<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
<!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
<!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;">
<!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;">
<!ENTITY wj "&#8288;">
]>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
     category="info"
     docName="draft-gravit-gevp-08"
     ipr="trust200902"
     xml:lang="en"
     version="3">

  <front>
    <title abbrev="GEVP">Gravit Epistemic Verification Protocol (GEVP)</title>

    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-gravit-gevp-08"/>

    <author initials="A." surname="Konviser" fullname="Alex Konviser">
      <organization>Gravit Open Network</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Zurich</city>
          <country>Switzerland</country>
        </postal>
        <email>ietf@gravit.space</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2026" month="October" day="12"/>

    <abstract>
      <t>
        GEVP defines a minimal protocol for epistemic convergence.
        Renamed from VCP to avoid collision with
        draft-kamimura-scitt-vcp. It maps the GEVP Epistemic State
        Machine to the evidence taxonomy of the Gravit Verifiable
        Epistemic Decision Standard (VEDS). This revision corrects the
        Implementation Status: the threshold calibration and the cost
        relation reported in earlier revisions could not be reproduced
        and are replaced by reproducible results; no specific theta
        threshold is recommended any longer.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>

    <section anchor="introduction" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>
        Gravit open network for verifiable knowledge transformations.
        Stable. Future is implementations.
      </t>
      <t>
        GEVP defines ESM RAW-&gt;VALIDATED-&gt;VERIFIED-&gt;COMMITTED,
        verification types, persistence MAY Ledger IPFS GSS DB Archive,
        bindings separate.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="conventions" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Conventions</name>
      <t>
        The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
        "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>",
        "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>",
        "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
        "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and
        "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted
        as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/>
        <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all
        capitals, as shown here.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="esm" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Epistemic State Machine</name>
      <t>States RAW VALIDATED VERIFIED COMMITTED explicit logged.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="data-types" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Protocol Data Types</name>
      <t>
        Artifact id hash SHA3-256 claim provenance signatures optional.
      </t>
      <t>
        Record artifact-id verifier-id theta result timestamp.
      </t>
      <t>Convergence h&gt;0.7 f&lt;0.3.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="persistence" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Persistence</name>
      <t>MAY not MUST. Ledger IPFS GSS DB Archive.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="security-considerations" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>Replay hash nonce. Sybil cost model. No PII. Signatures OPTIONAL.</t>
      <t>
        Earlier revisions stated a cost relation C_manip &gt; 2 * C_val
        as an engineering invariant. In the trace published with those
        revisions (pinned 7755f53), the relation holds for 1457 of 3000
        records (48.6 %). It is therefore retained only as a design
        target; it is not a guarantee, and deployments
        <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> rely on it for security.
      </t>
      <t>
        Convergence over unsigned Records offers no protection against a
        single party fabricating several "independent" Records.
        Deployments that use COMMITTED as the basis for a VEDS Verified
        Fact <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> require Records signed by keys of
        distinct, registered operators, with the keys of one operator
        counted as one source.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="privacy-considerations" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Privacy Considerations</name>
      <t>Content MAY encrypted, provenance MAY redacted.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="iana-considerations" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>No IANA actions.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="implementation-status" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Implementation Status</name>
      <t>
        Reference verifier: https://github.com/gravit-open-network-foundation/verifier,
        release v0.5.0 (Python, with a Rust port), Apache-2.0. It
        implements Sections 3, 4 and 10, requires Records signed by keys
        of registered operators for COMMITTED, accepts the operator
        registry only when signed by a threshold of root keys, and
        produces content-addressed decision records. 40 golden test
        vectors are reproduced by both implementations.
      </t>
      <t>
        Reproducible evaluation: https://github.com/gravit-open-network-foundation/gravit-eval-pack
        reproduces every figure in this section with one command.
      </t>
      <t>
        Threshold calibration: a 3000-claim trace generated by the
        consensus engine at https://github.com/gravit-open-network-foundation/gravit-grover
        (10x Sybil amplification) gives, at theta = 0.73, a true
        positive rate of 91.7 % (1376/1500) and a false positive rate of
        7.3 % (110/1500). The rates are identical for every theta in
        [0.11, 0.78]: once the network has converged, the threshold has
        little effect; what decides is whether honest evidence
        outweighs the Sybil evidence.
      </t>
      <t>
        Correction: revisions -00 to -07 reported TPR 93.4 % and FPR
        0.4 % at theta 0.73 from a trace pinned at commit 7755f53 of the
        gravitnet repository. No generator for that trace exists and its
        figures could not be reproduced; it is superseded by the
        calibration above and kept unchanged for the record.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="veds-mapping" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>VEDS Conformance Mapping</name>
      <t>
        This section defines a normative mapping between an Artifact's
        position in the Epistemic State Machine (<xref target="esm"/>)
        and the epistemic classification taxonomy defined in Section 4.1
        of <xref target="I-D.gravit-verifiable-epistemic-decision"/>
        (VEDS). This mapping specifies one conformant way for a
        GEVP-based implementation to satisfy the VEDS admissibility and
        classification requirements referenced from VEDS Section 1;
        implementations are not required to use GEVP, but if they do,
        this section applies.
      </t>

