StegCore is a small, docs-first project that defines a decision boundary: given verified continuity (from an external system), it answers allow / deny / defer, with explicit constraints like quorum, guardian review, veto windows, or time-locks.
No policy engine yet. No AGI claims. Just the missing layer.
⸻
The problem
Modern automation — especially AI-driven automation — usually collapses three things into one: 1. Truth (is this authentic / verified?) 2. Authority (is this allowed?) 3. Execution (do the thing)
That works… until it doesn’t.
When something goes wrong, there’s no clean place to: • pause an action • require consent • escalate to a human • recover without shutting everything down
Verified truth alone doesn’t tell you what is permitted.
⸻
What StegCore does
StegCore defines a narrow interface:
Given verified continuity, can this actor perform this action right now — and under what constraints?
Inputs: • verified continuity evidence (opaque to StegCore; e.g. from StegID) • actor class (human / AI / system) • action intent • policy context (structure only)
Output: • allow, deny, or defer • a stable, machine-readable reason code • optional constraints (quorum, guardian, veto window, time-lock, escalation)
StegCore: • does not verify receipts • does not store identity • does not execute actions • does not claim autonomy or intelligence
It declares decisions. Other systems act (or don’t).
⸻
Why “defer” matters
Most systems only support allow or deny.
In real systems, the safest answer is often: • “not yet” • “with consent” • “after review” • “after a delay”
StegCore treats defer as a first-class outcome, not a workaround.
That’s the difference between: • brittle automation and • recoverable automation
⸻
What’s in the repo today • Clear decision model and policy shape docs (authoritative) • Explicit agent lifecycle (intent → continuity → decision → execution) • A minimal, deterministic decision interface with tests • Scaffolding for state/audit signals (not continuity truth)
There is no policy engine yet. That’s intentional.
The docs are the contract; code is subordinate.
⸻
What this is not • Not an AGI claim • Not an auth system • Not identity management • Not a rules engine • Not a replacement for existing security tooling
It’s a missing layer that can sit between verification and execution.
⸻
Why this exists
We kept seeing the same failure mode:
“The system was technically correct, but it shouldn’t have been allowed to do that.”
StegCore exists to make “allowed” explicit.
⸻
Positioning (locked)
We’re not building general intelligence.
We are enabling:
AI systems that are accountable, recoverable, and constrained by verifiable continuity.
⸻
Status • v0.1 • docs-first • minimal decision boundary implemented • open to feedback before any policy runtime is built
Repo: https://github.com/StegVerse-Labs/StegCore
⸻
Questions we’d love feedback on • Is the separation between truth and permission clear? • Are “defer” + constraints useful in your systems? • Where does this boundary already exist implicitly, but undocumented? • What would you want before trusting a decision runtime?
Thanks for reading — happy to answer questions and clarify boundaries.