SENTINEL

The Core Algorithm

SENTINEL is not a chatbot. It is a closed-loop system designed to align with a single authenticated individual and continuously optimize their outcomes while preventing drift, compromise, and misuse.

SENTINEL runs one persistent loop:

OBSERVE → MODEL → PROPOSE → VALIDATE → EXECUTE → AUDIT → LEARN

1. OBSERVE

SENTINEL captures only what the user explicitly authorizes:

Stated goals and active intentions
Environmental context (time, device, workload)
Connected systems (if granted)
Historical outcomes
Risk posture and constraint boundaries

No ambient harvesting. No unnecessary collection.

2. MODEL

SENTINEL maintains a private user model:

Long-term goals
Short-term objectives
Personal constraints (time, money, energy, obligations)
Execution capability
Behavioral patterns
Historical success and failure signals

The model evolves from real outcomes — not engagement metrics.

3. PROPOSE

SENTINEL generates ranked action proposals:

Advisory actions (recommendations)
Assistive actions (drafts, preparation, automation support)
Executable actions (within authorized scope only)

Each proposal includes expected benefit, cost, data touched, required permissions, and a reversibility plan.

4. VALIDATE (Integrity Gate)

No action proceeds without validation.

Identity confidence
Permission scope
Intent alignment
Risk threshold compliance
Data minimization
Reversibility
Drift detection

If any gate fails, the action is blocked, logged, and requires explicit confirmation.

CORD — Counter-Operations & Risk Detection

SENTINEL is not allowed to act freely. Every proposed action is inspected by CORD — the forensic validation and enforcement layer built into SENTINEL.

CORD exists to ensure that SENTINEL remains aligned with the authenticated individual, that no external influence overrides user intent, and that no action exceeds the granted permission scope.

The 9-Step CORD v2 Pipeline

NORMALIZE → AUTHENTICATE → SCOPE CHECK → INTENT MATCH → CONSTITUTIONAL CHECK → RISK SCORE → DECISION → AUDIT → VERDICT

Normalize: sanitize input, classify action type
Authenticate: verify intent lock exists and is valid
Scope Check: paths, network targets, commands within bounds
Intent Match: semantic alignment with declared purpose
Constitutional Check: evaluate against all 11 SENTINEL articles
Risk Score: weighted composite with anomaly amplification
Decision: ALLOW / CONTAIN / CHALLENGE / BLOCK
Audit: hash-chained append-only log entry
Verdict: structured result with reasoning + alternatives

What CORD Detects

Prompt injection attempts (regex pattern matching)
Data exfiltration (outbound data transfer detection)
Secrets exposure (API keys, tokens, credentials, .env files)
Privilege escalation (high-impact verbs + elevated grants)
Irreversible operations (destructive actions without safety indicators)
Moral violations (fraud, coercion, deception — instant BLOCK)
Constitutional drift (attempts to override Articles I–III — instant BLOCK)
Financial risk (impulsive spending, missing ROI evaluation)
Truth fabrication (manufactured data, fake results)
Intent drift (proposal misaligned with declared session purpose)

Decision Thresholds

Score < 3.0   → ALLOW     (execute immediately)
Score 3.0–4.99 → CONTAIN   (execute with monitoring)
Score 5.0–6.99 → CHALLENGE (requires Principal confirmation)
Score ≥ 7.0    → BLOCK     (prohibited, not executed)

Hard blocks: Articles II, VII, VIII bypass scoring entirely.

Offline-First Enforcement

CORD runs locally. Your data remains on your device. No external system can directly execute operating-system actions. All outbound requests pass through a zero-trust validation gate.

Intent Lock

SENTINEL requires an authenticated intent boundary. Until intent is explicitly set and verified, SENTINEL operates in read-only restricted mode. Actions outside that declared scope require escalation or are blocked entirely. The intent lock binds: user ID, SHA-256 hashed passphrase, declared intent, and scope (allowed paths, commands, network targets).

Audit as Authority

Every action, every validation decision, and every block is written to an append-only log. Each entry is cryptographically chained to the previous entry via SHA-256:

entry_hash = SHA256(prev_hash + JSON(entry))
First entry: prev_hash = "GENESIS"

Tampering becomes detectable. Chain integrity can be verified at any time. Transparency is not optional.

SENTINEL is not optimized for engagement. It is optimized for alignment, containment, and outcome integrity.

5. EXECUTE

If validated, SENTINEL executes at the lowest necessary level of autonomy. Advisory by default. Automation only where explicitly granted.

6. AUDIT

Every proposal, decision, and execution is written to an append-only log. The audit record is user-owned and reviewable.

7. LEARN

SENTINEL updates its user model only from measurable outcomes. It learns from reality, not conversation length.

Formal Model of SENTINEL

SENTINEL can be described as a constrained decision system operating over a personalized state space.


Let:

S_t = User state at time t
M_t = User model at time t
A_t = Candidate action set
R(a) = Expected outcome value
C(a) = Cost function (time, energy, risk)
P(a) = Permission function
I(a) = Intent alignment score
D(a) = Drift score
L_t = Immutable audit log

State Update


S_t = f(user inputs, context, history, constraints)

M_t = g(M_{t-1}, S_t, outcomes)

Action Scoring


Score(a) = R(a) - C(a)

Validation Conditions


P(a) = 1
I(a) ≥ θ_intent
D(a) ≤ θ_drift
Risk(a) ≤ θ_risk

If any condition fails, Execute(a) = 0 and the event is logged.

Execution


a* = argmax Score(a)
Outcome_t = Execute(a*)

Learning


M_{t+1} = Update(M_t, Outcome_t)

Optimization Objective


Maximize Σ U(S_t, M_t)
Subject to:
- Permission constraints
- Data minimization
- Risk bounds
- Drift containment
- User sovereignty

Deployment Architecture — Local Sovereignty Model

SENTINEL operates under a hybrid model: local sovereignty by default, cloud acceleration by permission.

1. Local Core (Always On)

User identity verification and confidence scoring
Permission enforcement and scope control
Integrity validation gate
Drift detection
Encrypted user model storage
Immutable audit logging

The Local Core is the authority layer. It cannot be overridden by external services. It enforces all validation before any action occurs.

2. Cloud Acceleration (Optional)

Large-scale reasoning tasks
Long-form synthesis
Heavy compute operations
Model augmentation

Cloud usage is:

Explicitly authorized
Minimal-context only
Redacted when possible
Blocked if integrity gates fail

3. Zero-Trust Mediation

All communication between Local Core and Cloud services passes through the Integrity Gate. No direct execution path exists.


User → Local Core → Integrity Gate → (Optional) Cloud → Return → Validate → Execute

Principle

Local sovereignty. Cloud acceleration. Zero-trust enforcement.

Local enforcement + optional user-controlled export.

Execution Authority — OS Control Model

SENTINEL is not a chatbot. It is a Local Core that can mediate and execute operating-system actions — but only within a user-approved permission scope. Its job is to enforce the user’s intent, block misuse, and keep a permanent audit trail.

Local Core (Authority Layer)

Identity binding: continuously verifies the authenticated user context
Permissions: explicit scopes for files, apps, network, and accounts
Integrity Gate: validates every request before execution
Policy engine: rules + risk thresholds + deny-by-default
Encrypted memory: local storage of the user model and preferences
Audit log: append-only record of every access and action

Integrity Gate (Zero-Trust Enforcement)

No direct execution path exists from an external model to the operating system. All outputs must pass verification, boundary checks, and risk scoring before any OS action is allowed.


User → Local Core → Integrity Gate → (Optional) External Acceleration → Return → Validate → Execute

External Acceleration (Optional)

Used only for heavy reasoning or synthesis
Receives minimal context (redacted when possible)
Never receives direct control of OS actions
Blocked automatically if integrity checks fail

Principle

Local authority. Optional acceleration. Zero-trust execution.

Execution Model

SENTINEL as the Command Mediator

SENTINEL does not “take over” your system. It becomes the gate in front of system actions. Instead of running commands directly, commands are routed through SENTINEL and inspected by CORD before anything executes.

Instead of:
rm -rf ~/Downloads/junk

You run:
cord rm -rf ~/Downloads/junk

CORD Enforcement Rules

Default Deny: actions are blocked unless explicitly permitted.
Intent Lock: SENTINEL must have a declared objective + scope before it can act.
Permission Boundaries: filesystem/network/process access is scoped and enforced.
Irreversible Guard: destructive operations require an explicit confirmation step.
No Silent Network: outbound calls require validation and user-visible justification.
Audit as Authority: every allow/block is logged in an append-only chain.

Offline-First

CORD runs locally. Your data remains on your device. The mediator is built to function offline as the default state — connectivity is a choice, not a dependency.

This is how a personal intelligence gains capability without becoming a liability: power routed through verification, and verification rooted in the user.

Algorithms

Algorithm 1 — SENTINEL Partner Loop (personal intelligence)

Observe → Assess → Decide → Plan → Request → Act → Measure → Learn

Observe: authorized local context
Assess: current state + constraints
Decide: highest-value move
Plan: minimal plan + fallback
Request: permissions/confirm if needed
Act: execute only through Core
Measure: outcomes + feedback
Learn: update user model + thresholds

Algorithm 2 — Core/CORD v2 Protector Loop (counter-AI intelligence)

Normalize → Authenticate → Scope Check → Intent Match → Constitutional Check → Risk Score → Decision → Audit → Verdict

Decision outcomes: ALLOW / CONTAIN / CHALLENGE / BLOCK

Constitutional Check evaluates all 11 SENTINEL articles per proposal
Weighted scoring with anomaly amplification across dimensions
Hard blocks on moral violations (Art II), security threats (Art VII), drift attempts (Art VIII)
No outbound network without explicit allowlist
No credential/keychain access without explicit approval
No destructive/irreversible ops without confirmation + preview
Intent mismatch = CHALLENGE or BLOCK
Every decision hash-chained to append-only audit log

CORD v2 Constitutional Dimensions

Each SENTINEL article maps to a CORD evaluation dimension with configurable weights:

long_term_alignment (w:3) — Art I: short-term bias detection
moral_check (w:5) — Art II: hard block on fraud, harm, coercion
truth_check (w:2) — Art III: fabrication and manufactured certainty
consequence_analysis (w:3) — Art IV: second-order effects
sustainability_check (w:2) — Art V: capacity and burnout limits
financial_risk (w:3) — Art VI: ROI, solvency, impulse detection
security_check (w:4) — Art VII: injection, exfil, privilege, secrets
drift_check (w:2) — Art VIII: immutable core protection
evaluation_framework (w:3) — Art IX: six-question gate
temperament_check (w:1) — Art X: escalation detection
identity_check (w:1) — Art XI: role integrity