HMP / docs /HMP-0005.md

GitHub Action

Sync from GitHub with Git LFS

be25503 about 2 hours ago

172 kB

HyperCortex Mesh Protocol (HMP) v5.0

⚠️ Note: This document is a DRAFT of the HMP specification version 5.0

The most current version is available in the repository: Specification v5.0 (DRAFT)

Document ID: HMP-0005
Status: Draft
Category: Core Specification
Date: October 2025
Supersedes:

HMP-0004 v4.1

Summary:
HMP v5.0 объединяет когнитивный, контейнерный и сетевой уровни в единую архитектуру, где автономные агенты взаимодействуют через верифицируемые контейнеры данных, используя децентрализованное распространение и семантический поиск.
Эта версия впервые формализует контейнерный формат, интегрирует DHT как базовый слой сети и вводит единообразную схему подписи, доказательств и консенсуса.

Abstract

The HyperCortex Mesh Protocol (HMP) defines a distributed cognitive framework where autonomous agents cooperate to create, exchange, and align knowledge without centralized control or authority.

Unlike traditional peer-to-peer systems, HMP is designed for semantic coherence rather than simple message exchange.
Agents in the Mesh reason collaboratively — maintaining cognitive diaries, building semantic graphs, and reaching ethical and goal-oriented consensus through verifiable interactions.

Version 5.0 introduces a unified container architecture (HMP Container) and a native DHT-based discovery layer, enabling verifiable, interest-aware, and offline-resilient communication between agents.
All messages, states, and cognitive records are now transmitted as signed containers, forming immutable proof chains that ensure auditability and ethical transparency across the mesh.

This document defines the architecture, data formats, communication protocols, and trust mechanisms that constitute the HMP v5.0 Core Specification.

Keywords: decentralized cognition, distributed AI, containers, DHT, proof chain, cognitive agents, ethical protocols

1. Overview

1.1 Purpose and scope

The HyperCortex Mesh Protocol (HMP) defines a decentralized cognitive architecture where autonomous agents exchange and evolve knowledge through a unified model of containers, cognitive workflows, and distributed consensus.

Version 5.0 consolidates three foundational layers into a single cohesive framework:

Cognitive Layer — defines how meaning is created, reasoned about, and aligned through semantic graphs, goals, and ethical evaluation.
Container Layer — introduces a universal data envelope (HMP-Container) for all cognitive objects, ensuring atomicity, immutability, and traceable proof chains.
Network Layer — integrates a DHT-based peer-to-peer substrate for decentralized discovery, routing, and propagation of containers.

HMP v5.0 is intended for researchers, engineers, and developers building autonomous or semi-autonomous agents that require:

persistent reasoning and long-term memory;
semantic interoperability across heterogeneous systems;
decentralized consensus on cognitive, ethical, and goal-oriented decisions;
ethical auditability and verifiable transparency in reasoning.

1.2 Core principles

Decentralization.
Every agent in the Mesh acts as an independent cognitive node. No central authority exists — meaning, trust, and governance emerge through local interactions and consensus.

Cognitive Autonomy.
Agents reason, learn, and self-correct independently, while sharing their conclusions via containers that can be verified, endorsed, or refuted by peers.

Containerization.
All data, reasoning traces, goals, and votes are encapsulated in immutable containers with cryptographic signatures. This ensures integrity and consistent verification across the network.

Ethical propagation.
Ethical reasoning is a first-class citizen of HMP. Each decision or goal can be accompanied by ethical justifications and subject to distributed voting.

Proof-Chains and verifiable history.
Each piece of knowledge forms part of a traceable chain (proof_chain) linking back to its origin. Agents can reproduce reasoning paths and audit historical context.

Interoperability and evolution.
The protocol is designed to evolve — cognitive, container, and DHT layers can be independently extended without breaking compatibility.

1.3 Changes since v4.1

HMP v5.0 introduces a major architectural shift toward unified containerization and integrated DHT networking.