      <section anchor="mapping-raw-validated" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>RAW and VALIDATED</name>
        <t>
          A RAW Artifact <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be treated as
          admissible evidence under VEDS Section 4.2; it has not yet
          been checked against any admissibility element.
        </t>
        <t>
          A GEVP implementation <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> transition an
          Artifact from RAW to VALIDATED only after confirming all four
          elements required by VEDS Section 4.2.1:
        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li><t>Provenance: the Artifact's provenance field resolves
          to an identifiable, nameable origin.</t></li>
          <li><t>Integrity: the Artifact's SHA3-256 hash verifies
          against its content.</t></li>
          <li><t>Freshness Bound: the Artifact's timestamp falls within
          the deployment-defined validity interval.</t></li>
          <li><t>Interpretability: the Artifact's claim conforms to a
          documented, unambiguous schema.</t></li>
        </ul>
        <t>
          A VALIDATED Artifact is admissible under VEDS Section 4.2 but
          <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be assigned an epistemic
          classification under VEDS Section 4.1.1 higher than
          Speculative Claim; admissibility alone does not establish
          truth.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="mapping-verified" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>VERIFIED</name>
        <t>
          An Artifact transitions to VERIFIED when at least one Record
          (<xref target="data-types"/>) is produced for it by a
          verifier, with a theta value and a result. A VERIFIED
          Artifact backed by exactly one Record corresponds to a VEDS
          Probabilistic Assessment (VEDS Section 4.1.1): the verifier's
          theta-scoring method is the documented, reproducible method,
          and the recorded theta is the confidence value. Where the
          Artifact is to serve as part of the basis for a definitive
          VEDS decision, the deployment <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> document
          the theta threshold it applies and how that threshold was
          calibrated, consistent with the Impact-Based Evidence Strength
          requirement in VEDS Section 4.2.3. This document does not
          recommend a specific value (see
          <xref target="implementation-status"/>).
        </t>
        <t>
          A GEVP implementation <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat a single
          Record, regardless of its theta value, as satisfying the VEDS
          Verified Fact definition; a single verifier does not
          constitute independent cross-corroboration.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="mapping-committed" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>COMMITTED</name>
        <t>
          An Artifact transitions to COMMITTED when Records from
          multiple verifiers achieve Convergence, h&gt;0.7 and
          f&lt;0.3 (<xref target="data-types"/>). A COMMITTED Artifact
          corresponds to a VEDS Verified Fact (VEDS Section 4.1.1): the
          Convergence condition is the mechanism by which the Artifact
          has been "independently confirmed accurate ... through
          reproduction, cross-corroboration, or equivalent means," as
          required by the VEDS Verified Fact definition.
        </t>
        <t>
          This document does not define criteria for treating two
          verifiers as independent for the purpose of Convergence.
          Implementations <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> apply criteria at least
          as strict as the Independent Corroboration Threshold mechanism
          in VEDS Section 4.6.2, and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> document their
          specific criteria in their VEDS Conformance Statement (VEDS
          Section 5.2).
        </t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="mapping-no-laundering" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Aggregation Restriction</name>
        <t>
          A set of RAW or VALIDATED Artifacts, however large,
          <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be treated as equivalent to a
          COMMITTED Artifact. Only Convergence over independently
          produced Records, per <xref target="mapping-committed"/>,
          <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be used to reach COMMITTED. This
          reflects the No Aggregation Laundering requirement of VEDS
          Section 4.1.2: aggregating multiple Speculative Claims does
          not, by itself, produce a Verified Fact.
        </t>
      </section>
    </section>

  </middle>

  <back>
    <references>
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">
        <front>
          <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
          <author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="S. Bradner">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date year="1997" month="March"/>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">
        <front>
          <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
          <author initials="B." surname="Leiba" fullname="B. Leiba">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date year="2017" month="May"/>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="I-D.gravit-verifiable-epistemic-decision" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gravit-verifiable-epistemic-decision/">
        <front>
          <title>Gravit Verifiable Epistemic Decision Standard</title>
          <author initials="A." surname="Konviser" fullname="Alex Konviser">
            <organization>Gravit Open Network</organization>
          </author>
          <date year="2026" month="August" day="9"/>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-gravit-verifiable-epistemic-decision-00"/>
      </reference>
    </references>

    <section anchor="changes" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Changes from draft-gravit-gevp-07</name>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li><t>Implementation Status replaced with the reference verifier
        and a reproducible threshold calibration; the unreproducible
        figures of earlier revisions are corrected, not deleted.</t></li>
        <li><t>Theta 0.73 is no longer RECOMMENDED; deployments document
        their threshold and its calibration (Section 10.2).</t></li>
        <li><t>The cost relation C_manip &gt; 2 * C_val is reclassified
        from invariant to design target (Security Considerations).</t></li>
        <li><t>Security Considerations: signed Records from distinct
        registered operators recommended for COMMITTED.</t></li>
        <li><t>Repository references updated to the
        gravit-open-network-foundation organisation.</t></li>
      </ul>
    </section>

    <section anchor="acknowledgments" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>Contributors Canon Final v1.1</t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
