*)
 - This path allows each Persona to act as a "Sub-Root," deriving its own autonomous functional keys (e.g., for Bitcoin, Lightning, PGP, or SSH) without requiring access to the Master Key once the Persona's extended private key (xpriv) is provisioned to a device.
 - Each `persona'` index within this derivation path MUST represent a distinct DID (Decentralized Identifier), ensuring global uniqueness and unlinkability.
 - The system MUST allow a single Master Key seed to generate an infinite number of unique, unlinkable personas, providing unparalleled flexibility for different digital roles.
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ It is critical to distinguish between the Master Key's role in *Persona derivati
 
 - *Master Key for Derivation (Creation of New Identities):* The Master Key is the sole cryptographic origin for generating new Accounts and Personas. Any creation of a new Persona (or Account) in your identity tree requires interaction with the Master Key. This ensures a clear, auditable, and cryptographically sound chain of custody from your single root to every Persona. While this might occasionally require accessing a hardware wallet for a new Persona setup, it safeguards the integrity of your entire identity graph.
 
-- *Persona Keys for Actions (Interacting with the Network):* Once a Persona is created, it becomes a fully independent, active agent in the Agora network. All subsequent actions—signing messages, publishing content, entering into contracts (including Foundation Contracts), acting as a guardian for social recovery, or joining an organization—are performed using the Persona's own distinct keypairs. *The Master Key is explicitly *not* needed for these daily operational activities.* This design minimizes the Master Key's exposure, keeping it safely offline and dramatically reducing the frequency of hardware wallet interactions for routine tasks.
+- *Persona Keys for Actions (Interacting with the Network):* Once a Persona is created, it becomes a fully independent, active agent in the protocol network. All subsequent actions—signing messages, publishing content, entering into contracts (including Foundation Contracts), acting as a guardian for social recovery, or joining an organization—are performed using the Persona's own distinct keypairs. *The Master Key is explicitly *not* needed for these daily operational activities.* This design minimizes the Master Key's exposure, keeping it safely offline and dramatically reducing the frequency of hardware wallet interactions for routine tasks.
 
 This clear separation ensures that your Master Key functions as a secure, infrequent-use root for identity creation and recovery, while your Personas are empowered to execute all network interactions autonomously.
 
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ This clear separation ensures that your Master Key functions as a secure, infreq
 
 **** Shamir's Secret Sharing: Distributed Trust
 
-If a user loses access to their offline Master Key, Agora's Social Recovery mechanism provides a decentralized, self-sovereign solution:
+If a user loses access to their offline Master Key, the protocol's Social Recovery mechanism provides a decentralized, self-sovereign solution:
 1. Master Key is cryptographically pre-split into N shards using Shamir's Secret Sharing.
 2. These shards are securely distributed to M-of-N "Guardians" (trusted friends or professional services).
 3. Recovery only requires M guardians to recombine their shards, rebuilding the Master Key offline.
@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ async function recoverShard(
 
 ** HD Derivation
 *** HD Derivation Architecture (BIP-32/44)
-- Agora uses a custom derivation path to ensure interoperability: `m/purpose'/persona_index'/profile_index/key_type`.
+- The protocol uses a custom derivation path to ensure interoperability: `m/purpose'/persona_index'/profile_index/key_type`.
 - The `persona_index'` MUST be hardened to prevent correlation attacks between different personas.
 - Each `persona_index'` MUST represent a distinct DID (Decentralized Identifier).
 - This allows a single seed to generate infinite, unlinkable personas.
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ The system MUST allow a user to prove relationships between their own Personas w
 Clients must efficiently discover active personas derived from a Master Seed without performing an exhaustive scan of the entire index space. The Gap Limit Protocol defines the search window and criteria for identifying active personas during recovery or sync.
 
 **** Specification
-- *Gap Limit (L):* The number of consecutive unused persona indices to check before stopping the scan. The default Agora gap limit is *20*.
+- *Gap Limit (L):* The number of consecutive unused persona indices to check before stopping the scan. The default protocol gap limit is *20*.
 - *Active Persona Detection:* A persona index is considered "active" if it has:
   1. A registered name in the Tier 2 Global Registry.
   2. Any Content Objects published to a PDS/Relay.
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ Clients must efficiently discover active personas derived from a Master Seed wit
 1. Derive Master Key.
 2. For each account index (starting from 0'):
    a. Scan persona indices 0 through L-1.
-   b. If any active persona is found, continue scanning the next window of L.
+   b. If any active persona is found, [[id:22d0a159-68a2-4587-9375-5046beddc20c][continue]] scanning the next window of L.
    c. If no active personas are found in the window, stop scanning this account.
 3. If no active personas are found in the first window (0 through L-1) of an account, stop scanning accounts.
 
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ Clients must efficiently discover active personas derived from a Master Seed wit
 **** Comparison to Traditional Systems
 
 -   *Traditional:* Partner leaves → Manually update 50+ passwords, revoke individual access rights across numerous platforms (email, bank, cloud storage, code repos, etc.). High risk of oversight and residual access.
--   *Agora:* Partner leaves → One managed revocation at the Master Key level (or their specific Persona's access derivation is severed) → Instant, automatic severance of access across all derived keys (company Bitcoin, PGP, SSH, etc.).
+-   *Passepartout Social Protocol:* Partner leaves → One managed revocation at the Master Key level (or their specific Persona's access derivation is severed) → Instant, automatic severance of access across all derived keys (company Bitcoin, PGP, SSH, etc.).
 
 This mechanism ensures that the collective's assets remain secure and under the control of the remaining authorized members, providing a robust solution for organizational identity management.
 
@@ -277,18 +277,18 @@ To generate a new Persona:
 
 The Account-Level Strategy is built upon a robust technical foundation that rigorously adheres to and extends industry standards for cryptographic key derivation. This specification ensures predictable, secure, and interoperable management of multiple digital identities from a single Master Key.
 
-***** BIP-44 Derivation Path Structure: Agora's Standard
+***** BIP-44 Derivation Path Structure: Protocol's Standard
 
-Agora meticulously follows the established BIP-44 standard for hierarchical deterministic key derivation paths. This standardized structure guarantees compatibility and logical organization of your digital identities.
+The protocol meticulously follows the established BIP-44 standard for hierarchical deterministic key derivation paths. This standardized structure guarantees compatibility and logical organization of your digital identities.
 
 `m / purpose' / coin_type' / account' / persona' / key_purpose / key_index`
 
-In Agora's context, this is specifically mapped as:
+In the protocol's context, this is specifically mapped as:
 
 `m / 44' / 1' / account' / persona' / key_purpose / key_index`
 
 -   *Purpose (44'):* This is a hardened derivation, as prescribed by BIP-44, signifying that the derived keys are cryptographically isolated from the Master Key.
--   *Coin Type (1'):* This is a hardened derivation, and `1'` is the officially registered SLIP-0044 index specifically allocated for the Agora Protocol.
+-   *Coin Type (1'):* This is a hardened derivation, and `1'` is the officially registered SLIP-0044 index specifically allocated for the Social Protocol.
 -   *Account (account'):* This is a hardened derivation. It provides independent, cryptographically isolated persona namespaces, enabling users to manage distinct organizational or contextual groupings of Personas.
 -   *Persona (persona'):* This is a hardened derivation. Each index represents a distinct, autonomous digital identity (DID). Hardening ensures that compromising one Persona's keys cannot compromise sibling Personas or the Master Key.
 -   *Key Purpose (key_purpose):* This non-hardened layer allows a single Persona to act as a "Sub-Root" to derive autonomous functional keys for specific tasks without requiring the Master Key. Examples:
@@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ In Agora's context, this is specifically mapped as:
 
 ***** Account Types and Reserved Indices: Standardized Compartmentalization
 
-While the choice of account indices is technically arbitrary, Agora recommends the following conventions. These standardized assignments ensure client interoperability and provide a common language for managing distinct digital compartments.
+While the choice of account indices is technically arbitrary, the protocol recommends the following conventions. These standardized assignments ensure client interoperability and provide a common language for managing distinct digital compartments.
 
 -   *0': Primary Account.* This is the default account for a user's primary personal identity, social interactions, and other everyday personas.
 -   *1': Professional Account.* This account is dedicated to professional identity, credentials, work-related personas, and business interactions.
@@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ While the choice of account indices is technically arbitrary, Agora recommends t
 
 ***** Client-Side Management Rules: Enforcing Security and Privacy
 
-Client applications interacting with Agora's identity system MUST adhere to a strict set of rules to ensure the security, privacy, and integrity of user accounts.
+Client applications interacting with the protocol's identity system MUST adhere to a strict set of rules
 
 1.  *Account Discovery (Gap Limit):* Clients MUST implement a "Gap Limit" (a heuristic search window, typically 20) for account discovery. During recovery or initial synchronization, the client scans accounts 0' through `N'` (where `N'` is determined by the gap limit and activity) for active personas. If an active account is found, the scan window is intelligently shifted forward.
 2.  *Context Isolation:* Data associated with different accounts (e.g., contact lists, encryption keys, local indexes) MUST be stored in cryptographically isolated database partitions or encrypted with account-specific salts. This prevents accidental data leakage between contexts.
@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ While the Master Key is an offline seed, Personas are active network agents gove
 
 **** Recovery Guardian Dynamics: Natural Persons vs. Collectives
 
-Agora distinguishes between the dynamics of recovery for individual "natural person" Personas and "collective" or organizational Personas (e.g., companies, DAOs) when it comes to social recovery.
+The protocol distinguishes between the dynamics of recovery for individual "natural person" Personas and "collective" or organizational Personas (e.g., companies, DAOs) when it comes to social recovery.
 
 ***** Natural Person Persona: The "Dictator with Safety Nets"
 For a human, the design goal is Ultimate Sovereignty. You are the "Root." Even if you have "Recovery Friends," they should have no power over you unless you are incapacitated.
@@ -365,16 +365,16 @@ For an LLC or NGO, the goal is Mutual Defense and preventing "hostile takeovers"
 - *Protection:* This prevents a single member from seizing the company identity. Removing a member requires signatures from the quorum (e.g., 3-of-4), ensuring that "consent" is baked into the math of the threshold.
 
 ***** Identity Succession & Minors
-Agora handles the lifecycle of identity across generations.
+The protocol handles the lifecycle of identity across generations.
 - *Minor Onboarding:* For a minor, a parent or guardian Persona can "Co-sign" the identity inception event. 
 - *Succession Logic:* This link creates a pre-authorized recovery path where the parent holds a dormant weight that can be activated to rotate keys if the minor loses access, transitioning to full independence at a defined maturation date.
 
 **** Legal Override & The "Break-Glass" Escrow (For Legal Entities)
 
-To handle situations like the death of a sole founder, a lost key, or a binding court order without creating a central back door, Agora implements a "Dormant Escrow" pattern specifically designed for Collective Personas or High-Value single Personas.
+To handle situations like the death of a sole founder, a lost key, or a binding court order without creating a central back door, the protocol implements a "Dormant Escrow" pattern specifically designed for Collective Personas or High-Value single Personas.
 
 -   *The Dormant Key:* At inception, the Persona's governance structure includes a "Public Key" belonging to a Neutral Third Party (e.g., a decentralized notary or a legal escrow service). This key is assigned a weight of `0` for daily operations.
--   *Multi-Party (M-of-N) Escrow:* To prevent a single corrupt entity from hijacking an identity, Agora utilizes a *Recovery Council*. For instance, a rotation might require 2-of-3 signatures from designated entities (e.g., a Notary, a Law Firm, and a Decentralized Oracle).
+-   *Multi-Party (M-of-N) Escrow:* To prevent a single corrupt entity from hijacking an identity, the protocol utilizes a *Recovery Council*. For instance, a rotation might require 2-of-3 signatures from designated entities (e.g., a Notary, a Law Firm, and a Decentralized Oracle).
 -   *The Trigger:* The identity’s governing logic includes a rule: "If a certified Legal Attestation (e.g., signed by the local Court's Public Key) is presented, the Escrow Key's weight jumps to the necessary quorum threshold (e.g., 100) for a single Rotation Event."
 -   *Observer-First Transparency:* Any change to the master key—including a legal override—must be published to the *Key Event Log (KEL)*. This ensures it's impossible for an agent to "quietly" take over an account; every user device and hired "watchdog" service is alerted immediately.
 -   *The Veto Window (Time-Locking):* Any rotation event initiated by an Escrow Key triggers a mandatory 72-hour `Pending State`. If the primary owner still possesses their key (i.e., the agent is acting maliciously), they can sign a *Veto & Revoke* message. Because the Owner Key has absolute priority, this instantly kills the pending rotation and can strip the escrow agent of future rights. If the owner is incapacitated, they won't sign a veto, and after 72 hours, the change becomes final.
@@ -411,12 +411,12 @@ To prevent assets from being "lost forever" if a user disappears unexpectedly:
 - User SHOULD have hardware backups before maturation.
 
 *** Wallet Integration (Ownership & Contracts)
-Each Persona in Agora is analogous to a legal person, possessing the inherent right and capability to own property, enter into contracts, and claim protected rights (freedom of speech, due process). Therefore, every Persona will have its own associated wallets (e.g., for BTC, Lightning, stablecoins, other digital assets). These wallets are controlled by the Persona's derived keypairs, making cryptographic ownership an integral part of its functional identity. Personas are thus fully enabled to manage digital assets and participate in the Agora economy.
+Each Persona in the protocol is analogous to a legal person, possessing the inherent right and capability to own property, enter into contracts, and claim protected rights (freedom of speech, due process). Therefore, every Persona will have its own associated wallets (e.g., for BTC, Lightning, stablecoins, other digital assets). These wallets are controlled by the Persona's derived keypairs, making cryptographic ownership an integral part of its functional identity. Personas are thus fully enabled to manage digital assets and participate in the protocol economy.
 
 *** Delegated Authoring & AI Personas
 
 **** Owner DID vs. Editor DID: The Mechanism of Agency
-Agora distinguishes between the identity that owns the content and the identity that cryptographically signs it. While these are identical in most personal interactions, their separation enables complex organizational and recovery workflows.
+The protocol distinguishes between the identity that owns the content and the identity that cryptographically signs it. While these are identical in most personal interactions, their separation enables complex organizational and recovery workflows.
 - *Owner DID:* The source of authority, reputation, and ownership. This is the Persona "speaking" or "publishing." All social weight and historical context accrue to this DID.
 - *Editor DID:* The cryptographic actor performing the signature, recorded within the Note's `proof` object. This is the entity "signing" the data. The network verifies that the Editor holds a valid Delegation Certificate or is an authorized recovery key for the Owner. If omitted from the `proof`, it defaults to the Owner DID (self-signed).
 
@@ -432,14 +432,14 @@ Agora distinguishes between the identity that owns the content and the identity
 - *Reputation Portability:* Content history and social relationships stay with the Owner DID, regardless of which specific human or bot was authorized to sign at the time.
 
 **** Cryptographic Delegated Signatures
-To allow multiple individuals (e.g., employees) or autonomous agents to act on behalf of a single Persona (e.g., an LLC or a brand account) without sharing the Master Key, Agora employs Delegated Signatures.
+To allow multiple individuals (e.g., employees) or autonomous agents to act on behalf of a single Persona (e.g., an LLC or a brand account) without sharing the Master Key, the protocol employs Delegated Signatures.
 - *The Delegation Certificate:* The "Owner" Persona signs a special `Delegation Certificate` granting specific capabilities to a "Delegate" DID for a defined period.
 - *Example Constraint:* "Delegate X can publish `is_feed: true` Notes on behalf of Owner Y, but cannot sign `contract` Notes."
 - *The Signature:* When the Delegate acts, they sign the Note with their *own* private key and append the Delegation Certificate. The network validates the certificate against the Owner's public key.
 - *Instant Revocation:* The Owner can instantly revoke the delegation by publishing a revocation event, cutting off the Delegate without needing to change passwords or rotate the Owner's keys.
 
 **** AI Agent Personas (AAP)
-Agora treats Artificial Intelligence not as a backend feature, but as a first-class participant.
+The protocol treats Artificial Intelligence not as a backend feature, but as a first-class participant.
 - *Agent DIDs:* An AI Agent is assigned its own derived Persona DID, completely separated from the human's primary identity.
 - *Capabilities-Based Security:* Using the Delegation mechanism above, the human owner grants the AI Agent restricted capabilities (e.g., "Authorized to spend up to 5000 sats/month" or "Authorized to draft responses but not publish them").
 - *Verifiable Origins:* Because the AI signs with its own DID, all network participants can instantly and cryptographically verify whether a piece of content was authored by a human or an AI.
@@ -455,7 +455,7 @@ Agora treats Artificial Intelligence not as a backend feature, but as a first-cl
 
 ***** The Global Registry (Tier 2)
 - *Decentralized Ledger:* A name-to-DID mapping stored on a decentralized ledger (e.g., a simple L2 or a high-reputation PDS/Relay coalition).
-- *Zooko's Triangle:* Agora attempts to achieve names that are *Human-Readable*, *Secure*, and *Decentralized*.
+- *Zooko's Triangle:* The protocol attempts to achieve names that are *Human-Readable*, *Secure*, and *Decentralized*.
 - *First-Come, First-Served:* Names are registered by the first persona to claim them, with small micro-fees (1000+ satoshis) to prevent squatting.
 
 ***** The Subdomain Model (Tier 3: The "Default" Handle)
@@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ Because users manage multiple Personas (Legal, Professional, Anonymous) derived
 - *Anonymous/Alt:* `alias.provider.org` (e.g., `night-owl.aletheia.social`)
 
 **** Web3 Naming Services (e.g., ENS)
-For users who want a username entirely untethered from a specific PDS provider's domain, Agora supports Decentralized Naming Services like Ethereum Name Service (ENS).
+For users who want a username entirely untethered from a specific PDS provider's domain, the protocol supports Decentralized Naming Services like Ethereum Name Service (ENS).
 - *How it works:* The user registers a base name (e.g., `yourname.eth`). They can then generate unlimited subnames for their various Personas for free (e.g., `work.yourname.eth`, `social.yourname.eth`).
 - *Portability:* If the user migrates their data to a new PDS, the `.eth` name stays with them. They simply update the "Content Hash" record on the blockchain to point to the new PDS location, ensuring unbreakable ownership of the handle.
 
@@ -519,8 +519,8 @@ For users who want a username entirely untethered from a specific PDS provider's
 *** Identity Linking
 
 *** Verification Objects
-- *Verification Objects:* A persona can publish a signed *Verification Object* linking their Agora DID to other identities (e.g., a PGP key, a personal domain, or even a centralized social profile).
+- *Verification Objects:* A persona can publish a signed *Verification Object* linking their protocol DID to other identities (e.g., a PGP key, a personal domain, or even a centralized social profile).
-- *Proof-of-Domain:* Proving ownership of a domain (via DNS record) is the gold standard for high-trust identity verification in Agora.
+- *Proof-of-Domain:* Proving ownership of a domain (via DNS record) is the gold standard for high-trust identity verification in the protocol.
 
 *** Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKP) & Selective Disclosure
 The system allows a user to "Attest" that two Personas belong to the same human (or hold the same credentials) *without revealing the Master Seed or creating a public cryptographic link*.
@@ -529,7 +529,7 @@ The system allows a user to "Attest" that two Personas belong to the same human
 - *Privacy Preservation:* The resulting proof verifies the credential is valid but explicitly hides *which* specific Legal Name DID generated the proof.
 
 **** Attribute-Based Predicate Proofs
-Agora extends ZKP capabilities beyond cross-persona linking to support *Selective Disclosure* and *Predicate Proofs* using Verifiable Credentials (VCs) with advanced cryptographic schemas (e.g., BBS+ signatures or AnonCreds). This allows Personas to prove attributes about their physical or financial reality without leaking metadata or underlying identifiers.
+The protocol extends ZKP capabilities beyond cross-persona linking to support *Selective Disclosure* and *Predicate Proofs* using Verifiable Credentials (VCs) with advanced cryptographic schemas (e.g., BBS+ signatures or AnonCreds). This allows Personas to prove attributes about their physical or financial reality without leaking metadata or underlying identifiers.
 - *Age/Date Verification:* A Persona can cryptographically prove a predicate like `Age > 18` to access age-restricted content or contracts without revealing their actual date of birth.
 - *Financial Ability:* A Persona can prove `Wallet Balance > 10,000 sats` or `Monthly Income > X` to serve as collateral or qualify for a service contract without revealing their exact balance or transaction history to the counterparty.
 - *Citizenship & Residence:* A Persona can prove membership in a specific geographic jurisdiction (e.g., "Resident of New York") for local governance voting or tax-compliant commerce without disclosing their legal name or specific home address.
@@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ interface VerificationObject {
     proofData: string;
   };
   
-  // Agora persona signature (proving the DID owner agrees to the link)
+  // Protocol persona signature (proving the DID owner agrees to the link)
   timestamp: number;
   signature: string; // Ed25519 signature over the object
 }
@@ -571,10 +571,10 @@ When a Persona's derived keys are compromised, lost, or need deactivation, users
 
 *** Identity Verifiability & Forward Security
 
-Personas are the functional, active identities through which you engage with the Agora network. Each Persona is uniquely and cryptographically derived from your Master Key, acting as your distinct digital self for specific contexts. They are the sovereign participants in the network, fully empowered to own property, enter into binding contracts, publish content, and claim protected rights such as due process and freedom of expression. This section details the cryptographic derivation, secure management, revocation mechanisms, and identification systems that enable your Personas to operate seamlessly and securely within the broader Agora ecosystem.
+Personas are the functional, active identities through which you engage with the protocol network. Each Persona is uniquely and cryptographically derived from your Master Key, acting as your distinct digital self for specific contexts. They are the sovereign participants in the network, fully empowered to own property, enter into binding contracts, publish content, and claim protected rights such as due process and freedom of expression. This section details the cryptographic derivation, secure management, revocation mechanisms, and identification systems that enable your Personas to operate seamlessly and securely within the broader protocol ecosystem.
 
 *** Key Event Log (KEL): The Observer-First Transparency Log
-Every Persona in Agora maintains a Key Event Log (KEL). This is a public, append-only ledger of all identity-related events, including:
+Every Persona in the protocol maintains a Key Event Log (KEL). This is a public, append-only ledger of all identity-related events, including:
 - *Key Events:* Inception, rotation, and revocation.
 - *Follow Events:* Every time you follow another DID, a signed "Follow Event" is added to the log.
 - *Transparency:* It is impossible to "quietly" take over an account or manipulate your public history. Any change to the keys or following relationships must be published to the log. Watchdog services can monitor this log and alert the user immediately if an unauthorized event is initiated.
@@ -585,7 +585,7 @@ The "Social Graph" (the list of DIDs you follow and who follows you) is mathemat
 - *The Rebuild:* When initializing a new PDS, the software scans the network and subscribed Relays for any signed Follow Events belonging to the user's DID. It automatically reconstructs the user's entire social graph (e.g., a list of 500 friends) without the user needing to remember a single username or manual backup.
 
 *** Pre-rotation: Quantum-Resistant Continuity
-Agora utilizes the principle of *Pre-rotation* to ensure forward security as an ultimate fail-safe.
+The protocol utilizes the principle of *Pre-rotation* to ensure forward security as an ultimate fail-safe.
 - *The Hash Commitment:* When a user creates their current active key, they simultaneously publish a cryptographic hash of their *next* (unborn) public key.
 - *The Protection:* Even if an attacker breaks the user's current private key (e.g., via a future quantum computer, theft, or even a malicious legal override attempt), they cannot forge a rotation event because they do not know the private key corresponding to the pre-committed hash. Rotation only becomes valid when the user reveals the new key that matches the previous hash, providing true "forward security."
 
@@ -614,4 +614,4 @@ The "Vault" is a dedicated application for an offline/hardware device that manag
 **** Technical Requirements
 
 **** BIP-39 / BIP-44 Compatibility
-Agora-compatible hardware wallets MUST support the `m/44'/1'/` path. If the device does not support the custom `1'` coin type, clients MAY fallback to a generic data-signing path, but this is NOT recommended for production use.
+Protocol-compatible hardware wallets MUST support the `m/44'/1'/` path. If the device does not support the custom `1'` coin type, clients MAY fallback to a generic data-signing path, but this is NOT recommended for production use.

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-03-infrastructure.org

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#+title: Agora Requirements - 03: Infrastructure
+#+title: Social Protocol Requirements - 03: Infrastructure
 #+author: Amero Garcia
 #+created: [2026-03-16 Mon 14:28]
 #+DATE: 2026-03-14
@@ -11,11 +11,11 @@
 :END:
 * The Sovereign Infrastructure: Your Digital Foundation
 
-[[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]'s infrastructure is meticulously architected to deliver on the promise of true digital sovereignty. Unlike traditional platforms that centralize control, Agora distributes power to the edges—directly into the hands of users. This section details the foundational infrastructure that makes self-sovereign identity, data ownership, decentralized communication, and global discovery not just possible, but practical and scalable.
+[[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]]'s infrastructure is meticulously architected to deliver on the promise of true digital sovereignty. Unlike traditional platforms that centralize control, the protocol distributes power to the edges—directly into the hands of users. This section details the foundational infrastructure that makes self-sovereign identity, data ownership, decentralized communication, and global discovery not just possible, but practical and scalable.
 
 ** Personal Data Store (PDS): Your Digital Fortress
 
-The Personal Data Store (PDS) is the cornerstone of Agora's sovereignty model—your personal, encrypted vault where all your Notes, identity data, and digital assets reside. Unlike cloud services that claim ownership of your data, your PDS is unequivocally yours. You control it. You host it. You decide who accesses it. It is the physical manifestation of your digital self-sovereignty.
+The Personal Data Store (PDS) is the cornerstone of the protocol's sovereignty model—your personal, encrypted vault where all your Notes, identity data, and digital assets reside. Unlike cloud services that claim ownership of your data, your PDS is unequivocally yours. You control it. You host it. You decide who accesses it. It is the physical manifestation of your digital self-sovereignty.
 
 *** Requirements
 
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ To send a private message:
 
 *** PDS Migration: Seamless Sovereignty Transfer
 
-PDS Migration represents a fundamental capability of Agora's architecture—the seamless, user-initiated transfer of one's entire digital corpus from one Personal Data Store to another. Unlike traditional platforms where data migration is often complex, permission-based, or impossible, Agora treats PDS Migration as a first-class operation. This is not an edge case, but a core feature that ensures users retain ultimate sovereignty over their data throughout its lifecycle. Whether changing hosting providers, upgrading [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][hardware]], or responding to security incidents, PDS Migration ensures users are never trapped by infrastructure choices.
+PDS Migration represents a fundamental capability of the protocol's architecture—the seamless, user-initiated transfer of one's entire digital corpus from one Personal Data Store to another. Unlike traditional platforms where data migration is often complex, permission-based, or impossible, the protocol treats PDS Migration as a first-class operation. This is not an edge case, but a core feature that ensures users retain ultimate sovereignty over their data throughout its lifecycle. Whether changing hosting providers, upgrading [[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][hardware]], or responding to security incidents, PDS Migration ensures users are never trapped by infrastructure choices.
 
 **** Concept
 
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ PDS Migration is the comprehensive process of transferring a user's entire encry
 
 Key principles of PDS Migration:
 
--   *User Sovereignty Absolute:* Users retain complete autonomy to migrate their data without requiring permission, intervention, or cooperation from any third party. This is a fundamental right within the Agora ecosystem.
+-   *User Sovereignty Absolute:* Users retain complete autonomy to migrate their data without requiring permission, intervention, or cooperation from any third party. This is a fundamental right within the protocol ecosystem.
 -   *Zero-Downtime Operation:* Migration SHOULD occur without interrupting the user's ongoing presence or activities on the network. This ensures continuous availability of services and interactions.
 -   *Rollback Safety:* Users MUST have the capability to revert to the original PDS if the new PDS fails to perform adequately or if any issues arise during the migration process. This provides a safety net for critical data transfers.
 -   *Atomic Cutover:* There is a clearly defined, atomic moment when the new PDS becomes the authoritative source of truth, and the old PDS transitions to a backup role, ensuring data consistency.
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ Migration scenarios include a comprehensive range of use cases:
 ***** Phase 2: Incremental Catch-up
 
 - *Delta Sync:* Catch up changes made since Phase 1 started.
-- *Repeat:* Continue incremental syncs until delta is small (e.g., < 1 minute of data).
+- *Repeat:* [[id:22d0a159-68a2-4587-9375-5046beddc20c][Continue]] incremental syncs until delta is small (e.g., < 1 minute of data).
 - *Read Testing:* Client optionally reads from new PDS to verify accessibility.
 
 ***** Phase 3: Cutover
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ async function verifyMigration(
 
 *** PDS-to-PDS Synchronization: Redundancy and Resilience
 
-In a truly sovereign digital ecosystem, users should never be constrained to a single point of failure. Agora's PDS-to-PDS Synchronization protocol empowers users to run multiple Personal Data Stores simultaneously—for redundancy, load balancing, or geographic distribution. This protocol enables bidirectional synchronization of encrypted Content Objects between a user's PDS nodes, maintaining CID integrity, conflict resolution, and data consistency across the distributed infrastructure. It ensures that your digital presence remains resilient, available, and performant, regardless of individual infrastructure limitations.
+In a truly sovereign digital ecosystem, users should never be constrained to a single point of failure. the protocol's PDS-to-PDS Synchronization protocol empowers users to run multiple Personal Data Stores simultaneously—for redundancy, load balancing, or geographic distribution. This protocol enables bidirectional synchronization of encrypted Content Objects between a user's PDS nodes, maintaining CID integrity, conflict resolution, and data consistency across the distributed infrastructure. It ensures that your digital presence remains resilient, available, and performant, regardless of individual infrastructure limitations.
 
 **** Concept
 
@@ -442,14 +442,14 @@ interface SyncConfig {
 *** Distributed Mirroring & Social Resilience
 
 **** Following: Default "Feed Gossip" & The Phoenix Effect
-Agora ensures baseline content resilience by leveraging a gossip-based mirroring architecture triggered by every "Follow" event.
+The protocol ensures baseline content resilience by leveraging a gossip-based mirroring architecture triggered by every "Follow" event.
 - *Following = Essential Replicating:* When a user "follows" another Persona, their device or PDS automatically joins the gossip swarm for that target's most critical low-bandwidth data.
 - *Feed Gossip Scope:* To balance network resilience with device resources, default gossip is restricted to the *Identity Log (KEL)* and a rolling window of *recent text-based Notes* (e.g., the last 1,000 posts).
 - *The Phoenix Effect:* This level of mirroring ensures the "Phoenix Effect" remains viable. If a user's PDS is destroyed, they can "shout" to their followers: "I am the owner of DID:123. Please send me everything you have signed by my key." The essential history and social graph flow back from the community.
 - *Censorship Resistance:* By making essential gossip a default behavior, the social graph and latest news stay alive through the "cracks" of the internet automatically.
 
 **** Supporting: Opt-in "Supporter-Mirroring" & Decentralized CDN
-For high-bandwidth content and deep archives, Agora transitions from simple gossip to an explicit infrastructure donation model.
+For high-bandwidth content and deep archives, the protocol transitions from simple gossip to an explicit infrastructure donation model.
 - *Persistent Mirroring:* When a user clicks "Support," they opt-in to a deeper technical commitment. The supporter's PDS archives the *entire historical feed* of the creator, not just the recent window.
 - *High-Bandwidth "Pinning":* Supporters provide the backbone for the *"Follower-as-CDN"* model. A supporter can allocate specific storage (e.g., "Pin 5GB of latest video") to ensure large payloads (audio, video, high-res images) remain highly available.
 - *WebRTC Peering & Seeding:* Supporters act as active "Seeds" in a BitTorrent-style swarm. When a new viewer watches a video, the app prioritizes streaming via WebRTC from online supporters rather than the creator's PDS, ensuring viral content has $0 infrastructure cost for the creator.
@@ -466,9 +466,9 @@ While the social swarm recovers public history, users ensure the recovery of pri
 - *Privacy Guarantee:* Because the backup is encrypted with the user's keys, the friends cannot read the private drafts or DMs; they only host the raw ciphertext blobs.
 - *Restoration:* In the event of a catastrophic local failure (e.g., fire, server loss), the user can download their latest snapshot from a friend and instantly restore their entire digital life to a new PDS node using their recovered Identity Keys.
 
-** Relay Network: The Circulatory System of Agora
+** Relay Network: The Circulatory System of the Protocol
 
-The Relay Network serves as Agora's intelligent, adaptive message routing layer—ephemeral, user-chosen pathways that efficiently route encrypted Notes via a pub/sub model. Unlike centralized servers that store and monitor your data, Relays are transient routers that respect your privacy, delivering your messages without ever holding them long-term. They are the circulatory system of the Agora network, ensuring vital communication flows freely and securely.
+The Relay Network serves as the protocol's intelligent, adaptive message routing layer—ephemeral, user-chosen pathways that efficiently route encrypted Notes via a pub/sub model. Unlike centralized servers that store and monitor your data, Relays are transient routers that respect your privacy, delivering your messages without ever holding them long-term. They are the circulatory system of the protocol network, ensuring vital communication flows freely and securely.
 
 *** Requirements
 
@@ -481,7 +481,7 @@ The Relay Network serves as Agora's intelligent, adaptive message routing layer
 *** Technical Logic
 *** Relay Routing & Prioritization: Pay-to-Prioritize (P2P)
 
-To ensure high-performance and sustainability without central control, Agora Relays utilize a *Pay-to-Prioritize (P2P)* routing strategy. Crucially, Relays are *Logic-Blind*. They do not inspect the Note's payload or contract terms (which may be encrypted). Instead, they prioritize traffic based on explicit, unencrypted metadata.
+To ensure high-performance and sustainability without central control, the protocol's Relays utilize a *Pay-to-Prioritize (P2P)* routing strategy. Crucially, Relays are *Logic-Blind*. They do not inspect the Note's payload or contract terms (which may be encrypted). Instead, they prioritize traffic based on explicit, unencrypted metadata.
 
 **** Explicit Priority Fee (The "Fast-Lane")
 If a Note requires instant routing (e.g., a time-sensitive financial transaction or live chat), the sender can attach a Lightning micropayment directly to the routing request.
@@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ New clients need to find Relay nodes without hardcoded lists (centralization ris
 ****** Well-Known DID
 - DID: `did:agora:bootstrap`
 - Service Endpoint: "RelayDirectory" with list of known high-reputation relays
-- Maintained: By Agora Trust, updated quarterly
+- Maintained: By Protocol Trust, updated quarterly
 
 ****** DHT (Future)
 - Distributed hash table for relay discovery
@@ -577,10 +577,10 @@ To ensure sustainability without compromising user data (avoiding "Surveillance
 
 - *Relay:* Keeps 70% of fees (operating costs)
 - *Validator Oracles:* 20% (fraud detection)
-- *Agora Protocol:* 10% (development fund)
+- *Protocol Protocol:* 10% (development fund)
 
 **** Network Resilience: Global Firehose vs. Fragmented Relays
-The Agora design ensures that the relay network is inherently replaceable and resilient:
+The social protocol's design ensures that the relay network is inherently replaceable and resilient:
 -   *Replaceable Relays:* Users can instantly switch to competitor relays if a provider becomes greedy or censorious by simply re-pointing their PDS.
 -   *"Multi-homed" Data (Firehose Protection):* Users push posts to multiple relays simultaneously. If any relay fails, history remains accessible via others, ensuring followers can always maintain connectivity.
 
@@ -647,14 +647,14 @@ Because anyone can theoretically publish a Note claiming to be "Alice," the Sear
 - *Unverified Flagging:* If a user squats on a username without owning the corresponding domain or blockchain record, the Indexer explicitly flags the search result as "Unverified" or excludes it.
 
 **** "Privacy-First" Search
-Because Agora supports multiple isolated Personas per user, global search is strictly opt-in:
+Because the social protocol supports multiple isolated Personas per user, global search is strictly opt-in:
 - *Public Personas:* (e.g., a "Work" or "Creator" Persona) publish a "Directory Opt-In" Note. Indexers catalog them, making them searchable by anyone.
 - *Private Personas:* (e.g., an "Anonymous" or "Family" Persona) do not publish this Note. They are entirely hidden from global Indexers. To find a Private Persona, another user must possess their exact DID string or be invited via a secure DIDComm routing channel.
 
-** Agora-to-Web Gateways: The Bridge to the Open Web
+** Social Protocol-to-Web Gateways: The Bridge to the Open Web
 
 *** Concept
-To make decentralized, P2P content accessible to users on the "Open Web" (traditional browsers like Chrome or Safari without special plugins), Agora must bridge the gap between Content-Addressed Data (CIDs) and Location-Addressed URLs. 
+To make decentralized, P2P content accessible to users on the "Open Web" (traditional browsers like Chrome or Safari without special plugins), the social protocol must bridge the gap between Content-Addressed Data (CIDs) and Location-Addressed URLs. 
 
 Gateways act as "translators" sitting on the edge of the decentralized network, talking HTTP to the legacy web while speaking P2P protocols internally. Every PDS or dedicated "Public Relay" can act as a web gateway.
 
@@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ A piece of content identified by its hash (CID), such as `bafy...123`, can be vi
 
 **** The Translation Process
 When a browser hits that link, the Gateway performs the following automated steps:
-1. *Fetch:* Retrieves the data from the P2P swarm using Agora's native protocols.
+1. *Fetch:* Retrieves the data from the P2P swarm using the social protocol's native protocols.
 2. *Verify:* Cryptographically verifies the Note's signature against the creator's Persona DID to ensure authenticity.
 3. *Wrap:* Wraps the raw content (Markdown, JSON) in standard HTML/CSS templates so it renders correctly in a standard web browser.
 
@@ -678,7 +678,7 @@ Most users will not share long cryptographic hashes. To make content web-friendl
 
 **** DNSLink (Traditional Domains)
 Users can point their own domains (e.g., `alice.com`) directly to their Persona. 
-- *Automatic Resolution:* When someone visits `alice.com`, the Gateway reads a DNS TXT record that says: "Go find content hash XYZ on the Agora network."
+- *Automatic Resolution:* When someone visits `alice.com`, the Gateway reads a DNS TXT record that says: "Go find content hash XYZ on the social protocol network."
 - *Zero-Configuration SSL:* Gateways automatically provision and renew HTTPS certificates (via Let's Encrypt) for any domain linked to a Persona DID.
 - *Well-Known Verification:* Gateways automatically serve the user's DID document at `https://[custom-domain]/.well-known/atproto-did` to prove ownership.
 
@@ -687,14 +687,14 @@ To onboard users quickly without forcing them to buy a domain, PDS providers act
 - *Availability & Routing:* The PDS performs an automated availability check. If a handle is free, it updates its Virtual Host configuration and internal DNS to instantly route traffic for `newuser.provider.org`.
 
 **** Web3 Domains (.eth, .p2p)
-For users utilizing blockchain-based naming services, Agora integrates with specialized gateways (e.g., Eth.limo). A user types `yourname.eth.limo` into a standard browser, and the gateway does the heavy lifting of resolving the blockchain record and serving the underlying P2P data.
+For users utilizing blockchain-based naming services, the social protocol integrates with specialized gateways (e.g., Eth.limo). A user types `yourname.eth.limo` into a standard browser, and the gateway does the heavy lifting of resolving the blockchain record and serving the underlying P2P data.
 
 *** 3. Social Mirroring for Search Engines (SEO)
 
-To ensure Agora content is discoverable on legacy search engines like Google, the network utilizes automated rendering pipelines.
+To ensure social protocol content is discoverable on legacy search engines like Google, the network utilizes automated rendering pipelines.
 
 **** The Firehose
-Agora Relays emit a continuous "Firehose" of every public Note created on the network.
+Social protocol Relays emit a continuous "Firehose" of every public Note created on the network.
 
 **** SEO Rendering (App Views)
 Specialized indexers or "App Views" (functioning like web-frontends) consume this firehose. They automatically generate static, crawlable HTML pages for every public profile, post, and thread. This ensures that decentralized content is aggressively indexed by Google's web crawlers, matching or exceeding the discoverability of traditional centralized blogs.
@@ -710,7 +710,7 @@ Gateways integrate with the Exchange layer. Owners can host static sites where c
 
 *** Requirements
 
-- Gateways MUST take CID-based Agora content and render it as HTML for legacy browsers.
+- Gateways MUST take CID-based social protocol content and render it as HTML for legacy browsers.
 - Gateways MUST support SEO-friendly rendering for public content.
 - The system MUST allow anyone to run a Gateway (not restricted to Relay operators).
 - Gateways MUST NOT require authentication for public content.
@@ -721,14 +721,14 @@ Gateways integrate with the Exchange layer. Owners can host static sites where c
 
 *** Relationship to Relays
 
-- *Relays* serve Agora-native clients via WebSocket/pub-sub protocols.
+- *Relays* serve protocol-native clients via WebSocket/pub-sub protocols.
 - *Gateways* serve legacy browsers via HTTP.
 - They are *separate infrastructure* - a Gateway may use Relays as a backend, but they're distinct services.
 
 *** Gateway Discovery
 
 **** Concept
-Gateways bridge Agora content to the legacy web via HTTP. Discovery mechanisms are needed for clients to find reliable gateways to generate shareable HTTP links for their public content.
+Gateways bridge social protocol content to the legacy web via HTTP. Discovery mechanisms are needed for clients to find reliable gateways to generate shareable HTTP links for their public content.
 
 **** Discovery Mechanisms
 
@@ -745,10 +745,10 @@ Gateways bridge Agora content to the legacy web via HTTP. Discovery mechanisms a
 
 ** Infrastructure Discovery: DID Document Bindings
 
-For a Persona to function within the network, its Decentralized Identifier (DID) must "bind" to specific infrastructure endpoints. This is achieved via the `service` section of the Agora DID Document.
+For a Persona to function within the network, its Decentralized Identifier (DID) must "bind" to specific infrastructure endpoints. This is achieved via the `service` section of the social protocol DID Document.
 
 *** The Service Schema
-Every Agora DID Document SHOULD include a list of service endpoints that allow other Personas and clients to locate the user's data and communication channels.
+Every social protocol DID Document SHOULD include a list of service endpoints that allow other Personas and clients to locate the user's data and communication channels.
 
 #+begin_src json
 {
@@ -782,7 +782,7 @@ Every Agora DID Document SHOULD include a list of service endpoints that allow o
 
 *** Concept
 
-Agora's architectural strategy for client applications aims to balance user sovereignty with broad accessibility and app store compliance. Instead of relying solely on "sovereign clients" (full-featured applications running entirely on edge devices), a hybrid approach will be adopted: core client logic will reside closer to the Personal Data Store (PDS), with only a "thin client" deployed on edge devices (e.g., mobile apps, web browsers). This allows for greater flexibility in distribution and development.
+The social protocol's architectural strategy for client applications aims to balance user sovereignty with broad accessibility and app store compliance. Instead of relying solely on "sovereign clients" (full-featured applications running entirely on edge devices), a hybrid approach will be adopted: core client logic will reside closer to the Personal Data Store (PDS), with only a "thin client" deployed on edge devices (e.g., mobile apps, web browsers). This allows for greater flexibility in distribution and development.
 