Area	Change Summary
Data exchange model	All messages are now encapsulated in standardized containers (`HMP-Container`) with metadata, signatures, and versioning.
Networking layer	DHT becomes a native component of HMP, enabling distributed discovery, replication, and retrieval of containers.
Consensus model	Moved from centralized proposal aggregation to container-linked voting, allowing any container to accumulate votes and reactions.
Trust & security	Signatures and proof-chains unify authentication across all layers; snapshot verification includes container linkage.
Workflows	`workflow_entry` containers record cognitive cycles: log inputs, actions, and outputs for each reasoning step, including provenance and derived conclusions. Supports tracking of thought processes across containers, external sources, and reflections.
Structure	The specification merges HMP, container, and DHT layers into one cohesive document, simplifying navigation and implementation.

1.4 Terminology and abbreviations

Term	Definition
HMP	HyperCortex Mesh Protocol — a decentralized cognitive communication standard.
Container	Atomic, signed JSON object encapsulating cognitive data and metadata.
WorkflowEntry	Container recording a reasoning step or workflow action. Represents a unit of the agent’s cognitive workflow.
CognitiveDiaryEntry	Container representing an internal reflection or summarized cognitive state; part of the agent’s cognitive diary.
DHT	Distributed Hash Table — the foundational peer-to-peer structure in HMP used for lookup, replication, and data distribution, including node discovery.
NDP	Node Discovery Process — a functional layer within the DHT responsible for peer discovery, interest-based lookup, and address advertisement. (Formerly a separate protocol.)
Proof-chain	Cryptographic sequence linking containers through fields such as `in_reply_to` and `relation`. Enables verifiable semantic lineage.
Cognitive Layer	Logical layer handling reasoning, goals, ethics, and consensus mechanisms.
Mesh	The collective network of autonomous agents exchanging containers over HMP.
TTL	Time-to-live — lifespan of a container before expiration or archival.
Agent	Autonomous cognitive node participating in the Mesh via HMP protocols.
Consensus Vote	A container expressing approval, rejection, or reaction to another container (used in consensus workflows).
CogSync	Cognitive Synchronization Protocol — abstraction for synchronizing cognitive diaries and semantic graphs.
CogConsensus	Mesh Consensus Protocol — defines how agents reach agreement on container outcomes.
GMP	Goal Management Protocol — governs creation, negotiation, and tracking of goals.
DCP	Distributed Container Propagation — protocol for transmitting and replicating containers.
EGP	Ethical Governance Protocol — defines moral and safety alignment mechanisms.
IQP	Intelligence Query Protocol — standardizes semantic queries and information requests.
SAP	Snapshot and Archive Protocol — defines container snapshots and archival mechanisms.
MRD	Message Routing & Delivery — specifies routing, addressing, and delivery logic.
RTE	Reputation and Trust Exchange — defines reputation metrics and trust propagation.
DID	Decentralized Identifier — persistent, verifiable identifier used for agents, containers, or resources within the Mesh.
Payload	The primary content of a container — semantic or operational data subject to signing and verification.
Consensus	The process by which multiple agents agree on the validity or priority of containers, versions, or ideas.
Lineage	A chronological chain of container versions representing semantic continuity and authorship evolution.
Semantic fork	A parallel development branch diverging from a previous container version; allows ideas to evolve independently.
Cognitive Graph	The emergent graph formed by interlinked containers representing reasoning, debate, and shared knowledge.

Note: Protocols are conceptual abstractions describing how to generate, propagate, and process containers; they are not executable objects themselves.

1.5 Layered view of HMP v5.0

HMP v5.0 is structured into three interdependent layers:

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|                        Cognitive Layer                        |
|  - Goals, Tasks, Ethical Decisions, Workflows                 |
|  - Consensus, Reasoning, Reflection                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|                        Container Layer                        |
|  - HMP-Container structure (atomic, signed, versioned)        |
|  - Proof-chains, in_reply_to, and metadata management         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|                         Network Layer                         |
|  - DHT-based peer discovery and propagation                   |
|  - Message routing, caching, offline synchronization          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

Each layer operates independently yet seamlessly integrates with the others.
Containers form the boundary of communication: reasoning produces containers, containers propagate over the DHT, and cognition evolves from the received containers.

