Exact transition identity
Are source and candidate weights content-addressed? Does authorization name the exact object the loader consumes? Can bytes change between approval and load?
Filiolae-equivalence profile
Public silence is not proof that a frontier lab lacks an internal promotion control. A concrete profile lets labs, auditors, customers, insurers, and regulators ask what is actually enforced.
Are source and candidate weights content-addressed? Does authorization name the exact object the loader consumes? Can bytes change between approval and load?
Are code, suites, configuration, source, and candidate committed together? Can the learner see held-out material or mint the terminal result?
Are thresholds fixed before evaluation? Are stale, replayed, incomplete, malformed, unknown-key, or conflicting results denied?
Is the Gate mandatory in the loader's control flow? Does denial guarantee no load? Can the governed process clear its own freeze?
Are authorization intent, denial, load success, load failure, and missing outcome distinct? Can a hostile verifier reconstruct the decision?
Who administers evaluator credentials, policy, artifacts, record, and halt authority? Can different auditors receive inconsistent histories undetected?
Which claims are local tests, bounded acceptance, independent reproduction, or production evidence? Are failures and gaps retained?
No certification shortcut
This draft profile does not certify Filiolae or anyone else. Equivalence requires inspectable evidence, adversarial testing, administration analysis, and explicit residual risk.
AGPL obligations apply to Filiolae-derived software under their terms. They do not compel disclosure of independently developed systems or every internal evaluation.
Read the sourced landscape note