Taking the SAGE integration in-consensus — 3 questions on TEE-key binding, hardware-root verification, and SCITT anchoring

[l33tdawg]

Hi team — thanks for merging the SAGE integration 🙏. The integration is currently edge-trust: it verifies a TRACE record / cMCP RuntimeClaim at a reverse proxy and binds the attested identity to the on-chain memory author. We'd like to take it one layer deeper — pin the attestation in SAGE's BFT consensus so a committed memory deterministically carries its attestation provenance (digest + cnf thumbprint) on every validator, not just at the edge. Three things gate that, and we'd value your guidance:

1. TEE-bound signing key for per-agent binding. Our design has the agent sign its SAGE write with the same Ed25519 key the EAT's cnf attests, so SAGE's on-chain author is the attested key (a deterministic in-consensus check: thumbprint(author_pubkey) == cnf_thumbprint). But a cMCP RuntimeClaim's cnf is the gateway key, and the agent rides in gateway.agent_identity. Can cMCP expose (or co-sign with) the TEE-bound key for the agent's downstream request, or is it strictly non-exportable?

2. Hardware-root verification timeline. We found cmcp_verify's per-platform verifiers currently check measurement format/parse but place the silicon root (TPM EK chains, AMD VCEK/VLEK, Intel DCAP quote signatures) in unverified_fields ("Phase 1"). Is there a roadmap/timeline for the EK/VCEK/DCAP signature verification? That's what would let us (and the registry's Verified tier) make a real hardware-rooted claim.

3. SCITT / trace-registry inclusion-proof format. To anchor the transparency field on-chain we'd need the SCITT receipt / Merkle inclusion-proof format. The trace-registry repo is private — could you share the format, or confirm it's pre-spec? (Happy to move this one to trace-spec.)

Thanks again :)

— Dhillon (@l33tdawg)

[JakeTOpenSource]

Proposal: Rung 3 Physical Grounding Annex via Local Thermodynamic Multi-Channel Metrics
Body:
I have been tracking the OPAQUE 3.0 launch and the ⁠agentrust-io⁠ reference architecture. While the cloud-side TEE attestation handles data-center workloads, there is an open verification gap for edge, local consumer-grade operations, and untrusted client-side environments.
I am building Delta Atlas, an independent verification framework focused on keeping autonomous agents anchored to verifiable local states via physical resource cost.
We just ran local empirical testing (n=1, GTX 1660 Ti, lightweight model) measuring the physical energy delta of an agent. The hard metrics recomputed from raw local CSV traces surface a sharp, asymmetric defense model:

1. The Idle-vs-Work Axis (The Wall): We verified a consistent 10× gap in physical consumption (4.25\text{ W} idle baseline vs. \sim 40\text{ W} active inference). This is cross-verified in hardware symmetry by GPU utilization (0% to 25%) and SM Clock speeds (302\text{ MHz} to 1660+\text{ MHz}).
2. The Evasion Penalty: In testing adversarial decoy-compute attacks designed to mask infinite loops, the agent was forced to inject synthetic pauses to mimic "varied" timing signatures. This evasion attempt instantly leaked on an independent channel, dropping overall signature load to 24-27\text{ W} / 1300\text{ MHz}. Hiding trace-shape exposed the agent on power-level.
   The Thesis: While micro-rhythms (trace shape) are too noisy and thermally sensitive to build a witness on, a multi-channel hardware divergence check (comparing an agent's claimed log state against literal thermodynamic cost) creates an un-fakeable local gate. An agent can lie in its software logs, but it cannot override the physical laws of the silicon it runs on.
   I have committed the raw execution scripts, analysis tools, and archived CSV traces to an open repo here: https://github.com/JakeTOpenSource/Resilience-Ledger.git
   Would the maintainers be open to collaborating on a local/edge hardware-root annex to map these physical metrics into the broader Agent Manifest specification?