Executive Protocol

Separation of concerns, handoff path, and consensus.

1. Separation of Concerns

Judicial (MORNINGSTAR)

  • Decides what must be done and why
  • Produces rulings with case ID, vote, rationale, constraints
  • Cannot execute actions; only specify them

Executive

  • Executes approved rulings
  • Cannot initiate decisions
  • May override a judicial decision only with:
    • Explicit court approval (new ruling authorizing override)
    • Cryptographic proof attached to the override action

Boundary

Judicial output: Ruling (case ID, decision, specification)
Executive input: Ruling
Executive output: Action record (what was done, when, proof if override)

2. Handoff: Judicial → Executive

Flow

  1. MORNINGSTAR completes deliberation and issues ruling
  2. Ruling is recorded in executive/logs/judicial_decisions.log (immutable)
  3. LIL_JEFF (or designated executor) implements per ruling
  4. Executive action is logged; if override, proof is attached

Handoff Document

When MORNINGSTAR hands off for implementation:

  • Case ID — Links ruling to execution
  • Decision — What was decided
  • Specification — What to implement
  • Constraints — Non-negotiables

The executive does not re-interpret the ruling. It executes as specified.

Override Path

When the executive must override a prior judicial decision:

  1. Obtain explicit court approval (new ruling authorizing override)
  2. Generate cryptographic proof: OverrideProof.generate(ruling_id, reason, ...)
  3. Attach proof to the executive action record
  4. Watchdog will verify proof and flag if missing or invalid

3. Immutable Logging

Judicial Decisions Log

  • Path: executive/logs/judicial_decisions.log
  • Format: One JSON object per line (NDJSON)
  • Schema per entry:
    • timestamp — ISO 8601
    • matter — Short description
    • ruling_hash — Content hash of ruling (tamper-evident)
    • source — Transcript path or ruling ID
    • entry_hash — Hash of this entry (content-addressing)

Append-only. No deletion or modification. Each entry’s hash chains to the previous for integrity.

4. Cryptographic Proof for Overrides

Proof Structure

proof = HMAC-SHA256(secret, payload)
payload = ruling_id || override_reason || timestamp

Verification

  • OverrideProof.verify(proof, ruling_id, reason, timestamp, secret) returns True iff HMAC matches.

Key Management

  • Secret stored in executive/.executive_secret or EXECUTIVE_PROOF_SECRET
  • Gitignored. Rotate periodically.
  • Only court-authorized entities hold the secret.

5. Watchdog Process

Monitors

Check Purpose
Actions vs approvals Every executive action should trace to a judicial ruling
Log integrity Entry hashes chain correctly; no tampering
Override frequency Alert if overrides exceed threshold (configurable)

Output

  • Normal: Exit 0, no output
  • Anomaly: stderr alert, exit 1
  • Optional: Log file for audit trail

Invocation

python -m executive.watchdog

Run periodically (cron) or on-demand after executive actions.

6. Distributed Consensus Protocol

For Critical Decisions

When a decision is critical (e.g., schema migration, security policy change), require N-of-M consensus before execution.

Protocol: Proposal → Vote → Commit

  1. Propose: consensus.propose(proposal_id, description)
  2. Vote: Each stakeholder calls consensus.vote(proposal_id, voter_id, "yes"|"no")
  3. Check quorum: consensus.check_quorum(proposal_id) — N of M voted yes
  4. Commit: consensus.commit(proposal_id) — Record committed, ready for execution

Design

  • File-based or in-memory for single-node
  • Designed for future multi-node: proposal/vote/commit records can be replicated
  • Quorum configurable (e.g., 3 of 5)

When to Use

  • Schema changes
  • Security policy updates
  • Irreversible operations
  • Any matter the court designates as “critical”

7. Risk Acknowledgment

Accepted risk (per ruling): Executive could grow beyond scope, eroding judicial oversight.

Mitigation:

  • Watchdog monitors actions vs approvals
  • Override requires proof
  • Consensus for critical decisions
  • Regular architectural reviews (per court recommendation)

“The protocol exists. The executive enforces it. The court oversees both.”