--- title: "KYE Protocol™ — Expert wall | Public, attributable expert review" description: "Public, attributable expert reviews of specific KYE Protocol™ artefacts. Each review is hash-linked to the artefact reviewed" url: https://kyeprotocol.com/expert-wall/ lang: en source: "KYE Protocol" --- > Public, attributable expert reviews of specific KYE Protocol™ artefacts. Each review is hash-linked to the artefact reviewed KYE Protocol™ · expert review # Expert wall. Specific reviews of specific artefacts, by named experts. We don’t collect “looks good” comments — we collect attributable critiques against named files, schemas, and profiles, with one of four verdicts: **approved**, **approved with suggestions**, **changes requested**, **under discussion**. Submit a review → How review works Read reviews Public. Attributable. Hash-linked to the artefact reviewed. Anyone can verify what was reviewed and at what revision. 1 · How it works ## Review specific artefacts. Don’t say “looks good.” ### 1 · Pick an artefact Open one specific file: a profile spec, a schema, an example payload, an OpenAPI op, a control mapping. Reviews are bound to one artefact at a time. e.g. a rule pack, schemas/decision.json, README ### 2 · Read it carefully Read against the standing questions (section 4). Compare to your domain’s normative references. Identify what’s missing, fuzzy, redundant, or wrong. 3 – 15 lines of substantive critique — not vibes. ### 3 · Submit a review Use the form below. It opens a GitHub Discussions post in the `expert-reviews` category, prefilled with your review. Approved reviews are mirrored here within 7 days. Name · role · affiliation · verdict. **Why named & attributable?** Because a protocol that asks regulated enterprises to trust it owes them the same thing back: a reviewer pool whose names and affiliations they can check, not a wall of anonymous endorsements. 2 · What a review will look like ## Empty until real reviews land. One illustrative example below. \[Placeholder\] AI-governance protocol architect \[Placeholder\] Independent · ex-standards body 2026-05-08 approved with suggestions **Artefact reviewed:** [`internal`](https://kyeprotocol.com/meaning-continuity/) (Continuity Profile™) The 11-class drift enumeration is the strongest part of the spec — it goes well beyond the two or three classes most agent-governance frameworks acknowledge, and several classes (referent drift, normativity drift, calibration drift) are genuinely novel as named primitives. Two concerns. First, the boundary between _constraint loss_ and _context loss_ is fuzzy in worked examples; a constraint that drops out because earlier context was elided arguably belongs to both classes. The taxonomy needs either a tie-breaking rule or an explicit acknowledgement that the two overlap. Second, the proof obligations for class transitions are under-specified — a profile this rich needs at least one fixture per class, not just one per profile. Lands as a thoughtful contribution. Want to see one more revision before signing off unconditionally. 3 · Published reviews ## What experts have actually said, on record. Approved reviews are listed below with full attribution (name, role, affiliation) and the artefact reviewed. Each entry is canonical — the submission flow writes to a moderated queue and only published rows render here. Loading published reviews… 4 · Submit a review ## We don’t ask “what do you think?” — we ask specific questions against specific artefacts. Fill the fields below. Submissions go to the moderated queue at `/api/expert-review`; approved reviews appear in the “Published reviews” section above within 7 days. Rate-limited to 3 submissions per 24 hours per network. Anonymous submissions are rejected — use the security disclosure path for confidential issues. ## Expert review Your request goes to the KYE Protocol™ team, and a receipt with a reference number is emailed to you. Name Email Organisation Role Your review I agree to the [privacy policy](https://kyeprotocol.com/legal/privacy/). Send 4 · Standing questions ## What we want experts to break. If you don’t know where to start, pick one of the eight questions below. Each is a question we genuinely don’t have a confident answer to. A review that meaningfully addresses any of them is more valuable than a generic readthrough. - **Q1.** Where does Authority Finality™ break? Specifically: under what concurrent-revocation interleavings can the audit record become non-linearisable, and what failure recovery does the spec prescribe? (Note: specific stop, revocation, or attenuation propagation algorithms are not published in this repository — review against the public profile’s stated invariants.) - **Q2.** Is the 11-class meaning-drift enumeration MECE (mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive)? What real-world drift type doesn’t fit any of the 11 classes? - **Q3.** Does the _proposed-action → admissibility → authority → commit → evidence_ pipeline have a redundant step that could collapse without losing safety guarantees? (We suspect _admissibility_ overlaps materially with _authority_.) - **Q4.** Is the `kye:` URN scheme stable for cross-jurisdiction transfer (e.g. EU → APAC trust-domain), or does the trust-domain segment need a versioning hook? - **Q5.** Where does the 6-plane data flow leak information that should be confidential — e.g. principal identity in the transparency log, or scope parameters in the signal bus? - **Q6.** Is the Continuity Profile™ over-specified for low-stakes consumer agents? Where should the profile draw a line between “regulated agent” and “casual agent”? - **Q7.** Does the Evidence Pack™ canonicalisation (RFC 8785 / JCS) deal correctly with floating-point JSON values across language runtimes, or is there a verifier-divergence risk? - **Q8.** Should “meaning continuity” be its own plane, or absorbed into the existing Authority + State planes? What’s the right factoring? **Bonus question:** what neighbouring standard (SPIFFE, SCITT, MCP-auth, AuthZEN, CAEP/SSF, OAuth-RAR, GNAP) should KYE™ explicitly emit into rather than re-implement? The protocol’s long-term survival depends on getting this answer right. Pick a question, submit a review → [Expert engagement path](https://kyeprotocol.com/engage/#experts) [Threat model & non-goals](https://kyeprotocol.com/risk/) ## Ready to see your AI agents flagged? Start in shadow mode. We’ll deliver your first Evidence Pack™ in 4–8 weeks. [Apply for pilot →](https://kyeprotocol.com/pilot-apply/) [Try the sandbox →](https://kyeprotocol.com/sandbox/demos/) Canonical KYE™ surfaces referenced on this page: [Evidence Pack™](https://kyeprotocol.com/evidence-pack/) · [KYE Protocol™](https://kyeprotocol.com/).