TIBET Semantic Surface Manifest

Status of This Memo This memo is an Internet-Draft working document derived from operational architecture notes and prototype work in the Humotica / TIBET / TAT / ICC stack during May 2026. The present -00 version captures the core routing model, visible syntax, mirrored-surface concept, and mismatch consequences needed for first public review.

Problem Statement Sealed containers often provide strong integrity but weak dispatch semantics. Systems therefore face a recurring tradeoff: either encrypt and seal everything, delaying routing and policy choice until deep inspection, or expose too much metadata, weakening privacy and creating new security ambiguities. The Semantic Surface Manifest addresses this by providing a constrained, readable routing layer that supports dispatch without decrypting content, minimizes metadata exposure, does not replace cryptographic verification, and composes with existing sealed-container workflows.

Terminology

Identity-Bound Continuity Container:: A cryptographically sealed bundle that combines identity binding, continuity semantics, and containerized payload transfer.
Semantic Surface Manifest:: A human-readable routing surface associated with a bundle, typically expressed through filename or object-name structure and optionally mirrored into sealed manifest fields.
Intrinsic Truth:: Properties established by the sealed object itself, such as magic bytes, manifest, signatures, hashes, and chain anchors.
Extrinsic Surface:: Properties expressed outside the sealed object for dispatch and routing, such as time fragment, context, profile, and priority.
Surface-Integrity Event:: A meaningful mismatch or anomaly involving visible routing surface and mirrored sealed routing fields.

Design Goals The Semantic Surface Manifest is intended to remain human-readable, machine-parseable, bounded in disclosure, and composable with existing ICC or TBZ verification workflows. It should support wildcard or policy matching, align with logs and audit ecosystems, and support mirrored sealed fields for consistency checks. It must not be treated as proof of identity or content, override manifest truth, or carry rich payload details.

Syntax The normative external form is: ...[.] ]]> The Semantic Surface Manifest is intentionally flat and dot-delimited in version 1. The formal grammar uses ABNF as defined in . Each segment is restricted to lowercase letters, digits, and hyphens. Segments must not contain spaces, slashes, underscores, nested dots, or uppercase letters.

Time Fragment Format This document prefers an ISO8601-style fragment over compact local date forms because it is lexicographically sortable, readable across jurisdictions, aligned with logs, and supports both coarse and fine routing granularity. Two forms are recommended in version 1:

Vocabulary Registries

Profile Registry Initial profile values include claude, gemini, gpt, kit, iddrop, parentattest, capsule, and tza. These values describe semantic class, not vendor authenticity.

Priority Registry Initial priority values include urgent, normal, background, and sealed.

Context The context field remains open-text in version 1 but is expected to be short, low-leakage, and ABNF-conforming.

Processing Model

Surface Parse A compliant implementation may parse the semantic surface before opening the bundle in order to choose a queue, handler, retention policy, or operator lane.

Type Sniff An implementation should verify container type using intrinsic signals such as TBZ magic bytes before deep handling.

Deep Verification Before trust-sensitive operations, an implementation must verify the sealed container according to its intrinsic integrity rules.

Surface-to-Manifest Consistency If the sealed manifest contains mirrored surface fields, the implementation should compare them against the external semantic surface. Meaningful mismatch should be treated as a surface-integrity event leading to triage, quarantine, or policy review rather than silent acceptance.

Mirrored Manifest Fields This document defines optional mirrored manifest fields such as surface_time_fragment, surface_context, surface_profile, and surface_priority. If both an external semantic surface and internal mirrored fields are present, the mirrored fields are authoritative for triage classification and deep semantic handling.

Example Example external surface: Processing may route to an urgent queue, classify as a candidate profile, verify TBZ magic bytes, inspect the manifest, verify signatures and hashes, compare visible and sealed surface, and only then hand to a profile-aware handler if consistent or policy-approved.

Mismatch Classes

Cosmetic Mismatch A visible label changes while sealed truth remains intact. Recommended disposition is triage with manifest semantics prevailing.

Routing-Risk Mismatch A visible profile and a sealed profile differ in a way that creates significant misrouting risk. Recommended disposition is triage or quarantine, not auto-materialization.

No Mirrored Fields Legacy bundles may provide visible routing only, yielding a reduced-assurance mode because no sealed-surface comparison is possible.

Security Considerations The Semantic Surface Manifest is not a source of trust. Implementations must assume that external names can be changed and visible routing labels can be misleading. The sealed container remains the only strong source of truth. Routing may depend on SSM, but trust must not depend on SSM alone.

Privacy Considerations The Semantic Surface Manifest intentionally exposes limited metadata. Implementers should keep context low-sensitivity, avoid direct secrets or detailed personal data, and prefer naming for dispatch rather than disclosure.

Interoperability Considerations The SSM is designed to compose with TBZ, ICC-based continuity containers, TIBET Drop or TAT flows, session-state bundles, attestation bundles, sealed capsules, local storage, transport objects, attachments, queues, and router decisions.

Relationship to JIS, TIBET, TAT, and ICC This document does not replace JIS identity semantics, TIBET causal ordering, TAT transfer flow, or ICC sealed object semantics. It adds a visible routing surface above them. A clean split is that JIS decides who is acting, TIBET decides causal truth, TAT decides transfer flow, ICC decides sealed object class, and SSM decides visible dispatch semantics.

Future Work

richer but still bounded registries for profile
explicit mirrored-surface validation modes
MUX or SNAFT routing integration
UI conventions for displaying safe routing metadata
signed or policy-bound surface-to-manifest binding hints

Questions for Future Revisions The following topics are non-blocking for the present -00 version and are recorded here to guide later discussion and interoperability work.

whether profile should remain open-text or move to a tighter registry
whether the optional suffix should be preserved, normalized, or ignored by parsers
whether seconds-level time fragments should be allowed in version 1
whether some domains should escalate all mismatch to quarantine while others allow low-risk auto-continue

IANA Considerations This document requests two registries: a Surface Profile Registry and a Surface Priority Registry. Registration policy for both is Expert Review as described in . Initial profile values are claude, gemini, gpt, kit, iddrop, parentattest, capsule, and tza. Initial priority values are urgent, normal, background, and sealed. No registries are requested for time-fragment, context, or icc-ext in version 1.