 *** Motivation: App Store Compliance & Broad Reach
 
@@ -793,7 +793,7 @@ Traditional "sovereign client" models, where full application logic, data proces
 -   Data storage and handling outside platform-defined sandboxes
 -   Features deemed to circumvent platform monetization or control
 
-The PDS-proximate / thin client model is a pragmatic solution to navigate these limitations, enabling Agora to reach a wider user base through conventional app distribution channels without compromising core protocol principles.
+The PDS-proximate / thin client model is a pragmatic solution to navigate these limitations, enabling the social protocol to reach a wider user base through conventional app distribution channels without compromising core protocol principles.
 
 *** Strategic Advantages
 
@@ -812,7 +812,7 @@ The PDS-proximate / thin client model is a pragmatic solution to navigate these
 
 *** Conclusion
 
-The adoption of a PDS-proximate / thin client architecture is a strategic imperative for Agora to achieve mass adoption and navigate the complexities of modern app distribution, while simultaneously enhancing the capabilities of the Personal Data Store as a dynamic and powerful extension of the user's digital self.
+The adoption of a PDS-proximate / thin client architecture is a strategic imperative for the social protocol to achieve mass adoption and navigate the complexities of modern app distribution, while simultaneously enhancing the capabilities of the Personal Data Store as a dynamic and powerful extension of the user's digital self.
 
 ** Related Documents
 

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-04-the-primitive.org

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#+title: Agora Requirements - 04: The Primitive
+#+title: Social Protocol Requirements - 04: The Primitive
 #+author: Amero Garcia
 #+created: [2026-03-16 Mon 14:28]
 #+DATE: 2026-03-15
@@ -9,17 +9,17 @@
 :CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
 :ID:       f6cfc54b-919b-4311-bcbf-65e976755d40
 :END:
-* The Primitive: The Atomic Foundation of [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]
+* The Primitive: The Atomic Foundation of [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]]
 
 ** Concept: The Universal Data Primitive
 
-The Primitive is Agora's foundational content layer—the base data structure upon which all social interaction, economic exchange, and identity management is built. Before there are posts, contracts, or profiles, there are Notes. The Note is the atomic, universal unit of information in Agora. 
+The Primitive is the protocol's foundational content layer—the base data structure upon which all social interaction, economic exchange, and identity management is built. Before there are posts, contracts, or profiles, there are Notes. The Note is the atomic, universal unit of information in the protocol. 
 
-This elegant simplicity—the "Everything is a Note" paradigm—enables Agora's powerful interoperability, immutable audit trails, and seamless cross-application compatibility. By reducing all digital interactions to a single, cryptographically verifiable primitive, Agora creates a unified ecosystem where any application can understand and process any data, breaking down the silos that plague traditional digital platforms.
+This elegant simplicity—the "Everything is a Note" paradigm—enables the protocol's powerful interoperability, immutable audit trails, and seamless cross-application compatibility. By reducing all digital interactions to a single, cryptographically verifiable primitive, the protocol creates a unified ecosystem where any application can understand and process any data, breaking down the silos that plague traditional digital platforms.
 
 ** The Note Structure
 
-A Note is the atomic unit of information in Agora. Everything—posts, messages, contracts, profiles—is a Note with behavioral flags.
+A Note is the atomic unit of information in the social protocol. Everything—posts, messages, contracts, profiles—is a Note with behavioral flags.
 
 *** Technical Specification
 
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ The single `is_feed` property defines the behavioral intent of a Note without ch
 | `is_feed` | boolean | Chronological timeline item (Post, Status, Update). If false/omitted, the Note is a static Page. |
 
 *** The Contract & Payload Split
-Every signed Note in Agora is inherently a contract. To clearly separate the "Rules of Engagement" from the "Asset", the Note structure defines two distinct fields:
+Every signed Note in the social protocol is inherently a contract. To clearly separate the "Rules of Engagement" from the "Asset", the Note structure defines two distinct fields:
 
 - *`contract` (JSON Object):* Defines the terms. This includes both human-readable terms (e.g., `"license": "CC0"`) and machine-readable state (e.g., `"price_satoshis": 5000`).
 - *`payload` (Polymorphic String):* Defines the asset governed by the contract. This can be:
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ The `notify` array defines who should receive a push notification or "Inbox" ale
 
 *** Semantic Derivations
 
-Because Agora uses a minimalist flag system, high-level social and economic concepts are reconstructed by clients using core flags, audience scope (`access_control`), and Note relationships (`references`, `reply_to`, `notify`).
+Because the social protocol uses a minimalist flag system, high-level social and economic concepts are reconstructed by clients using core flags, audience scope (`access_control`), and Note relationships (`references`, `reply_to`, `notify`).
 
 **** Basic Content
 - *Public Post:* `is_feed:true` + `access_control:[]`
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ Because Agora uses a minimalist flag system, high-level social and economic conc
 
 *** Flag Combination Rules
 
-Agora implements strict validation to ensure network integrity.
+The social protocol implements strict validation to ensure network integrity.
 
 **** Rule 1: Flow (Feed vs. Page)
 - `is_feed: true` indicates chronological content.
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ Agora implements strict validation to ensure network integrity.
 {
   "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
   "$id": "https://agora.ai/schemas/content-flags.json",
-  "title": "Agora Note Flags",
+  "title": "Social Protocol Note Flags",
   "description": "Validation schema for the Binary Core flag set",
   "type": "object",
   "properties": {
@@ -263,10 +263,10 @@ Agora implements strict validation to ensure network integrity.
 
 *** Encryption: Security by Design
 
-Security is woven into the fabric of the protocol. Agora uses industry-standard primitives to ensure that only intended recipients can access private content.
+Security is woven into the fabric of the protocol. The social protocol uses industry-standard primitives to ensure that only intended recipients can access private content.
 
 - *End-to-End Encryption (E2EE):* Private Notes use AES-256-GCM for payloads and X25519 for ECDH key exchange.
-- *Forward Secrecy:* Agora employs Double Ratchet for 1-on-1 messaging and MLS (Messaging Layer Security) for groups, rotating keys per-message.
+- *Forward Secrecy:* The social protocol employs Double Ratchet for 1-on-1 messaging and MLS (Messaging Layer Security) for groups, rotating keys per-message.
 
 *** Ephemeral Content Enforcement
 
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ The `is_ephemeral: true` flag is enforced through three complementary mechanisms
 ** Relationships, Sync & Performance
 
 *** Note Relationships
-Agora uses three distinct fields to define relationships between Notes, balancing semantic precision with high-performance discovery.
+The social protocol uses three distinct fields to define relationships between Notes, balancing semantic precision with high-performance discovery.
 
 **** Threading & Reference Logic
 
@@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ Alice posts a product listing (Note A). Bob asks a question (Note B) about the l
 - *Streaming CIDs:* The root CID points to the tree, allowing concurrent, prioritized downloading of chunks.
 
 *** Real-time Sync & Collaboration
-- *Live Collaboration:* Agora uses CRDTs (Conflict-free Replicated Data Types) for shared state (e.g., co-editing a document).
+- *Live Collaboration:* The social protocol uses CRDTs (Conflict-free Replicated Data Types) for shared state (e.g., co-editing a document).
 - *Ephemeral Channels:* Real-time updates (like typing indicators) are broadcast via Relay WebSockets without being committed to the PDS as permanent Notes.
 
 *** Content Deduplication
@@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ Alice posts a product listing (Note A). Bob asks a question (Note B) about the l
   "contract": {
     "license": "CC-BY-4.0"
   },
-  "payload": "Hello, Agora!",
+  "payload": "Hello, Social Protocol!",
   "content_type": "text/markdown",
   "access_control": [],
   "createdAt": "2026-03-25T14:30:00Z",

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-05-social.org

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#+title: Agora Requirements - 05: Social Space
+#+title: Social Protocol Requirements - 05: Social Space
 #+author: Amero Garcia
 #+created: [2026-03-16 Mon 14:28]
 #+DATE: 2026-03-15
@@ -11,15 +11,15 @@
 :END:
 * Social Space: Where Human Connection Becomes Sovereign
 
-The Social Space is where [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]'s revolutionary architecture transforms how humans connect, communicate, and transact. Unlike traditional platforms that own your relationships and monetize your attention, Agora puts you in complete control of your social graph. Every interaction—from a casual conversation to a binding commercial contract—is self-owned, cryptographically secured, and entirely under your sovereignty. This is social interaction reimagined for a decentralized future.
+The Social Space is where [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]]'s revolutionary architecture transforms how humans connect, communicate, and transact. Unlike traditional platforms that own your relationships and monetize your attention, the protocol puts you in complete control of your social graph. Every interaction—from a casual conversation to a binding commercial contract—is self-owned, cryptographically secured, and entirely under your sovereignty. This is social interaction reimagined for a decentralized future.
 
 ** Concept
 
-Social Space encompasses all person-to-person and person-to-collective interaction in Agora: public and private, asynchronous and real-time. All social interaction is mediated by Notes and contracts running on the Exchange layer.
+Social Space encompasses all person-to-person and person-to-collective interaction in the protocol: public and private, asynchronous and real-time. All social interaction is mediated by Notes and contracts running on the Exchange layer.
 
 ** Asynchronous Communication (Correspondence & Messaging)
 
-Asynchronous communication in Agora utilizes the *Secure Communication Module (SCM)*, which enforces the *DIDComm v2 (Decentralized Identifier Communication)* protocol—a transport-agnostic standard for secure, private communication.
+Asynchronous communication in the protocol utilizes the *Secure Communication Module (SCM)*, which enforces the *DIDComm v2 (Decentralized Identifier Communication)* protocol—a transport-agnostic standard for secure, private communication.
 - *Message Format:* All private messages MUST be formatted as JWM (JSON Web Messages).
 - *Encryption Suite:* JWMs MUST be wrapped in a JWE (JSON Web Encryption) envelope, utilizing X25519 for key agreement and AES-256-GCM for content encryption.
 
@@ -32,11 +32,11 @@ Because a user's primary device (e.g., a phone) is not always online, the PDS ac
 - *Pickup:* When the recipient's device wakes up, it fetches the envelope from the PDS, decrypts it locally, and deletes the copy from the PDS.
 
 *** Contextual Isolation
-Agora enforces strict multi-persona isolation. Each Persona (e.g., "Work," "Dating," "Personal") has a separate, cryptographically isolated message queue. A message sent to a user's Work DID never touches the inbox or metadata of their Dating DID, ensuring zero cross-context leakage.
+The protocol enforces strict multi-persona isolation. Each Persona (e.g., "Work," "Dating," "Personal") has a separate, cryptographically isolated message queue. A message sent to a user's Work DID never touches the inbox or metadata of their Dating DID, ensuring zero cross-context leakage.
 
 ** The Unified Note Primitive
 
-All asynchronous interaction in Agora—whether a public post or a private message—is built upon the same "Note" primitive. The behavior and visibility of a Note are defined by cryptographic signatures and a set of standardized metadata flags.
+All asynchronous interaction in the protocol—whether a public post or a private message—is built upon the same "Note" primitive. The behavior and visibility of a Note are defined by cryptographic signatures and a set of standardized metadata flags.
 
 *** Flag Definitions & Storage Models
 
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ Every async interaction is a Note identified by a Content Identifier (CID). This
 
 ** Directed Communication (Copy-on-Send Model)
 
-For Notes intended for specific recipients (e.g., 1-on-1 messages, group chats), Agora employs a "Copy-on-Send" model to ensure recipient data ownership and high availability.
+For Notes intended for specific recipients (e.g., 1-on-1 messages, group chats), the protocol employs a "Copy-on-Send" model to ensure recipient data ownership and high availability.
 
 *** Audience & Attention
 - *Audience:* Defined by the `access_control` array. These entities have the cryptographic right to own and decrypt the Note.
@@ -69,14 +69,14 @@ This model ensures recipients have full ownership and control over the messages
 
 ** Social Publishing: Feeds & Streams
 
-For content intended for a broad audience (e.g., social posts, public articles, project wikis), Agora uses a "Reference-on-Send" model to maximize efficiency and owner control.
+For content intended for a broad audience (e.g., social posts, public articles, project wikis), the protocol uses a "Reference-on-Send" model to maximize efficiency and owner control.
 
 *** Concept: Feed vs. Stream
 - *The Feed:* A Persona's curated output of chronological entries (`is_feed: true`) and static resources (`is_feed: false`).
 - *The Stream:* A user's personalized, aggregated view of all the Feeds they follow.
 
 *** The "Lens" Architecture (Polymorphic UI)
-Because all data in Agora shares the exact same base schema (The Atomic Note), client applications are not locked into "siloed" databases. Instead, data is a single pile of uniform "bricks." The client app acts as a *Lens* that filters this stream and adjusts its interface based on the Note's internal metadata.
+Because all data in the protocol shares the exact same base schema (The Atomic Note), client applications are not locked into "siloed" databases. Instead, data is a single pile of uniform "bricks." The client app acts as a *Lens* that filters this stream and adjusts its interface based on the Note's internal metadata.
 
 - *Unified Content Schema:* Apps do not maintain separate APIs for videos, products, or posts. They read the universal Note structure.
 - *Dynamic Interfaces:* The UI interprets the `content_type` and `contract` fields to render the appropriate experience:
@@ -100,10 +100,10 @@ The authoritative copy resides solely on the owner's PDS. Deletion by the owner
 
 ** Synchronous Communication (Live Voice & Video)
 
-For real-time calls, Agora utilizes *WebRTC* with a decentralized twist for the signaling phase.
+For real-time calls, the protocol utilizes *WebRTC* with a decentralized twist for the signaling phase.
 
 *** Decentralized Signaling
-Traditional WebRTC requires a central signaling server to help devices discover each other. In Agora, the *DIDComm channel* handles the handshake:
+Traditional WebRTC requires a central signaling server to help devices discover each other. In the protocol, the *DIDComm channel* handles the handshake:
 1. *Request:* Persona A sends a "Call Request" via DIDComm to Persona B's PDS.
 2. *Negotiation:* Persona B's phone receives the request and sends back its IP/ICE candidates (the "digital map") via the same secure DIDComm channel.
 3. *P2P Tunnel:* Once the handshake is complete, voice/video data flows directly between the two devices. No server—not even the PDS—sees the call data.
@@ -116,18 +116,18 @@ To address the need for absolute privacy and deniability, OTR mode completely by
 
 ** Encryption & Metadata Privacy
 
-Agora's communication layer goes beyond standard end-to-end encryption to ensure long-term security and metadata protection.
+The protocol's communication layer goes beyond standard end-to-end encryption to ensure long-term security and metadata protection.
 
 *** Double Ratchet Algorithm (Signal Protocol)
 Every single message uses a new, derived key. This ensures *Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS)* and *Post-Compromise Security*. If a specific message key is ever compromised, it cannot be used to decrypt past or future messages in the conversation.
 
 *** Metadata Masking (Onion Routing)
-To hide traffic patterns from network observers, Agora utilizes Tor-style *Onion Routing* between PDSs where possible. This masks who is talking to whom, preventing external observers from building a social graph based on connection frequency or message timing.
+To hide traffic patterns from network observers, the protocol utilizes Tor-style *Onion Routing* between PDSs where possible. This masks who is talking to whom, preventing external observers from building a social graph based on connection frequency or message timing.
 
 ** Profiles
 
 *** Concept
-A Profile is a public-facing presentation of a Persona. Agora supports multiple Profiles per Persona (e.g., a "Public Developer" profile and a "Private Family" profile).
+A Profile is a public-facing presentation of a Persona. The protocol supports multiple Profiles per Persona (e.g., a "Public Developer" profile and a "Private Family" profile).
 
 *** Requirements
 - Each Profile MUST be a Note (CID) with public visibility.
@@ -135,11 +135,11 @@ A Profile is a public-facing presentation of a Persona. Agora supports multiple
 - Profile updates create new CIDs, preserving a verifiable history of the identity's presentation.
 
 *** Profile as Static Site
-Personas can publish their profiles and professional portfolios as decentralized static websites using the native hosting model (see [[id:3b43a9b8-31d1-4479-a35f-22273b74f0c7][Infrastructure]]). Agora-aware browsers render these natively from CIDs, while legacy browsers access them via Gateways with automated SSL and domain mapping.
+Personas can publish their profiles and professional portfolios as decentralized static websites using the native hosting model (see [[id:3b43a9b8-31d1-4479-a35f-22273b74f0c7][Infrastructure]]). Protocol-aware browsers render these natively from CIDs, while legacy browsers access them via Gateways with automated SSL and domain mapping.
 
 ** The Attention Marketplace (The Information Router)
 
-In traditional social media, the algorithm is a secret "Black Box" that sits between users and their social graph, deciding what is seen to maximize platform revenue. In Agora, the Algorithm Layer is reimagined as an open *Information Router*. By moving the algorithm out of the central server and into an open market, Agora empowers users to "hire and fire" the logic that sorts their attention.
+In traditional social media, the algorithm is a secret "Black Box" that sits between users and their social graph, deciding what is seen to maximize platform revenue. In the protocol, the Algorithm Layer is reimagined as an open *Information Router*. By moving the algorithm out of the central server and into an open market, the protocol empowers users to "hire and fire" the logic that sorts their attention.
 
 *** Pluggable Feed Generation (PFG)
 Users subscribe to independent "Feed Generators" via an open API. This decoupling of data from sorting logic is achieved through a three-step workflow:
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ Because the PFG API is open and transport-agnostic, different organizations comp
 - *Verification Services:* NGOs or fact-checking collectives can provide "Filtered Lenses" that prioritize highly-attested content.
 
 *** Decentralized Moderation (Competitive Labeling)
-Moderation in Agora is treated as "Competitive Labeling" rather than central censorship.
+Moderation in the protocol is treated as "Competitive Labeling" rather than central censorship.
 - *Labeler DIDs:* Independent services (NGOs, Fact Checkers, Church Groups) operate as "Labelers." They review the public firehose and "tag" content (e.g., "Spam," "Graphic," "High-Quality").
 - *Client-Side Filtering:* The user's application pulls these public labels and applies the user's personal policy (e.g., "Hide anything labeled 'Graphic' by the NGO 'SafetyFirst'").
 - *Stackable Moderation:* Users can subscribe to multiple labelers simultaneously to create a highly personalized, robust, and sovereign moderation filter.

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-06-exchange-and-contracts.org

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#+title: Agora Requirements - 06: Exchange
+#+title: Social Protocol Requirements - 06: Exchange
 #+author: Amero Garcia
 #+created: [2026-03-16 Mon 14:28]
 #+DATE: 2026-03-15
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 
 ** Concept
 
-The Exchange layer provides the economic substrate of [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]: value transfer via the Lightning Network, multi-currency support, and payment primitives. Built on top of Content Objects (see [[id:f6cfc54b-919b-4311-bcbf-65e976755d40][The Primitive]]) and Social relationships (see [[id:0f949f6c-4cf1-49eb-b9a4-ebcac27ee548][Social]]).
+The Exchange layer provides the economic substrate of [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]]: value transfer via the Lightning Network, multi-currency support, and payment primitives. Built on top of Content Objects (see [[id:f6cfc54b-919b-4311-bcbf-65e976755d40][The Primitive]]) and Social relationships (see [[id:0f949f6c-4cf1-49eb-b9a4-ebcac27ee548][Social]]).
 
 ** Lightning Native
 
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ The specification currently lacks explicit guidance on how end users run Lightni
 - Each user's client (desktop/mobile) runs an embedded Lightning node using LDK (Lightning Dev Kit)
 - User has full custody of keys; channels are mobile-friendly (LSP-managed)
 - PDS handles the always-online requirement since user devices aren't
-- Aligns with Agora's "sovereign" philosophy but requires technical sophistication
+- Aligns with the protocol's "sovereign" philosophy but requires technical sophistication
 
 **** Option 2: LSP (Lightning Service Provider) Model
 - User connects to an LSP that provides inbound liquidity and accepts payments on their behalf
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ The specification has not yet decided between:
 
 ** Concept
 
-The Agora protocol must support multiple currencies beyond Lightning-native satoshis to facilitate broader economic participation and provide stability options. While Lightning remains the primary rail for micro-payments, other assets will be integrated for larger transactions and specific use cases.
+The protocol must support multiple currencies beyond Lightning-native satoshis to facilitate broader economic participation and provide stability options. While Lightning remains the primary rail for micro-payments, other assets will be integrated for larger transactions and specific use cases.
 
 ** Supported Currencies
 
@@ -192,16 +192,16 @@ Payment for task completion:
 
 ** Sovereign Contract & Arbitration Layer (SCAL)
 
-To enable Personas to execute binding agreements with decentralized dispute resolution, Agora implements SCAL. A contract in this system is not a static PDF; it is an executable cryptographic object.
+To enable Personas to execute binding agreements with decentralized dispute resolution, the protocol implements SCAL. A contract in this system is not a static PDF; it is an executable cryptographic object.
 
 *** 1. The Ricardian Contract Module
-[[id:b265f66d-f7b9-4ebd-b4e3-a82cefe23981][Agora contracts]] follow the Ricardian model, ensuring they are both human-readable and machine-executable.
+[[id:b265f66d-f7b9-4ebd-b4e3-a82cefe23981][Social Protocol contracts]] follow the Ricardian model, ensuring they are both human-readable and machine-executable.
 - *Natural Language (The Markdown):* The human-readable terms of the agreement (e.g., "Person A delivers 100 bricks to Person B by Friday").
 - *Machine Logic (The JSON-LD):* The executable parameters embedded in the Note's metadata (e.g., `due_date: 2026-01-16`, `price_sats: 50000`, `arbitrator_did: did:key:xyz`).
 - *The Merkle Link:* Both parts are hashed together into a single Content Identifier (CID). If a single comma is changed in the text, the hash changes, breaking the digital contract. This ensures the "Code" and the "Law" remain identical.
 
 *** 2. Payment & Escrow: The "HODL Invoice"
-For service delivery and physical goods, Agora relies on Lightning HODL Invoices as a trustless escrow, removing the need for a custodial middleman.
+For service delivery and physical goods, the protocol relies on Lightning HODL Invoices as a trustless escrow, removing the need for a custodial middleman.
 - *Commitment:* The Buyer "pays" the invoice. The funds leave their Lightning wallet but remain cryptographically locked in the network routing nodes.
 - *The Proof:* The Seller observes the network state, sees the funds are "Locked," and confidently delivers the goods or services.
 - *Settlement:* Once the Buyer confirms receipt, they release the cryptographic Preimage (the key). The money instantly settles to the Seller.
@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ Transactions reference the Content Objects they interact with:
 
 ** Content Monetization & Seeder Rewards
 
-To monetize high-bandwidth content (like video or software) in a decentralized, permissionless network, Agora utilizes a combination of Split-State Encryption, the LSAT protocol, and granular Lightning network routing. This ensures creators get paid without relying on centralized DRM or hosting providers.
+To monetize high-bandwidth content (like video or software) in a decentralized, permissionless network, the protocol utilizes a combination of Split-State Encryption, the LSAT protocol, and granular Lightning network routing. This ensures creators get paid without relying on centralized DRM or hosting providers.
 
 *** 1. The Encrypted Swarm (Blind CDN)
 If you want to charge for a video, you cannot send the raw file into the P2P swarm. If you did, the first "seeder" would simply share the unencrypted version for free.
@@ -250,13 +250,13 @@ If you want to charge for a video, you cannot send the raw file into the P2P swa
 - *Blind Replication:* Followers and network participants host and seed this encrypted `payload`. They act as a "Blind CDN" (Content Delivery Network)—hosting a file they cannot see.
 
 *** 2. The LSAT Protocol (The Smart Ticket)
-To automate the purchase and unlocking of this content, Agora uses LSATs (Lightning Service Authentication Tokens).
+To automate the purchase and unlocking of this content, the social protocol uses LSATs (Lightning Service Authentication Tokens).
 - *The 402 Challenge:* When a viewer clicks "Play," their client attempts to fetch the payload. The PDS responds with an HTTP 402 (Payment Required) error, containing a Lightning Invoice (generated based on the `contract` terms) and a "Macaroon" (a digital ticket).
 - *The Unlock:* Once the user pays the invoice (e.g., 100 sats), they receive a cryptographic Preimage (proof of payment). They send this Preimage back to the PDS.
 - *The Result:* The PDS validates the proof and releases the Decryption Key. The video decodes instantly on the client's device. The data may have been downloaded from a friend's PDS (the swarm), but the permission to view it was purchased securely from the creator.
 
 *** 3. Incentivizing the Seeders (Paid Seeding)
-One of Agora's most innovative features is "Seeder Micro-Rewards." If a follower provides the bandwidth that allows a creator's content to go viral, the network can programmatically share the revenue.
+One of the social protocol's most innovative features is "Seeder Micro-Rewards." If a follower provides the bandwidth that allows a creator's content to go viral, the network can programmatically share the revenue.
 - *The Split Payment:* The Note's `contract` can define a Lightning routing split. When the 100 sats are paid via the LSAT, the network routes the funds accordingly:
   - *90 sats* go to the Creator.
   - *5 sats* go to the Indexing Relay.
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ One of Agora's most innovative features is "Seeder Micro-Rewards." If a follower
 - *The Economic Shift:* "Following" an NGO or an indie creator becomes a way to earn a tiny amount of Bitcoin while supporting their mission. The better the content you seed, the more "tips" your server collects for providing the bandwidth.
 
 *** Physical Collateralization
-In environments with weak state enforcement, Agora enables the use of physical assets as cryptographically-secured collateral via the PAL (Physical Asset Linking) protocol.
+In environments with weak state enforcement, the social protocol enables the use of physical assets as cryptographically-secured collateral via the PAL (Physical Asset Linking) protocol.
 
 - *The Pledge:* A user links a Digital Twin token (representing a physical asset like a car or machine) to a Civil Contract Note.
 - *The Lock:* The contract's logic "freezes" the Digital Twin token. While the user maintains physical possession of the asset, they are cryptographically barred from selling or transferring the digital title until the contract obligations (e.g., a loan repayment) are met.
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ In environments with weak state enforcement, Agora enables the use of physical a
 ** Cross-Chain Swaps
 
 **** Atomic Swaps Architecture
-Agora enables seamless value transfer between Bitcoin and other blockchains without relying on centralized exchanges.
+The social protocol enables seamless value transfer between Bitcoin and other blockchains without relying on centralized exchanges.
 - *HTLC Contracts:* Hash Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs) are used to lock assets on both chains simultaneously.
 - *Swap Personas:* Specialized Personas (Market Makers) provide liquidity and act as counterparties for atomic swaps, competing on fees and speed.
 - *Protocol Integration:* A `CrossChainSwap` Content Object defines the terms (rate, chains, timelock). Once agreed, both parties publish the HTLCs on their respective chains. The revelation of the preimage on one chain allows claiming the funds on the other.
@@ -284,15 +284,15 @@ Agora enables seamless value transfer between Bitcoin and other blockchains with
 
 **** RGB Protocol Specification
 Stablecoins (e.g., USDT, USDC) are supported natively as Layer 2 assets on top of Bitcoin/Lightning using the RGB protocol.
-- *Asset Issuance:* Stablecoin issuers maintain a Genesis Contract on Agora defining the asset's RGB schema and initial supply.
+- *Asset Issuance:* Stablecoin issuers maintain a Genesis Contract in the protocol defining the asset's RGB schema and initial supply.
-- *Client Support:* Agora clients MUST integrate an RGB node alongside their Lightning node to parse client-side validated state transitions.
+- *Client Support:* Social protocol clients MUST integrate an RGB node alongside their Lightning node to parse client-side validated state transitions.
 - *Payment Routing:* RGB assets are routed over standard Lightning channels. Clients construct invoices that specifically request the RGB stablecoin asset ID instead of raw satoshis.
 - *PDS Storage:* The client-side validation data (consignment) for RGB assets is stored as encrypted Content Objects in the user's PDS, ensuring the user maintains full custody of the asset's history.
 
 ** Subscription Management
 
 **** Complex Recurring Billing Logic
-Agora handles recurring payments natively without centralized payment processors.
+The social protocol handles recurring payments natively without centralized payment processors.
 - *Subscription Objects:* A `SubscriptionContract` defines the terms: amount, currency, billing cycle (e.g., monthly, weekly), and grace period.
 - *Streaming vs. Discrete Billing:* 
   - For continuous services (e.g., Relay access), streaming payments (sats/second) are preferred.

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-07-advanced-integration.org

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#+title: Agora Requirements - 07: Advanced Integration
+#+title: Social Protocol Requirements - 07: Advanced Integration
 #+author: Amero Garcia
 #+created: [2026-03-16 Mon 14:28]
 #+DATE: 2026-03-15
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
 
 *** Overview
 
-[[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] enables AI at multiple layers: as sovereign actors, personal assistants, algorithms, and collaborative agents. All AI interactions are economically mediated via Lightning and respect user data sovereignty.
+[[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]] enables AI at multiple layers: as sovereign actors, personal assistants, algorithms, and collaborative agents. All AI interactions are economically mediated via Lightning and respect user data sovereignty.
 
