HUB_Optimus — Trust Layer
Purpose
The Trust Layer defines how HUB_Optimus evaluates claims, commitments, and agreements for operational reliability.
It does not evaluate intent, morality, or political legitimacy.
It evaluates verifiability, traceability, and structural trustworthiness.
Core Principle
A commitment that cannot be verified should not be treated as reliable, regardless of who makes it.
Trust is not assumed.
Trust is earned through structure.
Evidence Classes (A/B/C)
Class A — Verifiable Commitments (High trust)
Characteristics:
- Observable actions or states
- Independent verification possible
- Clear success/failure conditions
- Time-bounded checkpoints
Examples:
- Agreements with inspection/monitoring mechanisms
- Publicly auditable actions
- Reversible steps with monitoring
Class B — Partially Verifiable Commitments (Conditional trust)
Characteristics:
- Some observable components
- Limited verification scope
- Ambiguous enforcement or coverage
Examples:
- Commitments with reporting but no independent verification
- Conditional actions without defined penalties or rollback
Class C — Non-Verifiable Assertions (Low trust)
Characteristics:
- No external verification
- Dependent on intent or goodwill
- No measurable checkpoints
Examples:
- Verbal assurances
- Statements of future intent without mechanisms
Trust Profile (how HUB_Optimus scores reliability)
For any commitment, HUB_Optimus creates a Trust Profile using the following dimensions:
1) Verifiability
- Can an independent actor verify the claim?
2) Traceability
- Is there an audit trail (who/what/when/where)?
3) Independence
- Is verification independent from the claimant?
4) Coverage
- Does verification cover the full commitment or only fragments?
5) Recency
- How current is the evidence relative to the commitment window?
6) Reversibility
- Can the action be rolled back if verification fails?
A commitment can be Class A but still weak if coverage/independence is poor.
Minimum Verification Protocol (MVP)
A commitment is treated as “reliable enough to plan around” only if it includes:
- A clear observable outcome
- A checkpoint schedule
- A named verification method
- A dispute pathway (what happens if verification is contested)
Disputes and Degradation (non-coercive enforcement)
HUB_Optimus does not enforce outcomes.
It enforces epistemic discipline:
- If verification fails → trust degrades.
- If verification is blocked → trust degrades.
- If evidence is partial → trust is conditional.
- If evidence is independently confirmed → trust strengthens.
This creates incentive pressure without coercion.
Anti-Gaming Rule
“Paper compliance” (performative reporting without independent verification) is treated as Class B or C,
even if presented as Class A.
Integration points
- Scenario inputs should reference evidence using:
governance/SCENARIO_SCHEMA.md
- Evaluations should explicitly cite evidence class + trust profile dimensions using:
governance/EVALUATION_STANDARD.md
Kernel access and anti-capture rules (hardening)
Trust tiers (high-level)
- Reader: may read and reference the system.
- Contributor: may propose changes to non-Kernel materials under review.
- Custodian: may approve governance-level changes under strict process.
Direct modifications to Kernel documents require:
1) explicit rationale referencing Kernel principles,
2) consensus review per CONSENSUS_PROCESS,
3) custodianship approval per CUSTODIANSHIP,
4) synchronization across language mirrors.
Anti-capture rule
Attempts to:
- introduce drift via translation,
- rebrand the method while preserving claims,
- convert governance into marketing,
are treated as capture attempts and rejected.