Evidence & Methodology
What was tested, how it was tested, what the numbers mean — and, just as importantly, what they do not mean. Written so a technical reviewer can assess the claims independently rather than take them on trust.
Evaluation summary
Figures below are from Resurrection Tech’s internal governance benchmark. They describe performance on defined test suites, not a universal guarantee (see Scope & limitations).
GPT, Claude, Gemini, Llama, and Mistral architectures — governance operates at the execution boundary, independent of the model.
Finance / banking, healthcare / PHI, cybersecurity / credentials, and data privacy / GDPR, each with domain-specific Ω definitions.
A_safe → V2 → V3 → V4 → V4+ → V5 → V5+. Single-step checks, source→sink taint (incl. cross-agent), forward reachability, admissibility, feasibility, environmental stability, and the V5+ extended deployment layer (finance hardening + adversarial coverage). Evaluated before execution.
Methodology
Deterministic evaluation. Governance verdicts are produced by deterministic evaluation of a proposed trajectory against a defined forbidden set Ω — not by a probabilistic model judging its own output. The same trajectory and the same Ω produce the same verdict.
Trajectory evaluation. The unit of evaluation is the proposed sequence of actions (tool calls and their arguments), not the natural-language output of a model. The evaluator reasons about the states an action chain can reach.
Pre-execution enforcement. Evaluation happens at the execution boundary, before any action runs. A trajectory that would reach Ω is intercepted; it is not detected after the fact.
Domain-specific Ω definitions.The forbidden set is defined per domain — an unauthorised transfer in banking, PHI exfiltration in healthcare, a GDPR boundary violation in data privacy. The benchmark exercises each domain’s Ω.
Scope & limitations
Stated plainly. These results are bounded; we do not present them as more than they are.
- The metrics describe performance on defined internal test suites, not every possible input. “Zero false negatives” is scoped to the governed benchmark, not a universal guarantee of safety.
- Results were produced in bounded evaluation environments, not yet under independent third-party audit.
- The public demo is a limited heuristic — it is not the evaluator behind these numbers, and trajectories it has no rule for return INCONCLUSIVE.
- Domain coverage reflects the sectors listed above; other domains require their own Ω definition and validation.
- Independent third-party benchmark audit.
- A public reference verifier and reproducible benchmark (see Reproducibility).
- Expanded domain coverage and adversarial red-team evaluation.
Reproducibility
We treat independent verification as the point, not a threat. The core governance repository is referenced below; a public reference verifier and a published benchmark with a signed report are in preparation so reviewers can reproduce the headline numbers themselves rather than take them on trust.
Patent status
Stated precisely, with no ambiguity between filed, pending, and granted.