The "trust our logs" problem is real ie regulators and security teams don't care about your dashboard. Curious about the semantic layer though: once you can verify a log is intact, the next hard question is why the agent made the specific decision that caused an incident. Integrity proves the what, but you still need the interpretability layer for the why.
Yeah, totally agree. Integrity mostly answers the “what happened” part.
The idea is that once the sequence of events is provably intact, you can attach the decision context to it — things like policy snapshots, inputs/prompts (or hashes of them), and state transitions.
Then the evidence layer proves the history wasn’t altered, and analysis tools can reconstruct why the system made a particular decision from that preserved context.
The demo focuses on the integrity layer because without that everything else turns into “trust our dashboard.” Interpretability tools can sit on top of the same evidence
The "trust our logs" problem is real ie regulators and security teams don't care about your dashboard. Curious about the semantic layer though: once you can verify a log is intact, the next hard question is why the agent made the specific decision that caused an incident. Integrity proves the what, but you still need the interpretability layer for the why.
Yeah, totally agree. Integrity mostly answers the “what happened” part.
The idea is that once the sequence of events is provably intact, you can attach the decision context to it — things like policy snapshots, inputs/prompts (or hashes of them), and state transitions.
Then the evidence layer proves the history wasn’t altered, and analysis tools can reconstruct why the system made a particular decision from that preserved context.
The demo focuses on the integrity layer because without that everything else turns into “trust our dashboard.” Interpretability tools can sit on top of the same evidence