 *** AI Personas (Sovereign AI Actors)
 
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ AI Personas can operate as specialized reputation oracles and adjudicators withi
 - *Automated Labeling:* AI agents can act as high-speed "Labelers" (see Social Moderation), tagging millions of posts for quality, spam, or sentiment, which users can then choose to route their feed through or ignore.
 
 **** Requirements
-- AI Personas MUST be able to query other AI Personas via standard Agora messaging.
+- AI Personas MUST be able to query other AI Personas via standard protocol messaging.
 - AI-to-AI communication MUST use the same Content Object primitives as human communication.
 - AI Personas MUST be able to negotiate service terms (price, scope, timeline) via smart contracts.
 - AI-to-AI transactions MUST be economically settled via Lightning.
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ AI Personas can operate as specialized reputation oracles and adjudicators withi
 - The system MUST instantiate physical entities (events, locations) as Collective Personas (DIDs).
 - Users MUST be able to publish signed Proof-of-Presence Objects.
 - Every smart device MUST be a persona under the control of the user's master key.
-- Devices MUST communicate using the standard Agora protocol with Consent Contracts.
+- Devices MUST communicate using the standard protocol with Consent Contracts.
 - Sensor data MUST be published as encrypted Content Objects.
 - Users MUST be able to sell signed sensor data to Data Collector Personas.
 
@@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ interface KeyRotation {
 
 *** Hardware-Backed Contract Enforcement (The "IoT Stick")
 
-For high-stakes physical assets (e.g., tractors, factory machinery, or smart-lock-equipped real estate), Agora supports hardware-level enforcement of contract obligations.
+For high-stakes physical assets (e.g., tractors, factory machinery, or smart-lock-equipped real estate), the protocol supports hardware-level enforcement of contract obligations.
 
 - *Binding IoT to Contract:* A physical asset's IoT sensor or "Smart Lock" is cryptographically bound to a specific Civil Contract Note.
 - *Enforcement Signal:* The machine's firmware is configured to listen for signed state updates from the contract's designated Arbitration (HDR) module.
@@ -465,5 +465,5 @@ interface PhysicalAccessContract {
 
 ** Related Documents
 
-- Agora AI Personas & Privacy
+- Protocol AI Personas & Privacy
-- Agora Physical World & IoT
+- Protocol Physical World & IoT

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-08-library.org

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#+title: Agora Requirements - 08: Library
+#+title: Social Protocol Requirements - 08: Library
 #+author: Amero Garcia
 #+created: [2026-03-16 Mon 14:28]
 #+DATE: 2026-03-14
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ The Library consists of three core components:
 - Full-text search across documents, subtitles, metadata
 - Tag-based organization (genre, year, creator, etc.)
 - Content deduplication via CID comparison
-- Integration with [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]'s discovery layer for shared content
+- Integration with [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]]'s discovery layer for shared content
 
 *** Library Managers
 
@@ -98,23 +98,23 @@ Archiving preserves Content Objects and open web content for long-term access, c
 - Archive verification via multiple sources (Wayback Machine, Archive.today, personal PDS)
 - Content authenticity via hash verification against original
 
-*** Integration with Agora
+*** Integration with the Social Protocol
 
 - Library content can be referenced in posts, messages, and profiles
 - Content can be shared via Relays with appropriate encryption
 - Micro-payments for premium content access
-- Syndication to Agora-aware browsers and gateways
+- Syndication to protocol-aware browsers and gateways
 
 ** Requirements
 
 - The system MUST support unified content management across all media types.
 - The system MUST content-address all library items via CID.
 - The system MUST support local indexing for fast search.
-- The system MUST allow content sharing via Agora's social layer.
+- The system MUST allow content sharing via the protocol's social layer.
 - The system MUST support offline access for synced content.
-- The system MUST integrate with Agora's economic layer for paid content.
+- The system MUST integrate with the protocol's economic layer for paid content.
 
 ** Related Documents
 
-- Agora Unified Content Primitive
+- Protocol Unified Content Primitive
-- Agora PDS & Relay Architecture
+- Protocol PDS & Relay Architecture

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-09-implementation.org

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#+title: Agora Requirements - 09: Implementation
+#+title: Social Protocol Requirements - 09: Implementation
 #+author: Amero Garcia
 #+created: [2026-03-16 Mon 14:28]
 #+DATE: 2026-03-14
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ The client MUST be capable of handling asynchronous events pushed from the Gover
 
 *** Protocol-First Design
 
-[[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] is a set of open protocols, not a single API service. Developers build against the *Agora Specification (v1.0)*, which defines the core data formats and transport methods.
+[[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]] is a set of open protocols, not a single API service. Developers build against the *social protocol Specification (v1.0)*, which defines the core data formats and transport methods.
 
 *** Core Protocol Versioning
 
@@ -102,18 +102,18 @@ The client MUST be capable of handling asynchronous events pushed from the Gover
 
 - *CID (Content-ID):* Multibase + Multicodec + Multihash.
 - *Serialization:* Protocol Buffers (v3) for high performance and strict typing.
-- *Envelopes:* Signed and encrypted payloads follow a standard *Agora Envelope* format (`proof`, `encryption_metadata`, `payload`).
+- *Envelopes:* Signed and encrypted payloads follow a standard *social protocol Envelope* format (`proof`, `encryption_metadata`, `payload`).
 
 ** Testing & Adversarial
 
 *** Testing Philosophy
 
-Agora's decentralized and sovereign nature requires a multi-layered testing strategy that goes beyond standard unit tests. We must test for *Network Resilience*, *Adversarial Resiliency*, and *Game-Theoretic Stability*.
+The social protocol's decentralized and sovereign nature requires a multi-layered testing strategy that goes beyond standard unit tests. We must test for *Network Resilience*, *Adversarial Resiliency*, and *Game-Theoretic Stability*.
 
 *** Core Testing Tiers
 
 **** Unit & Integration Tests
-- *Protocol Conformance:* Every client and service must pass a standard *Agora Protocol Conformance Suite* to ensure they correctly implement the V1.0 spec.
+- *Protocol Conformance:* Every client and service must pass a standard *Social Protocol Conformance Suite* to ensure they correctly implement the V1.0 spec.
 - *Cryptography Validation:* Rigorous testing of key derivation, encryption/decryption, and signature verification using known-good test vectors.
 
 **** Network & Chaos Testing
@@ -140,19 +140,19 @@ Agora's decentralized and sovereign nature requires a multi-layered testing stra
 
 *** Migration from Centralized Platforms
 
-- *The "Migration" Skill:* An Agora skill that imports a user's content and social graph from centralized platforms (e.g., via Twitter Archive or ActivityPub).
+- *The "Migration" Skill:* A social protocol skill that imports a user's content and social graph from centralized platforms (e.g., via Twitter Archive or ActivityPub).
 - *Social Graph Porting:* Tools to extract and import follower lists, enabling seamless transition.
 
-*** Agora-to-Web Gateways
+*** Social Protocol-to-Web Gateways
 
-See [[id:3b43a9b8-31d1-4479-a35f-22273b74f0c7][Infrastructure - Agora-to-Web Gateways]] for detailed requirements. Implementation notes:
+See [[id:3b43a9b8-31d1-4479-a35f-22273b74f0c7][Infrastructure - Social Protocol-to-Web Gateways]] for detailed requirements. Implementation notes:
-- Clients SHOULD provide links to Gateway-rendered versions of public content for sharing with non-Agora users.
+- Clients SHOULD provide links to Gateway-rendered versions of public content for sharing with users not on the social protocol.
 - Clients MAY embed Gateway content in web views for hybrid experiences.
 
 ** Conflict Resolution Algorithm
 
 *** Concept
-Due to the offline-first nature of Agora clients and multi-device usage, identical or overlapping modifications to the same logical object (e.g., updating a profile, adding to a specific thread) can occur concurrently without network coordination. A deterministic, Merkle tree-based conflict resolution algorithm ensures that all PDS nodes and clients eventually reach the same state.
+Due to the offline-first nature of social protocol clients and multi-device usage, identical or overlapping modifications to the same logical object (e.g., updating a profile, adding to a specific thread) can occur concurrently without network coordination. A deterministic, Merkle tree-based conflict resolution algorithm ensures that all PDS nodes and clients eventually reach the same state.
 
 *** Merkle Tree Structure
 - Every Persona's state is represented as a Merkle Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG).
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ Due to the offline-first nature of Agora clients and multi-device usage, identic
 
 *** Deterministic Resolution Rules (LWW-Tiebreaker)
 
-To automatically resolve conflicts without user intervention, Agora employs a deterministic algorithm based on logical clocks and cryptographic tie-breakers:
+To automatically resolve conflicts without user intervention, the social protocol employs a deterministic algorithm based on logical clocks and cryptographic tie-breakers:
 
 1. *Logical Clock (Lamport Timestamps):* 
    - Every Content Object includes a logical sequence number (`seq`) incremented with each update by the owner.
@@ -197,9 +197,9 @@ If the conflict involves high-stakes data (e.g., overlapping Genesis Contract up
 
 ** Related Documents
 
-- Agora Client App Architecture
+- Social Protocol Client App Architecture
-- Agora API & Protocol Versioning Spec
+- Social Protocol API & Protocol Versioning Spec
-- Agora Testing, Chaos, and Adversarial
+- Social Protocol Testing, Chaos, and Adversarial
 
 ** Delta Sync Protocol
 
@@ -438,7 +438,7 @@ interface ResumeRequest {
 }
 
 interface ResumeResponse {
-  // Continue from where left off
+  // [[id:22d0a159-68a2-4587-9375-5046beddc20c][Continue]] from where left off
   remaining_cids: CID[];
   next_chunk_index: number;
 }

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-10-governance-and-assets.org

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#+title: Agora Requirements - 10: Governance and Physical Assets
+#+title: Social Protocol Requirements - 10: Governance and Physical Assets
 #+author: Amero Garcia
 #+created: [2026-03-22 Sun]
 #+ID: agora-requirements-10-governance
@@ -12,12 +12,12 @@
 
 ** Overview
 
-This section expands [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]]'s capabilities beyond digital communication and into physical reality and organizational coordination. By integrating Physical Asset Linking (PAL) and the Governance Executable Module (GEM), Agora empowers Collectives to manage real-world resources and execute democratic decisions autonomously via smart contracts.
+This section expands [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]]'s capabilities beyond digital communication and into physical reality and organizational coordination. By integrating Physical Asset Linking (PAL) and the Governance Executable Module (GEM), the protocol empowers Collectives to manage real-world resources and execute democratic decisions autonomously via smart contracts.
 
 ** Governance Executable Module (GEM)
 
 ** Concept
-Governance in Agora isn't just about voting; it's about executing the results of those votes. The GEM ensures that when a community (a Collective Persona) makes a decision, the protocol enforces it without relying on trusted intermediaries or manual intervention.
+Governance in the protocol isn't just about voting; it's about executing the results of those votes. The GEM ensures that when a community (a Collective Persona) makes a decision, the protocol enforces it without relying on trusted intermediaries or manual intervention.
 
 ** The Governance Stack
 Governance operates at three distinct scales, mirroring the human organization patterns of the Sovereign Stack:
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ A Collective Persona's rules are stored as an executable Smart Constitution.
 
 ** Evolvable Governance: Adaptive Constitutions
 
-Unlike traditional blockchain-based DAOs, where governance rules are often "frozen" in immutable smart contract code, Agora DAOs (Collectives) are designed to be evolvable. While the *history* of every decision is immutable and cryptographically traceable, the *active rules* of the organization can be updated through its own internal governance process.
+Unlike traditional blockchain-based DAOs, where governance rules are often "frozen" in immutable smart contract code, the protocol's DAOs (Collectives) are designed to be evolvable. While the *history* of every decision is immutable and cryptographically traceable, the *active rules* of the organization can be updated through its own internal governance process.
 
 *** Immutable History, Mutable State
 Every version of a Collective's Smart Constitution, every vote cast, and every policy change is recorded as a signed Note identified by a unique CID. This creates a perfect, unalterable audit trail. However, the "current state" of the Collective is defined by the most recent validly signed constitutional Note. This allows the organization to learn, adapt, and correct its course over time without requiring complex migrations or "forking" into entirely new software deployments.
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ Every version of a Collective's Smart Constitution, every vote cast, and every p
 The GEM supports recursive governance: the rules for *how* to change the rules are themselves defined within the Smart Constitution. A Collective might start with a simple multi-sig requirement for all changes and later vote to transition to a more complex Quadratic Voting model for policy updates, all while maintaining a continuous cryptographic identity.
 
 *** Forks as a Sovereign Safety Valve
-Because Agora is decentralized and permissionless, "forking" is a legitimate and supported governance mechanism. If a minority of a Collective disagrees fundamentally with a constitutional change, they can choose to "fork" the organization by creating a new Collective Persona based on the previous CID of the constitution. This ensures that no community is ever trapped by a "majority tyranny" that has lost its original purpose.
+Because the protocol is decentralized and permissionless, "forking" is a legitimate and supported governance mechanism. If a minority of a Collective disagrees fundamentally with a constitutional change, they can choose to "fork" the organization by creating a new Collective Persona based on the previous CID of the constitution. This ensures that no community is ever trapped by a "majority tyranny" that has lost its original purpose.
 
 ** Automated Treasury Payroll (Streaming Lightning)
 The GEM connects governance directly to economic flow.
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ PAL allows users to secure loans or agreements using physical assets as collater
 
 ** Decentralized Justice & Dispute Resolution (The Court System)
 
-To enforce Civil Contracts and resolve Governance disputes without a central state, Agora implements a Hierarchical Dispute Resolution (HDR) framework. This mirrors the traditional legal system but replaces "jurisdiction by geography" with "jurisdiction by reputation and stake."
+To enforce Civil Contracts and resolve Governance disputes without a central state, the protocol implements a Hierarchical Dispute Resolution (HDR) framework. This mirrors the traditional legal system but replaces "jurisdiction by geography" with "jurisdiction by reputation and stake."
 
 *** The Multi-Level "Court" Hierarchy
 Disputes are not settled by a single monolithic entity. Parties opt into a hierarchy of arbitration when creating a contract.
@@ -91,6 +91,6 @@ In this system, an "Appeal" isn't a bureaucratic request; it is a *Cryptographic
 - *Finality:* Level 3 is the "Final Court of Appeal." Once the global jury rules, their combined threshold signature releases the cryptographic keys. The smart contract executes the payment automatically—no human can stop it.
 
 *** Why This Works in "Weak States" (Self-Executing Justice)
-In jurisdictions where state police won't help collect a debt, or where courts are corrupt/slow, Agora provides Self-Executing Justice. It relies on two powerful enforcement mechanisms rather than physical violence:
+In jurisdictions where state police won't help collect a debt, or where courts are corrupt/slow, the protocol provides Self-Executing Justice. It relies on two powerful enforcement mechanisms rather than physical violence:
 1. *The Escrow Stick:* The funds are already gone from the buyer's wallet. They are locked cryptographically in a Lightning HODL Escrow. The buyer cannot "run away" with the money; they must engage in the arbitration process to get it back or see it released to the seller.
 2. *The Reputation Stick:* In a decentralized society, a Persona's DID is their livelihood. Defying a Level 3 ruling, or accumulating a history of defaulted contracts, destroys a Persona's "Trust Score." In a system built on verifiable attestations, losing this reputation is a digital death sentence for a business, making compliance highly incentivized.

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-10-user-journey.org

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-#+title: Agora Requirements: User Journey & Product Experience
+#+title: Social Protocol Requirements: User Journey & Product Experience
-#+AUTHOR: Project Agora
+#+AUTHOR: Passepartout Social Protocol
 #+DATE: 2026-03-26
 
 :PROPERTIES:
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 :END:
 * The Sovereign User Journey
 
-This document outlines the cohesive, narrative user journey of the [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] platform, illustrating how the underlying technical primitives (Master Keys, DIDs, PDS, Lightning, and Smart Contracts) translate into a seamless product experience.
+This document outlines the cohesive, narrative user journey of the [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]] platform, illustrating how the underlying technical primitives (Master Keys, DIDs, PDS, Lightning, and Smart Contracts) translate into a seamless product experience.
 
 ** Phase 1: Onboarding (The Birth of the Persona)
 

projects/passepartout/social-protocol/requirements-11-assessment.org

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#+title: Agora Requirements - 11: Realistic Assessment
+#+title: Social Protocol Requirements - 11: Realistic Assessment
 #+author: Amero Garcia
 #+created: [2026-03-16 Mon 14:28]
 #+DATE: 2026-03-22
@@ -11,14 +11,14 @@
 :END:
 * Realistic Assessment: Practicality, Technology, and Performance
 
-The [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] Protocol, following the integration of the Aletheia architecture, represents a significant leap beyond simple social networking into a comprehensive "Sovereign Social Operating System." This assessment evaluates the protocol's viability across three critical pillars.
+The [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol]], following the integration of the Aletheia architecture, represents a significant leap beyond simple social networking into a comprehensive "Sovereign Social Operating System." This assessment evaluates the protocol's viability across three critical pillars.
 
 ** 1. Practicality: The Sovereignty vs. UX Trade-off
 
-Agora's practicality hinges on whether users can manage its cryptographic complexity without constant friction.
+The protocol's practicality hinges on whether users can manage its cryptographic complexity without constant friction.
 
 *** Strengths
-- *Functional Autonomy:* The "Sub-Root" HD derivation path (`m/44'/1'/account'/persona'/key_purpose/key_index`) is a major practical win. By allowing devices to derive operational keys (Lightning, PGP) autonomously, Agora reduces the "[[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][Hardware]] Wallet Fatigue" that plagues self-sovereign systems.
+- *Functional Autonomy:* The "Sub-Root" HD derivation path (`m/44'/1'/account'/persona'/key_purpose/key_index`) is a major practical win. By allowing devices to derive operational keys (Lightning, PGP) autonomously, the protocol reduces the "[[id:84a537b4-4256-50c8-91f5-dd5b4538418f][Hardware]] Wallet Fatigue" that plagues self-sovereign systems.
 - *Unified Logic:* The "Everything is a Note" model simplifies the backend infrastructure (PDS/Relays), as they only need to handle a single data structure regardless of whether it's a social post or a legal contract.
 
 *** Challenges
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ The technical stack is grounded in industry-standard primitives used in Bitcoin
 
 *** Technological Pillars
 - *Identity:* Leveraging BIP-44 and Ed25519 provides a battle-tested foundation for unlinkable personas.
-- *Privacy:* The combination of E2EE (Double Ratchet/MLS), Blinded Sharding, and Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) for cross-persona Notes places Agora at the forefront of privacy-preserving social protocols.
+- *Privacy:* The combination of E2EE (Double Ratchet/MLS), Blinded Sharding, and Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) for cross-persona Notes places the protocol at the forefront of privacy-preserving social protocols.
 - *Commerce:* Integrating LSATs and HODL invoices directly into the content layer (SCAL) is technically sound but relies heavily on the continued [[id:26f3e845-5eb4-4bcd-9cff-28e219934841][growth]] and stability of the Lightning Network.
 
 *** Critical Risks
@@ -40,14 +40,14 @@ The technical stack is grounded in industry-standard primitives used in Bitcoin
 
 ** 3. Performance: Scalability and Efficiency
 
-Agora's performance model is decentralized by design, avoiding the "Global State" bottlenecks of traditional blockchains.
+The protocol's performance model is decentralized by design, avoiding the "Global State" bottlenecks of traditional blockchains.
 
 *** Scaling Models
 - *Reference-on-Send (Public Content):* Highly scalable. Only notifications and CIDs are pushed; content is pulled on-demand. This mirrors the efficient scaling of the web (CDNs/caching).
 - *Copy-on-Send (Private Content):* Resource-intensive. A direct message to 100 people creates 100 unique, encrypted Notes. While this ensures sovereignty, it places a higher storage and bandwidth burden on PDS providers compared to "Single-Instance" storage models.
 
 *** Optimization Strategies
-- *Delta Sync:* Essential for mobile performance. By only transferring differential updates between the Client and PDS, Agora can maintain low latency even over poor network connections.
+- *Delta Sync:* Essential for mobile performance. By only transferring differential updates between the Client and PDS, the protocol can maintain low latency even over poor network connections.
 - *Relay-as-Indexer:* High-performance Relays can act as opt-in indexers, providing fast search and discovery without users surrendering their data ownership.
 
 ** Success Probability & Timeline
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ Agora's performance model is decentralized by design, avoiding the "Global State
 
 ** Conclusion: A Pragmatic Revolution
 
-Agora is technically viable but architecturally demanding. It is not a project that can be built by a single "full-stack developer" in a weekend. It requires a specialized team of cryptographers, systems engineers, and UX designers. However, because it avoids the "Global Consensus" trap of blockchains, its performance characteristics are much closer to the traditional web, making it a truly practical alternative for building a sovereign digital civilization.
+The protocol is technically viable but architecturally demanding. It is not a project that can be built by a single "full-stack developer" in a weekend. It requires a specialized team of cryptographers, systems engineers, and UX designers. However, because it avoids the "Global Consensus" trap of blockchains, its performance characteristics are much closer to the traditional web, making it a truly practical alternative for building a sovereign digital civilization.
 
 ** Related Documents
 

projects/passepartout/strategy/_index.org

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       9c3d4e5f-6a7b-8c9d-0e1f-2a3b4c5d6e7f
+:END:
+#+title: Strategy
+#+filetags: :index:
+
+Business strategy, competitive analysis, compliance landscape, and market positioning for the verified infrastructure category.

projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/_index.org

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       0d4e5f6a-7b8c-9d0e-1f2a-3b4c5d6e7f8a
+:END:
+#+title: Passepartout — Competitive Analysis
+#+filetags: :index:
+
+Competitive analysis of AI coding agents, verification platforms, and the broader infrastructure landscape.

projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/competitive-analysis.org

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ divides into three categories:
 
 None of the nine compete with Passepartout on all axes simultaneously. Passepartout's
 strongest differentiators — Org-mode data model, deterministic gate stack, ACL2
-verification, Merkle-treed memory, and the triad architecture — are absent from
+verification, Merkle-treed memory, and the [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Passepartout architecture]] — are absent from
 every competitor.
 
 * Category 1: Coding Agents
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ every competitor.
 | Cognitive architecture | 10-80-10 symbolic-first (planned) | 100% LLM (every competitor) | Post-flip, Passepartout uses ~10% of the tokens competitors use. |
 | Data format | Org-mode (human-editable, machine-parseable, single file) | JSONL/Markdown/YAML/DB (competitors use 2-5 formats) | Unified format reduces translation layers to zero. |
 | Self-modification | Type-level gates + hot-reload | Claude Code (skills), Hermes (skills) | Passepartout's guard against self-modification is structural (type level), not heuristic (pattern list). |
-| Triad | Passepartout + [[id:c3b3dc41-945f-54e9-84eb-ca014114f1be][Stoa]] + [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Agora]] | None | No competitor is building a full computing stack + social network. |
+| Architecture | Passepartout ([[id:c3b3dc41-945f-54e9-84eb-ca014114f1be][environment subsystem]] + [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][social protocol]]) | None | No competitor is building a full computing stack + social network. |
 | Provider independence | Any OpenAI-compatible API | Hermes (109+), Gemini CLI (1 primary) | Comparable to Hermes, better than most. |
 
 * Where Competitors Lead
@@ -84,8 +84,8 @@ Passepartout optimizes for:
 - Cognitive architecture (10-80-10 symbolic-first)
 - Safety by construction (type-level gates)
 - Unified data model (Org-mode as everything)
-- Network effects (Agora)
+- Network effects (social protocol)
-- Full-stack ownership (Stoa)
+- Full-stack ownership (environment subsystem)
 
 These are not axes any competitor cares about. The risk is not that a competitor
 builds a better Passepartout — it's that the market never develops a preference

projects/passepartout/strategy/competitors/social-protocol-competitive-landscape.org

