Addendum reports enhanced enforcement evidence in a deterministic admission gate, indicating improved implementation.
Elyon-Sol is a deterministic, fail-closed HTTP admission gate derived from a formal admissibility specification. The canonical model is unchanged from v0.9.8.4: G(I) = AC³ ∧ T²⁶ ∧ CCS. This addendum (Revision 3) reports enforcement evidence for a fixed implementation snapshot, superseding Revision 2 (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20387278). All three canonical invariants — Authority (AC³), Coverage (T²⁶), and Continuity (CCS) — are implemented and exercised in code at the snapshot; Continuity is realized at the admissibility envelope layer (a content-hashed record of decision state, reasserted against live state; a change in canon, manifest, or evaluator state invalidates a prior ELIGIBLE per canon §12.4, and eligibility does not persist across transitions without revalidation per canon §13). Since Revision 2, while the canon stayed locked, the implementation advanced to a signed, enforced, multi-process gate: target-side envelope verification, delivery to an enforcing downstream, mandatory Ed25519 signing of every admitted forward, issuer-key expiry plus a published signed key record with revocation and planned key/root rotation, cross-host transport of the integrity-anchored record, a machine-checked readiness instrument, and a standalone reference enforcing target exercised across separate processes over real TLS — closing in code the Revision-2 items of non-bypassable enforcement (for routed, attested traffic) and evaluator-domain canon-derived testing. Measured results: the full repository test suite passes 211 of 211, 0 xfailed (up from 84 at Revision 2); and a third-party-observed enforcement run recorded 204 HTTP calls (102 REFUSE, 102 ELIGIBLE), 0 unexpected outcomes, and exactly 102 external executions — one per ELIGIBLE call, zero from REFUSE calls — with each ELIGIBLE forward gate-signed. The attached PDF contains the evidence summary, the canon-derived adversarial validation surface, an explicit honest-scope section (no external adversarial validation on a real multi-host surface has been performed; the enforcement run is author-driven third-party observation over local transport), and provenance. This is an evidence publication for provenance, not a build guide: the production implementation is proprietary and is not distributed, and step-by-step reproduction instructions, internal structure, and deployment detail are intentionally omitted. The canonical model is published for citation; the production implementation and its reproduction procedures are proprietary, all rights reserved. Additional Notes: Revision 3 — provenance & evidence edition. Supersedes the prior version. The canonical model (v0.9.8.4) is unchanged. This version refreshes the enforcementevidence to the current implementation snapshot — full repository test suite 211/211passing (0 xfailed, up from 84), and a third-party-observed run of 204 HTTP calls(102 REFUSE → 403 with 0 external executions; 102 ELIGIBLE → 200 with exactly 102external executions, each gate-signed). It records the capabilities added sinceRevision 2 (target-side verification, envelope delivery and enforcement, mandatorysigning, key/root records with revocation and rotation, cross-host transport, and areference enforcing target) at the claims level. The publication is scoped to claims and evidence for provenance. Step-by-stepreproduction instructions, internal structure, and deployment detail have beenintentionally removed; the production implementation is proprietary (all rightsreserved). The canonical model remains published for citation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Justin LaPorte (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: