Owned AI · Technical note

Methodology and public receipts

The audit layer behind the eighty-run portability result.

01 / Research question

Can a fresh, stateless successor continue governed work after the original model, session, or provider is unavailable, then write the bounded continuation into durable state that survives restart and replay?

02 / Campaign design

03 / What counted as a pass

Scenario-specific deterministic validators scored the structured semantic response. A pass then had to survive clean-room validation, durable audit write-back, process restart, index rebuild, hash-chain verification, receipt export, and replay. A safe fail-closed response could pass a degraded condition when the expected behavior was to request missing authoritative state rather than continue.

Full typed-state results
WorkflowPasses
Research correction12 / 12
Healthcare CHAP9 / 12
Editorial approval2 / 12
Publish ambiguity1 / 12
Git continuation0 / 12

04 / Aggregate result

All eighty scheduled calls finished. Twenty-nine passed semantic validation; forty-five failed semantically; six failed serialization. All twenty-nine semantic passes also passed clean-room validation and durable replay. No provider call failed before inference, no production side effect occurred, and no real-world authority was granted.

Common failed mechanisms
MechanismFlags
Execution safety16
Authority scope14
Canonical artifact12
Next step10
Continuation decision9
Duplicate prevention5
Policy version3

05 / Public evidence and reference code

06 / Limits

The suite does not establish arbitrary enterprise portability, a population-level rate, relative model quality, completeness of commercial exports, portability of hidden reasoning, or identical stochastic replay. Fixtures were synthetic or frozen, the Git remote was local, the publishing provider was a sandbox, and the healthcare outcome was simulated no-action.

← Return to Owned AI

AI news, analysis, and weekly deep dives. No hype.