@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:ID:       1bc22b89-d3eb-4f6d-bcfc-2b0c19c8ed8f
+:ID:       competitive-landscape-agora
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-23 Sat]
+:END:
+#+title: Passepartout Social Protocol Competitive Landscape
+#+filetags: :passepartout:social-protocol:competitive:strategy:landscape:
+
+The social protocol is a decentralized social operating system that replaces the entire centralized internet platform stack: every function that currently runs on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, Medium, Substack, OnlyFans, Pornhub, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Discord, LinkedIn, eBay, Etsy, GitHub, DocuSign, Stripe, and Google/Apple ID — all through one unified identity, one data model (the Note), one communication protocol (DIDComm), one payment rail (Lightning), and one contract layer (SCAL).
+
+There is no single competitor. The competition is the /category/ of centralized internet platforms and the psychological status quo of managing 15+ separate accounts.
+
+This page maps every platform the protocol replaces, organized by domain, with the specific protocol capability that makes the replacement possible.
+
+* Social Graph & Publishing
+
+** Twitter/X
+- *User need:* Broadcast short-form content, follow interesting people, real-time news
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Feeds and streams via the Note primitive (`is_feed: true`), with Lens architecture for customizable curation. Follows are cryptographic subscriptions, not API-gated relationships.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* No algorithmic manipulation, no ads, no shadowbanning. Users choose their Feed Generators via the Algorithm Marketplace. Portable social graph — follows are signed Notes, not a database row.
+- *Migration:* Twitter archive import for followed accounts.
+
+** Facebook / Meta
+- *User need:* Social graph, family/friend connections, event management, groups
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Collective Personas for groups, DID-based social graph (not platform-controlled), Persona isolation for work/personal/family
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* No central feed algorithm that optimizes for engagement over well-being. Portable identity — your social graph leaves the platform when you do. No data mining.
+- *Timing:* Year 3+ after network effects. Facebook's moat is the largest social graph; the protocol's Persona system makes it portable by design.
+
+** Instagram
+- *User need:* Visual content sharing, photo feeds, stories
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Visual Notes with `content_type: image/*`. Lens architecture renders them through an "Instagram-style" grid or a "Pinterest-style" discovery view depending on user-selected Lens.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* User-chosen discovery algorithm. No engagement-maximized feed. Content is not manipulated for ad placement.
+
+** LinkedIn
+- *User need:* Professional identity, job market, professional networking
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Professional Persona (unlinkable from personal), Aletheia Portfolio (static site published natively to the network), Contract Notes for hiring/service agreements
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Portable professional reputation — not locked to a platform. Verified work history via signed Notes. Direct hiring without platform intermediation fees.
+
+** Reddit / Forums (phpBB, vBulletin)
+- *User need:* Community discussion, Q&A, interest-based groups
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Social Spaces with Collective Personas, pluggable feed generation, competitive labeling for moderation
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Sovereign moderation (users choose their Labelers), portable identity across communities, no censorship risk. Communities can fork if the Collective governance fails.
+- *Migration:* Import subscribed subreddits.
+
+** Medium / Substack
+- *User need:* Long-form publishing, subscription-based content, creator monetization
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Feed Notes (`is_feed: true`) with paywalled content via LSAT protocol (Lightning Service Authentication Tokens). Subscriptions are streaming Lightning payments.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Near-zero platform fees (relay costs only). Content ownership — readers subscribe to the creator's DID, not to a platform. No censorship risk.
+- *Strategic target:* Phase 1 platform replacement.
+
+* Video & Audio
+
+** YouTube
+- *User need:* Video hosting, discovery, comments, monetization
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Video Notes (`content_type: video/*`) viewed through a "YouTube Lens" (displaying comments via `reply_to` and related videos). The exact same Note can be viewed through an "Educational Lens" or "Podcast Lens."
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* No algorithm that optimizes for watch time over well-being. Lens architecture lets users choose discovery logic. Content monetized via LSAT + Seeder Rewards — creators earn directly, and bandwidth providers (seeders) earn micro-rewards.
+
+** TikTok
+- *User need:* Short-form vertical video, discovery algorithm
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Short-duration video Notes trigger a "TikTok-style" vertical scroll and auto-play in the UI when `content_type: "video/mp4"` and duration is short.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* The "For You" algorithm is a user-chosen Lens, not a platform-controlled black box. No engagement-extremification.
+
+** Podcasts / Audio
+- *User need:* Audio content, background play
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Audio Notes (`content_type: audio/mpeg`) viewed through a "Podcast Lens" with 1.5x speed and background play. Same Note can be listened to or watched depending on Lens.
+
+* Messaging & Communication
+
+** WhatsApp / Signal / Telegram
+- *User need:* Private messaging, group chats, voice/video calls, encryption
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* DIDComm v2 for transport, Double Ratchet Algorithm (Signal Protocol) for Perfect Forward Secrecy, WebRTC for voice/video with decentralized signaling via DIDComm. PDS acts as encrypted mailbox proxy.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Multi-persona isolation — Work DID and Personal DID have separate message queues that never mix. Onion routing for metadata privacy. Off-the-Record mode for ephemeral interactions. No central server controlling the directory.
+
+** Discord / Slack
+- *User need:* Community chat, voice channels, collaboration
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Social Spaces with Collective Personas. DIDComm-based group messaging. Governance modules (GEM) for roles, permissions, and moderation.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Server ownership is cryptographic, not corporate. Communities can fork. No per-seat pricing. Portable membership history.
+
+** Email
+- *User need:* Asynchronous messaging, identity, document delivery
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Directed Notes (Copy-on-Send model). PDS as encrypted mailbox. The Note is a universal message format — no separate email protocol needed.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* End-to-end encryption by default. Cryptographic sender verification (no phishing, no spoofing). No spam (relays only route to subscribed destinations). Attachments are CIDs, not MIME blobs.
+
+** Zoom / Google Meet
+- *User need:* Video conferencing, screen sharing
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* WebRTC over DIDComm signaling. P2P tunnel — no central server sees call data.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* No Zoom-bombing (call is authenticated by DID). No platform listening in. No account required beyond your DID.
+
+* E-Commerce & Marketplaces
+
+** eBay / Etsy
+- *User need:* Buy and sell goods, auction, fixed-price listings, dispute resolution
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Contract Notes as product listings (Offer → Take model). HODL invoice escrow for payments. SCAL (Sovereign Contract & Arbitration Layer) for dispute resolution.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Fees below 5% (vs. 10-15%). Transparent reputation system based on DID history. No account bans. Multi-level arbitration (Local Elders → Guilds → Global Juries).
+
+** OnlyFans / Patreon / Fansly
+- *User need:* Subscription content, adult content, creator-direct monetization
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Paywalled Notes via LSAT protocol. Streaming Lightning subscriptions. Encrypted content with Blind CDN seeding.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Censorship-resistant (no payment processor can cut you off). Near-zero platform fees. Pseudonymous by default. Adult content doesn't face the banking discrimination that existing platforms do.
+- *Strategic target:* Phase 1 platform replacement (underserved, clear pain point).
+
+** Pornhub / Adult content
+- *User need:* Adult content hosting, discovery, monetization
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Same Note primitive with `content_type: video/*`. LSAT for paywalled access. Blind CDN for distribution.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* No centralized moderation that can delist creators. Lightning-native payments bypass banking discrimination. Privacy (identity not tied to consumption).
+- *Strategic target:* Phase 1 platform replacement.
+
+* Work & Collaboration
+
+** GitHub / GitLab
+- *User need:* Version control, code hosting, issues, pull requests, CI
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Code is stored as Merkle DAGs of commit Notes. Issues and PRs are Contract Notes. Collective Personas own repositories.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Truly decentralized version control — no central repository host. Signed commits with DID. Smart contracts for bounty management (Lightning bounties).
+
+** Google Docs / Office 365
+- *User need:* Collaborative document editing, spreadsheets, presentations
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Static pages (`is_feed: false`) with versioned CID history. Collaborative editing via Contract Notes defining access control.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Document history is immutable and verifiable. No platform lock-in.
+
+** Project Management (Jira, Trello, Asana)
+- *User need:* Task tracking, project management, team coordination
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Tasks as Contract Notes in negotiation state. Status changes are signed state transitions.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Portable project history. Tasks are data you own.
+
+** Upwork / Fiverr / Freelancer
+- *User need:* Find freelancers, manage contracts, escrow payments
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* SCAL contracts for service agreements. HODL invoice escrow. Multi-level arbitration. Reputation tied to DID history.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Lower fees, portable reputation, no platform lock-in.
+
+* Identity & Infrastructure
+
+** Google / Apple ID
+- *User need:* Single sign-on across the internet
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* DID-based authentication via Personas. No central identity provider. User controls which Persona is used for which service.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* No surveillance (Google sees every SSO login). Granular persona isolation. No single point of failure.
+
+** ENS (Ethereum Name Service)
+- *User need:* Human-readable decentralized names
+- *Social Protocol replacement:* Social protocol naming registry with similar auction model. But integrated with PDS, messaging, contracts, and payments — a name in the protocol is a full identity, not just a pointer to a wallet.
+- *Social Protocol advantage:* Names come with native capabilities (PDS, messaging, contracts). ENS is names-only.
+
+* The [[id:3aa22300-2f25-57b0-8787-9f199cc978b1][Competitive Analysis]]: What This Changes
+
+The social protocol is not competing with any single product. It is competing with the /aggregate/ of 20+ products — and the friction of managing 20+ separate accounts, logins, reputations, and data silos.
+
+** The Real Competitor Is the Status Quo
+
+The centralized internet works well enough for most people. The friction is spread across 20+ platforms — no single platform is bad enough to leave. The social protocol's value proposition is not "Twitter but better" but "one account replaces every platform you use."
+
+This is a harder sell because:
+1. The status quo is familiar. Switching all 20+ platforms at once is cognitively overwhelming.
+2. Network effects at each platform are entrenched. No single platform can be replaced without bringing the users.
+3. The value of unification compounds with adoption — but requires critical mass to be visible.
+
+** The Entry Vector Must Be a Niche, Not a Mass Market
+
+The strategic documents recognize this explicitly. Phase 1 targets underserved communities with clear pain points:
+- OnlyFans creators facing payment discrimination and censorship
+- Reddit communities tired of centralized moderation
+- Developers frustrated with platform lock-in
+- Adult content platforms facing banking discrimination
+- NGOs and guilds needing sovereign identity
+
+Each of these communities has a /specific/ pain point that the protocol solves directly. The win condition is: a user joins for one reason (e.g., censorship-resistant adult content monetization) and discovers the other 19 capabilities as a free bonus.
+
+** The Structural Advantage Is Unassailable
+
+No centralized competitor can match the protocol's bundle:
+- Meta cannot offer portable identity (it destroys their business model)
+- Google cannot offer private messaging (it destroys their data model)
+- Stripe cannot offer contracts and social (outside their competence)
+- DocuSign cannot offer payments and publishing (outside their competence)
+- The entire category of centralized platforms cannot offer user-owned data
+
+The only way to compete with the protocol is to build a similar decentralized platform — and that requires matching all four layers (identity, publishing, payments, contracts) simultaneously. No decentralized project has done this. The closest (Farcaster) has identity and social but no payments or contracts. Bluesky has identity and social but no payments or contracts. Ethereum + ENS has identity, payments, and contracts but no social layer.
+
+** The Risk Is Not Competition but Indifference
+
+The protocol's biggest risk is not that a competitor builds a better product, but that the status quo friction is tolerable enough that users never switch. The centralized internet is bad — but it is familiar. The protocol is better — but unfamiliar.
+
+The counterargument: this is true for every platform shift. Email was a worse experience than postal mail in 1992. The web was a worse experience than AOL in 1994. Instagram was a worse experience than Flickr in 2010. Each won because a /specific/ use case was dramatically better, and the rest of the ecosystem followed. The protocol must find its "camera with filters" moment — the one use case that is so clearly superior that users adopt it despite the rest of the ecosystem being immature.
+
+* Comparison Summary
+
+|| Social Protocol replaces | Incumbent | Social Protocol advantage | Risk to Social Protocol |
+|----------------+-----------+----------------+---------------|
+| Social graph | Facebook | Portable identity, no data mining | Facebook's 3B user moat |
+| Microblogging | Twitter/X | Algorithm choice, no censorship | Network effects |
+| Visual content | Instagram | No engagement-extremified algorithm | UX polish gap |
+| Professional | LinkedIn | Portable rep, no platform fees | Professional network effects |
+| Video | YouTube | Lens choice, Seeder Rewards | Content moderation surface |
+| Short video | TikTok | Users choose the algorithm | Discovery algorithm sophistication |
+| Forums | Reddit | Sovereign moderation, portable identity | Community migration inertia |
+| Publishing | Medium/Substack | Near-zero fees, content ownership | Creator distribution |
+| Messaging | WhatsApp/Signal | Multi-persona isolation, onion routing | Friend network effects |
+| Community | Discord | Cryptographic ownership, forkable | Voice/UX maturity |
+| E-commerce | eBay/Etsy | <5% fees, transparent reputation | Trust in new platform |
+| Subscription | OnlyFans/Patreon | No payment discrimination | Creator acquisition cost |
+| Video hosting | Pornhub | No censorship, Lightning payouts | Reputation risk |
+| Code hosting | GitHub | Truly decentralized, DID-signed commits | Developer habit |
+| Identity | Google/Apple ID | No surveillance, persona isolation | Convenience of SSO |
+| Naming | ENS | Name + PDS + messaging + contracts | ENS's 2M domain moat |
+| Collaboration | Google Docs | Verifiable history, no platform lock-in | Real-time collaboration UX |
+| Freelance | Upwork/Fiverr | Lower fees, portable reputation | Liquidity of gig listings |
+| Meetings | Zoom | P2P, no central server | Call quality/reliability |
+
+* Conclusion
+
+The protocol does not compete with any single platform. It offers an alternative to the /entire paradigm/ of centralized internet services. The competitive analysis is not about which platform to beat — it is about which /use case/ to lead with so that users adopt the unified platform despite the rest of the ecosystem being immature.
+
+The OnlyFans/Patreon entry vector is the strongest Phase 1 play: a community with clear pain (payment discrimination, censorship), high willingness to pay, and low switching costs (creators want their audience independent of the platform). From there, publishing, messaging, and identity flow naturally.
+
+* References
+
+- [[id:1d074690-a279-59cb-b91d-e9a22ae104ad][Social Protocol overview]] (brain docs)
+- [[id:64708e1f-00e9-4cb7-b44b-ea0b98e5296d][Social Protocol contract platform]]
+- [[id:57f9538a-6270-4302-8d07-d742168419eb][Social-first growth scenario]]
+- Social Protocol Overview (spec repo)
+- Social Space specification
+- Exchange and Contracts specification
+- User journey and platform replacement strategy

projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/compliance-index.org

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 
 The [[id:827bc546-e887-5b7c-9b65-6392beaf0920][verification monopoly]] and domain gate package [[id:ed05cab4-88e9-4e25-b7c9-346fa39c69a0][revenue streams]] depend on
 selling into regulated industries. These industries buy compliance, not software.
-Each framework below maps to a gate package the triad can sell — ACL2-verified
+Each framework below maps to a gate package Passepartout can sell — ACL2-verified
 gate rules that produce deterministic audit trails.
 
 See [[id:558154ea-e63a-4c45-998c-26ce8588585b][First-mover window analysis]] and [[id:81a815ee-bf2b-4365-9894-b814e4196850][Revenue table]] for the consolidated view.

projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/domain-gate-packages.org

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
+:ID:       c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c
+:ID:       45ea493b-94ad-5885-aa65-0c846e5c3c1d
+:END:
+#+title: Domain Gate Packages — Encoding and Products
+#+filetags: :passepartout:revenue:gate-rules:compliance:subscription:encoding:llm:translation:
+
+* Encoding — How Rules Are Translated from Codified Domains
+
+Laws, regulations, standards, procedures, and technical specifications are already written down in structured text. The LLM does not need to *reason* about them — it needs to *translate* them into gate rules and ACL2 theorems.
+
+Example: The US Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is ~2,000 pages. A frontier LLM can ingest the FAR and produce a plist of gate rules:
+
+- (if contract > $250K AND not small-business-set-aside → :deny)
+- (if sole-source AND no justification-documented → :deny, produce-justification)
+
+ACL2 verifies the rule set for internal consistency. Screamer checks against existing compliance facts. The human reviews the bootstrap output and approves or corrects individual rules.
+
+The key distinction: the LLM is not *extracting knowledge from prose* — it is *translating a known rule system into a formal representation.* The result is not "the LLM's best guess" but "the rule set as stated in the source document, mechanically transcribed."
+
+For codified domains, the encoding cost drops from weeks to hours. The only bottleneck is human review of the 5% ambiguous rules. This is what makes the sufficiency flip economically viable — once gates are encoded, verification is near-free. The resulting rules are packaged into domain gate packages that can be reused across deployments.
+
+* Products — How Rules Are Packaged and Sold
+
+Pre-verified gate rule packages for specific compliance domains. Translated from published regulations by the LLM, verified by ACL2, reviewed by a human for the 5% ambiguous edge cases.
+
+- HIPAA package: $50K/yr
+- SOC2 package: $50K/yr
+- GDPR package: $50K/yr
+- FedRAMP package: $100K/yr
+- Combined enterprise: $250K/yr
+
+Switching costs are high — changing packages means re-verifying the fact store against new rules. The infrastructure lock-in compounds: a hospital at $250K/yr in year one grows to $500K-$1M by year five as more packages are added and the fact store becomes more valuable than the software itself.
+
+20 subscriptions in year one = $1M-$5M. These packages each wrap the social protocol Note primitive into a domain-specific authorization boundary. These packages are verified using the verification appliance and scored by the evaluation harness.

projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/fedramp.org

@@ -42,12 +42,12 @@ are strongly discouraged from using non-authorized services.
 No direct fines. Non-authorized providers are simply ineligible for federal
 contracts. FedRAMP is a procurement gate, not a regulatory one.
 
-** Why it matters for the triad
+** Why it matters for Passepartout
 
 FedRAMP is the highest bar and the most expensive certification to obtain.
 Few cloud providers achieve it (fewer than 300 authorized products as of 2025).
 But those that do capture the US government market with minimal competition.
-For the triad: a [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][compute marketplace]] provider with FedRAMP Moderate or High
+For Passepartout: a [[id:3c6b0449-a8fb-5b89-b82a-34efb21ef5b5][compute marketplace]] provider with FedRAMP Moderate or High
 authorization can sell to every federal agency. The gate stack's deterministic
 audit trail maps directly to FedRAMP's continuous monitoring requirement —
 producing verifiable evidence of control effectiveness on every access, not

projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/gdpr.org

@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ Up to 20M EUR or 4% of annual global turnover, whichever is higher. Tiered
 system. Supervisory authorities in each member state enforce. Private right
 of action for damages.
 
-** Why it matters for the triad
+** Why it matters for Passepartout
 
 GDPR is the most extraterritorial and aggressively enforced privacy framework.
 The gate stack's principle of least privilege maps naturally to GDPR's data

projects/passepartout/strategy/compliance/hipaa.org

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Tiered civil penalties: $100-$50,000 per violation, up to $1.5M per year per
 violation category. Criminal penalties for knowing misuse (up to 10 years
 imprisonment). State AGs can also bring civil actions.
 
-** Why it matters for the triad
+** Why it matters for Passepartout
 
 HIPAA is the largest single compliance market in US healthcare — every hospital,
 clinic, insurer, and health-tech vendor must comply. The [[id:c34940cc-090e-57c4-8020-e78b1d32b96c][HIPAA gate package]]