Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This draft presents an Agent Lockdown Profile for verifying conformity in enterprise agent runtimes, suggesting future procurement compliance.
UNSIGNED_PREVIEW — NOT A RELEASE — NOT PROCUREMENT‑GRADE. EXPECT HOLD. NOT FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. Discussion/review only; release‑gate authenticity artifacts are not present/verifiable under the pinned fingerprint. Receipts, not promises. This Zenodo record publishes KCS‑ALP‑L1: Agent Lockdown Profile (ALP‑L1) v1.0.0 (Public Draft) — a procurement‑shaped interoperability profile for enterprise agent runtimes with buyer‑run, offline verification of conformance receipts and replay determinism. Included artifacts: Whitepaper PDF (normative), bundle ZIP (offline verifier + fixtures), Release Checklist, publication‑integrity addendum, artifact‑signing public key, and CITATION.cff. Release date: 2026‑02‑18 Canonical standards surface: https://meridianverity.com/standards/ Project home: https://meridianverity.com/ Pinned artifact‑signing fingerprint (trust anchor): 9ACD3C8B2E02BD4CAA6742EB7132DE1CAA7BBB01 Normative scope Only the Whitepaper PDF is normative. All other files in this record are supporting artifacts (bundle ZIP, offline verifier + fixtures, templates, addenda, and reviewer/auditor packets). Fail‑closed posture: HOLD blocks sensitive side effects by default when evidence is missing, stale, inconsistent, unverifiable, or non‑deterministic. Fail‑closed / release gate This deposit is UNSIGNED_PREVIEW. Consumers MUST treat this deposit as UNTRUSTED → HOLD (fail‑closed) for any conformance, safety, or procurement acceptance claim. For a future signed release, procurement‑grade status exists if and only if offline verification succeeds under the pinned fingerprint: sha256sum -c SHA256SUMS gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc SHA256SUMS What the profile specifies (high level) · Deterministic runtime verdicts (ALLOW / DENY / HOLD) with standardized reason codes. · Deterministic offline outcomes (PASS / FAIL / HOLD) for Evidence Pack verification and replay checks. · Signed allowlist‑only tool/skill invocation (tamper‑evident). · Permit‑before‑send network egress (deny‑by‑default). · Untrusted → trusted boundary enforcement for privileged actions. · Secret isolation + scoped use (no plaintext secrets in prompts, tool output, or logs). · High‑risk action approval gates (HOLD until approval proof exists). · Version pinning + drift detection; stewardship/change‑control expectations. · Portable Evidence Packs with minimal schema/registry surfaces designed for procurement attachment. Interoperability evidence (included) This record includes a reference offline verifier contract and portable fixture Evidence Packs demonstrating expected outcomes (PASS / HOLD / FAIL), including negative and boundary cases, with deterministic receipts + reason codes. Buyer‑run demo from bundle root: python3 verifier_contract/alp_l1_offline_verifier.py verifier_contract/fixtures/ALP_SAMPLE_PACK_TV-ALP-001_PASS_BASELINE_v1.0.0.zip python3 verifier_contract/alp_l1_offline_verifier.py verifier_contract/fixtures/ALP_SAMPLE_PACK_TV-ALP-002_HOLD_ALLOWLIST_SIG_MISSING_v1.0.0.zip python3 verifier_contract/alp_l1_offline_verifier.py verifier_contract/fixtures/ALP_SAMPLE_PACK_TV-ALP-005_FAIL_DIGEST_MISMATCH_v1.0.0.zip Security considerations (snapshot) Threat model coverage includes (illustrative): tool injection/capability sprawl, allowlist tampering, data exfiltration, prompt injection, secret leakage, unauthorized high‑risk actions, baseline drift/downgrade, evidence repudiation, and TOCTOU‑style drift. Public‑safe by design The profile and artifacts avoid exploit guidance and do not require disclosure of confidential implementation details by default. License / rights notice CC BY 4.0 applies to text and supporting artifacts unless a file states otherwise. No patent license by publication. Not legal advice. Integrity / verification Use SHA256SUMS to verify file integrity (SHA‑256) after download/extraction: sha256sum -c SHA256SUMS How to cite Use the Zenodo “Cite as” entry after publication. CITATION.cff is included for convenience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yong Bok Lee (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: