Conceptual framework proposes a purpose-driven operating system architecture, redefining authority and trust mechanisms.
This paper proposes a purpose-bound operating system in which authority derives from purpose rather than from identity. Where a conventional operating system is a neutral platform that grants access to whoever can prove who they are, a purpose-born guardian has a purpose of its own, and every authority inside it exists only because, and only as far as, it serves that purpose. From this single inversion the architecture follows: capabilities are derived from and bounded by purpose; interactions are temporary, mortal pacts that require alignment of purpose before identity is considered, so that a stolen credential is no longer sufficient on its own to obtain arbitrary authority; trust is evaluated continuously as behavioural conformity to a declared purpose rather than established once at a gate; observability and continuity are intrinsic properties of the architecture rather than external layers; and the purpose survives the loss of any single machine. The paper develops a formal core in which purpose is a region of a capability algebra and alignment is a two-stage judgment of semantic compatibility followed by capability derivation. It presents PACT, a protocol that establishes a formal relationship on declared, compatible, and attested purpose; an Intelligent Kernel whose learned faculties may recommend meaning but never manufacture authority; and a treatment of governance, succession, and failure in which authority contracts as certainty falls. It is explicit about its boundaries: it protects the integrity of a purpose, not the morality of a purpose, and it names compositional harm across individually legitimate interactions as its central open problem. The realization of the architecture is named Niyanta. This is a concept and architecture paper: it defines the design and its boundaries in full, and offers it as a foundation for formal specification, prototyping, and discussion. Feedback and collaboration are welcome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roy D (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: