Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cryptographic Homological Compilation (CHC) proposes that three questions be represented separately: What exact state is this? What claims are bound to that state? May this state act here, now, under this policy and evidence? The first two questions can be addressed by distinct, canonicalized cryptographic commitments. The third is a decision evaluated from state, claims, evidence, authority, context, freshness, and policy. A signature authenticates a statement relative to a key; it does not by itself establish that the signer has current authority, that the statement is true, or that the subject is admissible. CHC is therefore an architecture for keeping artifact identity, semantic-claim identity, and admissibility from collapsing into one apparent fact. This overview specifies that separation and its claim ceiling. It does not supply a cryptographic protocol, implementation, or security proof.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adam Ableman (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: