Verifiability
How Gantral execution decisions can be independently verified without trusting Gantral, the operator, or the UI.
What Verifiability Means (and What It Does Not)
In Gantral, verifiability means that an independent party can reconstruct and evaluate an execution decision using only:
a recorded execution artifact, and
publicly documented execution semantics.
Verifiability does not imply:
legal admissibility in any jurisdiction
regulatory approval or certification
correctness of human judgment
compliance classification or conformity assessment
Those determinations are made by external authorities, not by Gantral.
Gantral’s role is narrower and structural:
to ensure that execution authority leaves behind evidence that can be independently inspected.
The Unit of Verification
The unit of verification in Gantral is the commitment artifact.
A commitment artifact is emitted at execution time, at the moment authority is enforced.
It binds authorization and execution into a single, immutable record.
A commitment artifact includes:
execution instance identifier
execution state transition
policy version reference (evaluation logic reference only, not an authorization decision)
authority state hash
human decision (if applicable)
execution context fingerprint
timestamp boundary
Once emitted, the artifact is immutable.
It does not depend on:
application logs
dashboards or approval UIs
mutable databases
post-incident narratives
operator testimony
Logs may explain.
The artifact is what can be verified.
Replay & Verification Model
Verification in Gantral is performed through deterministic replay.
Given:
a commitment artifact
public Gantral execution semantics
an independent party can deterministically reconstruct:
the execution path
the authority state at each transition
whether execution was allowed, paused, escalated, or terminated
Replay does not rehydrate:
agent memory
model reasoning
prompts or internal state
Only authority and execution state are replayed.
This ensures that verification is:
deterministic
reproducible
independent of runtime environments
Verification outcomes
Replay and verification may result in one of three outcomes:
VALID — authority and execution state are consistent and untampered
INVALID — tampering, substitution, or inconsistency detected
INCONCLUSIVE — insufficient or incomplete evidence
Gantral is explicit about where proof holds — and where it does not.
What Can Be Verified
Using Gantral artifacts and semantics, an independent verifier can determine:
whether execution was paused or allowed
whether human authority was required
whether a human decision was captured
which policy version was evaluated
when authority was exercised
whether execution state transitions were consistent
These are execution facts, not interpretations.
What Cannot Be Verified
Gantral deliberately does not attempt to verify:
correctness of human judgment
intent or motivation behind decisions
business appropriateness of actions
compliance classification of the system
ethical or normative conclusions
Verifiability is about evidence, not endorsement.
Failure Modes (Explicit)
Verifiability includes clear failure semantics.
Missing artifact → verification is inconclusive
Altered artifact → verification is invalid
Incomplete context → verification is inconclusive
Failing closed is intentional.
Ambiguity is surfaced, not hidden.
Policy Evaluation and Verifiability
Gantral separates policy evaluation from execution authority by design.
Policy engines are used to:
evaluate conditions
apply intent and constraints
return advisory signals
They never:
approve execution
pause execution
resume execution
hold authority
Gantral currently supports policy evaluation using Open Policy Agent (OPA) as a reference implementation.
With OPA:
policies are written declaratively
evaluations are deterministic and side-effect free
policy versions are recorded for replay accuracy
OPA provides signals such as:
allow execution
require human approval
deny execution
Gantral interprets and enforces these signals as execution state transitions.
Policy engines advise.
Gantral enforces.
This separation is critical for verifiability.
Policy engines such as OPA evaluate conditions and return advisory signals. Gantral alone enforces execution by advancing or blocking execution state.

Relationship to Standards
Gantral is not a compliance framework and does not replace legal, risk, or governance processes.
It provides execution-time evidence and control primitives that organizations use to meet regulatory and standards-based requirements where human accountability, traceability, and auditability are mandatory.
NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF)
The NIST AI RMF emphasizes governance, accountability, traceability, and post-deployment oversight.
Gantral supports these outcomes by:
enforcing human-in-the-loop as an execution state
producing immutable execution records
enabling deterministic replay of authorization decisions
separating policy advice from execution authority
Gantral supplies execution-time evidence required by AI RMF governance functions.
It does not define risk tolerances or policy content.
EU Artificial Intelligence Act
The EU AI Act introduces obligations around:
human oversight
traceability
record retention
post-market monitoring for high-risk AI systems
Gantral supports high-risk system obligations by:
enforcing human oversight at execution time
capturing decision context and authority at the moment of action
producing replayable records suitable for regulatory inspection
System classification, risk categorization, and conformity assessment remain outside Gantral’s scope.
ISO / IEC 42001
ISO/IEC 42001 focuses on AI management systems, including:
defined responsibilities
operational controls
auditability of AI-assisted processes
Gantral functions as an operational control layer by:
making authority explicit and enforceable
standardizing execution records across teams
enabling independent audit and review
Gantral does not replace management-system processes.
It provides the execution substrate those systems rely on.
Why Verifiability Matters
Verifiability shifts governance from explanation to inspection.
It allows organizations to:
demonstrate execution control without relying on trust in tools or teams
survive long-horizon audits and disputes
decouple accountability from UI, vendors, and runtime environments
Governance becomes a property of execution — not a reconstruction exercise.
