# Enterprise Security & Technical Assessment Packet

This document provides cryptographically verifiable technical responses to standard
enterprise security domains (CAIQ / VSA / SIG-style questionnaires). Kenosian TTTPS /
K-Lean Vault provides a supplementary cryptographic audit-trail and formal-verification
layer, and does not claim native SOC 2 / ISO 27001 organizational certification.

## Domain 1 — Data Integrity & Anti-Tampering

**Q. How is tamper-evidence for system data and audit logs implemented?**

TTTPS applies the mandatory-to-implement algorithm defined in IETF Draft
`draft-helmprotocol-tttps-08` §3.3.2 (`0x0001` SHA-256, arity-2), committing the full
data field set at generation time. On verification, a recomputation mismatch produces an
immediate, unconditional tamper verdict. Verification cost per record is O(1),
independent of total ledger size.

**Q. Is there a recovery mechanism for data loss or transmission error?**

A second, higher-resilience layer (`0x0100` GRG) is designed as a three-stage pipeline —
Golomb-Rice → Reed-Solomon(4,6) → Golay(23,12,7) — to reconstruct data when up to 2 of 6
shards are lost (erasure recovery) and to auto-correct up to 3 bit errors per 23-bit
block. As of draft `-08`, this algorithm's registry slot is reserved rather than
assigned (pending patent application, per IETF BCP 79) — the mandatory-to-implement path
(SHA-256 above) does not depend on it.

## Domain 2 — Audit Logging & Non-Repudiation

**Q. Can the logging system itself be altered or backdated after the fact?**

TTTPS completes cryptographic sealing before a record is admitted into any
system-controlled store (pre-ingestion design, requirement R3), so retroactive
backdating is structurally excluded even for an administrator of that store. This reuses
the existing TLS Exporter mechanism (RFC 5705) rather than a new handshake extension.

**Q. How is the trustworthiness of the timestamp itself established?**

Rather than depending on a single centralized authority (the single-point-of-failure
model of an RFC 3161 TSA), timestamp integrity is established through a Byzantine
Fault Tolerant quorum time-consensus mechanism.

## Domain 3 — Formal Logic Verification & System Governance

**Q. How is compliance of AI reasoning / autonomous agent behavior with stated rules
verified?**

The K-Lean Vault kernel performs deterministic formal-logic verification. Its corpus of
2,593 theorems (1,491 modules) is checked sorry-free and axiom-free by the Lean 4 kernel
(only `propext`, `Classical.choice`, `Quot.sound` — the standard kernel axioms — are
depended on), mathematically verifying that a given decision satisfies a formally stated
rule or bound.

## Domain 4 — Regulatory Compliance Alignment

**Q. What is the level of alignment with major industry regulations (FDA, EU AI Act,
etc.)?**

- **FDA 21 CFR Part 11 §11.10(e):** operates as a supplementary third-party
  cryptographic-timestamp layer on top of the automated audit-trail requirement.
- **EU AI Act Art. 12/53:** operates as a supplementary layer supporting the immutable
  record-keeping obligation for high-risk AI systems and general-purpose/frontier
  models.
- **Note:** SEC Rule 17a-4 (WORM storage) and DORA do not themselves name a
  cryptographic-timestamp requirement, so Kenosian does not cite them as direct
  requirements — TTTPS is offered only as a supplement to WORM-based audit trails.

## Domain 5 — Operational Evidence & Scale

**Q. Is there a track record of real-world operation?**

Over six months, 70,612 field PoT records were generated (55% AI-agent-originated),
exercising the O(1) verification path and BFT timestamp sealing described above. This
figure is experimental field-test evidence, not a customer count.

---
Source basis: `draft-helmprotocol-tttps-08` (IETF Independent Submission stream),
K-Lean Vault corpus (own indexer), and the Claims Ledger corrections already applied in
the approved TTTPS whitepaper (`papers/P5-tttps-spec/main.tex`). No claim in this
document goes beyond what those two sources establish.