Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Proposed verification framework assesses consistency between claims and substrate behavior in artificial systems, highlighting implications for AI safety and software engineering.
Structural Honesty Verification (SHV) is proposed as an under-theorized category of verification that addresses the consistency between what artificial systems claim at their surfaces and what their substrates actually deliver. Software supply-chain security has substantially matured through systems such as Sigstore, SLSA, and in-toto; this paper argues that a complementary verification problem — whether a system's surface claims remain consistent with its substrate behavior across versions, contexts, and deployment conditions — has not been articulated as a distinct verification category. SHV is proposed as substrate-independent and composes with formal verification, static analysis, and provenance attestation rather than replacing any of them. The paper presents three principal realizations of SHV at distinct maturity levels: the Munafiq Protocol (theoretical, with retrospective empirical engagement), a diagnostic framework for performed alignment in AI systems grounded in a four-process taxonomy and the structural correspondence between performed-alignment detection and the generative adversarial discrimination problem; the Furqan programming language (theoretical), which proposes seven compile-time primitives that elevate structural honesty from convention to compiler-enforced default; and furqan-lint (operational, v0.11.6 release snapshot), a static-analysis tool that ships with five checks across three language substrates (Python, Rust, Go) plus a parallel ONNX diagnostic family, and that verifies its own releases recursively against the same checks it imposes. Companion realizations are sketched at the file, information, agent, large-language-model architecture, financial-governance, and methodology layers. The SHV diagnostic vocabulary is mapped retrospectively to five publicly documented safety-critical failures — Therac-25, Boeing 737 MAX MCAS, Northeast Blackout 2003, Wirecard / EY, and Toyota Unintended Acceleration — and three documented software supply-chain attacks — SolarWinds Sunburst, Log4Shell, and XZ Utils backdoor. These mappings are vocabulary correspondences, not counterfactual prevention claims. Implications for AI safety, safety-critical software engineering, regulatory compliance, and the verification of large-language-model-generated code are discussed. The work is theoretical with one operational anchor (furqan-lint v0.11.6); empirical validation across instances and substrates is named as the principal load-bearing future work. This is Version 1 of the paper, dated May 11, 2026. The release-snapshot scope (front matter) governs the relationship between this paper and later releases of the operational anchor. AI assistance disclosure: this work was developed with collaborative analytical assistance from Claude (Anthropic), Grok (xAI), and Perplexity Computer; all claims and conclusions are the responsibility of the human authors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arfeen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: