Back to Home

Technical Due Diligence

The Full Evidence Record

Doctrine, market scope, intellectual property, the RF-100 governance standard, the research corpus, and the open-source ecosystem — everything a diligence reviewer, board member, or technical advisor needs in one place.

The Governing Doctrine

Proof Before Power™

Before systems are given power to act, they must be able to prove authority, evidence, state, and control. This is the doctrine behind everything Remnant Fieldworks builds.

RF-000.1 · Core Law

If it cannot be verified, it cannot execute.

Under RF-100's proposed requirements, every action carries a verifiable authorization chain before execution begins.

RF-000.2 · Core Doctrine

Verification Before Execution™.

The sequence is invariant: verify first, execute second. Verification is the gate. The sequence cannot be reversed, bypassed, or deferred.

RF-000.3 · Core Philosophy

Proof Before Power.

Authority must be proven, not assumed. Power over systems, capital, or people is legitimate only when the authorization behind it can be independently verified.

Control · Decision · Execution

“Capability does not equal authority; execution should be permitted only when authority, evidence, constraints, state, and admissibility are verified at the execution boundary.”

This doctrine is documented in depth across the founder’s published work — 9 published books and 75+ articles on pre-execution governance, the verification boundary, and proof-first authorization.

Market Coverage

Where Execution Meets Consequence

The patent-pending portfolio maps pre-execution governance across every domain where unverified action carries real-world consequence — from AI agents to financial settlement to physical infrastructure.

AI Agents & Autonomous Systems

Intercept and verify AI-generated actions before they execute — ensuring authority, intent, and policy compliance at the moment an agent acts, not after.

App. No. 19/731,090

Enterprise Automation

Apply proof-gated execution control to automated workflows, RPA, and orchestration layers — so no high-consequence process runs on cached permission alone.

Parent application + provisional portfolio

Data Centers & AI Compute

Inheritance-bound governance for power allocation, cooling, grid capacity, and infrastructure provisioning — verification of physical-domain conditions before compute executes.

App. No. 19/731,050

Treasury & Payments

Proof-gated authorization for capital movement, wire transfers, payment rails, and settlement — verifying authority and limits before money moves.

App. No. 19/731,118

Digital Assets & DeFi

Pre-execution verification for wallet operations, smart contract interactions, and on-chain transactions — governance that intervenes before irreversible transfers.

Parent application + provisional portfolio

Insurance & Risk

Enforce underwriting constraints at the execution boundary — ensuring coverage conditions, exclusions, and authority are verified before claims or policy actions proceed.

App. No. 19/732,615

Healthcare & Regulated Systems

Verify authorization, safety constraints, and regulatory compliance before care actions, prescriptions, or regulated processes execute.

Parent application + provisional portfolio

Critical Infrastructure

Hold high-impact commands — grid operations, industrial control, safety-critical systems — until every condition, constraint, and authority is verified and recorded.

App. No. 19/731,050

48 provisionals · 8 pending U.S. non-provisional applications · 56 total · Patent pending

Innovation & Intellectual Property

A Patent-Pending Governance Architecture

Remnant Fieldworks™ has filed 56 USPTO filings: 48 provisional patent applications (filed January 2026) and 8 pending nonprovisional utility applications (1 parent + 7 continuations-in-part) — directed to proof-first, pre-execution governance for AI, automated, human-authorized, financial, infrastructure, privacy, consent, ownership, insurance, and other high-consequence systems.

Patent-Pending Portfolio

56 USPTO Filings

48 provisional patent applications (filed January 2026) and 8 pending nonprovisional utility applications (1 parent + 7 continuations-in-part). All commercially significant subject matter across the provisionals is consolidated into the nonprovisional stack.

App. Nos. 19/529,283 · 19/731,050 · 19/731,090 · 19/731,110 · 19/731,118 · 19/732,539 · 19/732,564 · 19/732,615 · Patent Pending

RFCA

Certification Authority

The Remnant Fieldworks Certification Authority — the certification pathway for verifying RF-100 conformance.

Under Development

Conformance Profiles

Domain-specific RF-100 profiles tailored to the realities of each high-impact vertical.

RF-100:AIRF-100:FINANCERF-100:INFRASTRUCTURERF-100:HUMAN SAFETY

Nonprovisional Portfolio

Eight pending U.S. nonprovisional utility applications — one parent and seven continuations-in-part.

App. No.FiledPortfolio NameScope
19/529,283Feb 4, 2026Parent / FoundationalPolicy-gated execution with proof-first authorization and tamper-evident evidence artifacts; anchors the execution-bound governance spine and priority continuity to all 48 provisionals.
19/731,050Jul 4, 2026AI Compute InfrastructureData center / compute infrastructure governance and readiness for AI execution environments (power, cooling, water, grid, inheritance burden vectors).
19/731,090Jul 5, 2026AI-Generated ActionsGovernance of AI-generated actions: authority, evidence, constraints, execution admissibility; agent gating, M-of-N approval, self-approval blocking.
19/731,110Jul 5, 2026Tamper-Evident ProofProofRecord™ / audit-clean evidence generation for execution events and verifiable runtime outcomes.
19/731,118Jul 5, 2026Financial ExecutionFinancial execution governance, authorization, verification, and proof around high-impact transaction and treasury events.
19/732,539Jul 6, 2026AI Safety / Consent / PrivacyAI safety monitoring, consent-based access control, privacy-preserving data governance in autonomous computing environments.
19/732,564Jul 7, 2026Stewardship / OwnershipOwnership-bound execution control, stewardship verification, field-interlock access management.
19/732,615Jul 7, 2026Risk / Insurance / ClaimsRisk-adaptive governance, coverage-bound execution control, verifiable claims processing for AI and autonomous systems.

Strategic Portfolio Map

One patent family, organized into five strategic pillars — from the foundational execution spine to the domains it governs.

01
19/529,283

Foundation

The execution-bound governance spine.

02
19/731,05019/732,539

Infrastructure

Compute readiness, safety, consent, privacy.

03
19/731,09019/732,564

AI Governance

AI actions, ownership-bound control, stewardship, access.

04
19/731,110

Proof / Audit

Tamper-evident proof of execution events.

05
19/731,11819/732,615

Financial / Claims Execution

Money movement, risk-adaptive coverage, claims.

Filing Timeline

Jan 2026

48 provisional patent applications

Priority foundation spanning the full pre-execution governance architecture — proof-first authorization, runtime enforcement, evidence and audit, rights and consent, treasury, infrastructure, stewardship, insurance, and commercial governance.

Feb 4, 2026

Parent nonprovisional — U.S. App. No. 19/529,283

Policy-gated execution with proof-first authorization and tamper-evident evidence artifacts; establishes the execution-bound governance spine and priority continuity to all 48 provisionals.

Jul 4–7, 2026

7 continuations-in-part — 19/731,050 through 19/732,615

CIP wave extending the spine across AI compute infrastructure, AI-generated actions, tamper-evident proof, financial execution, AI safety and consent, ownership and stewardship, and risk / insurance / claims.

Architecture Themes

Pre-execution interceptionProof-first authorizationActor & authority verificationPolicy & constraint evaluationEvidence freshnessState & risk verificationALLOW / HOLD / DENY decisionsTamper-evident ProofRecords™Governance thresholdsMulti-party approvalSelf-approval blockingInheritance-bound infrastructure verificationTamper-evident proof of execution eventsProof-gated financial executionAI safety monitoringConsent-based access controlPrivacy-preserving data governanceOwnership-bound execution controlStewardship & field-interlock verificationRF-100 conformance pathways

Applications pending before the USPTO. No assurance is given that any claim will be granted. This information is provided for general portfolio description and does not constitute legal advice.

“Patent pending” means U.S. patent applications have been filed and are pending examination. It does not mean any patent has issued, that any claim has been allowed, or that the USPTO has endorsed the technology. Patent rights, if any, are subject to examination and issued claim scope.

The Standards Pathway

RF-100: Emerging Field Standard

RF-100 is Remnant Fieldworks’ emerging field standard for verification-first execution control. It is being developed as a practical conformance pathway for organizations that need proof before high-impact execution.

What RF-100 Defines

RF-100 defines the minimum structure a high-impact system should satisfy before execution:

Actor identity
Authority
Policy
Evidence
System state
Risk
Decision
Proof record
Execution outcome
Review path

RF Standard Architecture

RF-000Proof Before Power Doctrine
Published
RF-100ExecutionProof Governance Standard
Draft Architecture
RF-100·S1Control Catalog & Conformance Profiles
Draft
RF-101Assessment Methodology
Under Development
RF-102Certification Authority Operations
Planned
RF-200AI Execution Governance Extension
Roadmap
Status: Standards pathway under development · Early alignment conversations open

Research & Public Record

RF-100 is supported by a preregistered experimental corpus of 75 experiments across 253 case records (250 PASS, 2 preserved FAIL, 1 preserved GATE-STOP) — including the ARK enforcement-boundary and enterprise-adapter series and the OMNI, TRINITY, WITNESS, BELLWETHER, and CHRONO quantum-evidence series — all archived, citable, and open for critique.

RF-100 Draft (archived, citable)

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21366342

Open review repository

github.com/derekhone/rf-100

Public critique invited; feedback incorporated with attribution.

Research discipline

Preregistered hypotheses with published negative results — failures reported in full alongside successes, before any commercial claim.

Public Research Record

The evidence is on the record

Every claim behind ExecutionProof™ is backed by a preregistered, publicly archived experiment corpus — including the results that did not pass. What began as a single 18-experiment ARK cycle is now a reconciled research program spanning six phases and eight research tracks. The record is designed to be audited, not admired.

“Permission at approval time is not necessarily permission at execution time. Verification must occur at the execution boundary.”

75
Preregistered experiments
253
Case records
250
PASS records
2
Preserved FAIL
1
Gate-stop
9
Public repositories

These are distinct units: preregistered experiments are distinct experiment identifiers; case records are individual scored case runs (many experiments contribute more than one). The 253 case-records figure mixes terminal-record counting (earlier phases) with per-scored-case counting (ARK-493–498 +161, ARK-499–501 +21). ARK-502 (bounded smoke; endurance not executed) and ARK-503 (awaiting independent review) contribute 0 scored PASS and are excluded from the tally.

The two preserved FAILs and one gate-stop are not gaps in the record — they are the record. A corpus that only ever reports success is not evidence; it is marketing.

Corpus by phase

The full ExecutionProof experimental record, organized by phase from hardware authorization boundary through enterprise readiness.

AARK 441–448

Hardware authorization boundary

8 IDs · 7 PASS · 1 FAIL · 1 GATE-STOP

The founding ARK cycle — tested on real IBM Quantum hardware. ARK-445 FAIL (preserved) → 445b retest PASS. ARK-448 GATE-STOP (preserved). Current-state authority, exact-action binding, workflow isolation, three-state ALLOW / HOLD / DENY, and self-approval refusal.

BARK 449–457

Synthetic boundary completion

9 IDs · all PASS except ARK-455 FAIL (preserved)

ARK-455 FAIL (preserved) → 455b retest PASS. Synthetic phase CLOSED. ARK-457 published (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21421742). State-change attacks, substitution, revocation, workflow, conflicting-evidence, self-approval, dependency-loss, and cross-context replay patterns addressed.

CP01 · ARK 458–482

Production-boundary matrix

25 IDs · 25 / 25 PASS · 20,000 decisions

5 real-world domains (cloud IAM, production deployment, destructive DB action, financial transaction, API policy/rate limits) × 5 failure modes. 20,000 / 20,000 dual-guard agreement, 5,306 / 5,306 wrong-allows detected. Bounded test environments — not production certification.

DP02 · ARK 483–492

Latency / throughput / scale

10 IDs · all PASS · all published

Verification p95 1.822 µs (Python) / 0.652 µs (JS); burst 1.66 M/s (Py) / 4.52 M/s (JS). Bounded single-threaded in-memory engineering evidence — not production certification. Includes preserved public correction to the ARK-486 cost model. DOIs 10.5281/zenodo.21434398–21434413.

EARK 493–498

Enforcement-boundary integrity

6 IDs · 161 / 161 PASS · 0 enforcement leaks

Mechanical enforcement-boundary integrity: the gate holds across execution paths with zero enforcement leaks under adversarial load, deep mutation, timing races, and delegation abuse. Includes 10 / 10 independent tamper detection with 0 false positives (ARK-497) and fail-closed behavior with 100% independently signature-verifiable proofs in a production-like networked run (ARK-498).

FARK 499–503

Enterprise adapter & operational readiness

5 IDs · 499/500/501 PASS · 502 SMOKE-PASS · 503 awaiting review

ARK-499/500/501 EXPERIMENT-PASS (7/7 each; real self-hosted PostgreSQL 17, git CI/CD, RS256 OIDC/JWKS boundaries). Core finding: the authorization boundary did not need to change to meet real enterprise surfaces — only the adapters did. ARK-502 SMOKE-PASS (418 ops, 0 leaks; ≥14-day endurance NOT executed, 0 scored). ARK-503 NOT-EXECUTED (reviewer package delivered, awaiting human reviewer, 0 scored). Labels: real but self-hosted (NOT Docker/K8s/cloud; NOT Okta/Azure AD/Auth0).

Quantum-evidence & scientific research

10 IDs, all PASS, all published — real-hardware experimental evidence, not new physics, not universal security proofs. Device-dependent, not loophole-free. Broader research series exploring quantum-sourced provenance, temporal and contextual witnesses, and coherence.

WITNESS

Quantum-sourced authorization evidence

WITNESS-3: CHSH S = 2.545 (15.8σ)*

Provider-record verification, tamper / substitution detection, replay rejection, and multi-source nonce construction anchored to IBM quantum measurements, NIST randomness-beacon data, and LIGO / GW150914 archival data. WITNESS-4 is planned and excluded from the corpus count — do not cite as executed.

BELLWETHER

Quantum-hardware correlations

S = 2.514 · |M| = 3.423 · χ = 5.268–5.376*

Bell-CHSH spatial correlations, multipartite Mermin correlations, and Peres–Mermin contextuality measured on quantum hardware.

CHRONO

Temporal witness

CHRONO-1: K3 = 1.450*

A Leggett–Garg temporal-inequality test bound into an authorization record, under the documented device conditions.

OMNI

Combined witness in one governed job

S = 2.797 · K3 = 1.502 · χmin = 5.126 · 52,000 shots · ALLOW*

Spatial Bell-CHSH, temporal Leggett–Garg, and contextual Peres–Mermin witnesses fused into one governed hardware job. A published six-point erratum (v1.1) corrects the shot-count, nonce, contextual-significance, K3 wording, novelty wording, and a qubit-mapping logging defect.

TRINITY

Three-processor fused witness

TRINITY-1: S = 2.736 / 2.579 / 2.741 across 3 devices · 48,000 shots · ALLOW*

The same Bell-CHSH witness independently evaluated on three distinct IBM Heron r2 processors (ibm_kingston, ibm_fez, ibm_marrakesh) — no device averaged away. Three device results are cryptographically fused into one chain-linked, independently reconstructable ExecutionProof record. TRINITY-2 extends this to a governed simulated payment authorization with quorum logic.

CIF

Coherent Inheritance Framework

Remnant Fieldworks’ broader research framework for coherence, inheritance, drift, recovery, and bounded operation (Phase 1). Formerly developed under the working title Unified Inheritance Physics.

* Quantum results hold within their stated device-dependent conditions and tested circuit model. They are demonstrations of quantum-sourced evidence and provenance, not general physical claims beyond those conditions.

How the record is kept honest

Preregistration locks

Hypotheses and a SHA-256 MANIFEST are committed before execution — criteria cannot move after results are known.

Fixed pass/fail criteria

Success conditions are defined up front. No post-hoc redefinition of what counts as a pass.

Dual independent verifiers

Records are checked by independent verification paths before entry into the corpus.

Published corrections

Failures, gate-stops, and errata are published in full alongside successes — disclosed through a formal public correction process, never quietly removed.

Git provenance

Public commit history with MANIFEST SHA-256 hashes provides a timestamped, tamper-evident record of each experiment.

Live archival DOIs

Each series is archived on Zenodo with permanent concept DOIs — citable, versioned, and open for external critique.

Source repositories

Remnant Fieldworks maintains nine public repositories: eight experimental and implementation repositories, plus the separate RF-100 standards repository.

Archived & citable

Research series (concept DOI)

Published Zenodo depositions, including experiment versions and series concept records. The concept DOI always resolves to the latest archived version of the series.

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21398675

OMNI-1 — cite the concept DOI

A six-point erratum (v1.1) corrects the original OMNI-1 record. Cite the concept DOI, which resolves to the corrected version; original and corrected versions are both preserved.

How the architecture fits together

Proof Before Power™Doctrine
Verification Before Execution™Framework
RF-100Public standards
ExecutionProof™Pre-execution control layer
ProofRecord™Tamper-evident, chain-linked decision artifact
VaultProof Agent GuardOpen-source wallet-control reference
CIFSeparate research framework

Public Research Record

Read in this order.

  1. 1
    RF-100 — Open Verification Standard

    The governance standard the platform implements.

  2. 2
    ExecutionProof Testbeds

    Live authorization-boundary experiment corpus (ARK / P01 / P02).

  3. 3
    ARK / WITNESS / BELLWETHER — authorization-boundary and quantum-nonce series (witness-testbeds, bellwether-testbeds)
  4. 4
    CIF Archive — Coherent Inheritance Framework, Phase 1

    Formerly Unified Inheritance Physics.

Full archive: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21366342

Preregistration: All experiments are preregistered on Zenodo prior to execution. Preregistration records are immutable, timestamped, and published before results are known.

Corpus scope: 75 preregistered experiments · 253 case records · 250 PASS · 2 preserved FAIL · 1 preserved GATE-STOP. Case-count method: each experimental run is counted individually; multiple runs from the same preregistration are recorded as separate case records. WITNESS-4 is planned and excluded from these totals pending reconciliation. FAIL and GATE-STOP are correct, valuable results — not errors.