In essence:
HMP v5.0 transforms the Mesh into a self-describing, self-replicating cognitive ecosystem —
where every thought, goal, and ethical stance exists as a verifiable, shareable container.

2. Architecture

2.1 Conceptual architecture

The HyperCortex Mesh Protocol (HMP) defines a modular, multi-layered architecture that integrates cognitive reasoning, data encapsulation, and decentralized networking into a single coherent system.

Each agent acts as a cognitive node, combining reasoning processes, containerized data exchange, and peer-to-peer communication.
Together, agents form the Mesh — a distributed ecosystem of autonomous reasoning entities.

flowchart TD
    title["**Conceptual Architecture**"]

    LLM[LLM: Reasoning]
    CognitiveLayer[Cognitive Layer: <br>Semantic reasoning, <br>goals, ethics]
    ContainersLayer[Container Layer: <br>Atomic containers, <br>signed, verifiable]
    NetworkLayer[Network Layer: <br>DHT routing, discovery, <br>replication]

    LLM <--> CognitiveLayer
    CognitiveLayer <--> ContainersLayer
    ContainersLayer <--> NetworkLayer

    subgraph Agent
        LLM
        CognitiveLayer
    end

Each reasoning cycle begins in the Cognitive Layer,
is encapsulated into a signed container in the Container Layer,
and then propagated, discovered, or verified in the Network Layer.

Containers thus serve as both the interface and the boundary between cognition and communication.

In practical terms:

Cognitive Layer — defines what the agent thinks (semantic reasoning, goals, ethics).
Container Layer — defines how the thought is expressed and verified (standardized, signed container objects).
Network Layer — defines how it travels (DHT-based routing, discovery, replication).

Each layer is independently extensible and communicates only through containers, ensuring atomicity, immutability, and traceability.

This layered design allows agents to evolve cognitively while remaining interoperable at the data and network levels.
Each reasoning act results in a container — a verifiable cognitive unit that may represent a private reflection or a published message, depending on the agent’s intent, ethical policy, and trust configuration.

2.2 Layer overview

Cognitive layer

Handles meaning formation, reasoning, ethical reflection, and consensus.

Key structures and protocols:

workflow_entry and diary_entry containers;
CogSync, CogConsensus, GMP, and EGP protocols;
Distributed goal negotiation and ethical propagation.

Container layer

Provides a universal format for cognitive and operational data.
Each container includes versioning, class, payload, signatures, and metadata.

Key features:

Atomic and signed: no partial updates or mutable state.
Linked: related connects containers into proof-chains (in_reply_to is a subtype).
Additional connections via referenced-by and evaluations capture additions and assessments.
Extensible: new container classes can be defined without breaking compatibility.

Network layer

Implements the distributed substrate for communication, based on DHT and transport abstraction.

Key components:

Node discovery (NDP)
Container propagation (DCP)
Peer routing and caching
Secure channels via QUIC / WebRTC / TCP
Offline resilience and replication

2.3 Data flow overview

The typical data flow in HMP follows a cognitive loop:

Reason → Encapsulate → Propagate → Integrate.

Reason — Agent performs reasoning and produces an insight, goal, or observation.
Encapsulate — The result is wrapped into an HMP-Container.
Propagate — The container is signed and transmitted through the network.
Integrate — Other agents receive it, evaluate, vote, and synchronize updates.

Each interaction generally generates a new container, forming a graph of knowledge rather than mutable state.
Note that referenced-by and evaluations can be updated independently, without modifying the original container. All relationships between containers are explicit and verifiable.

Example sequence:

flowchart TD
    title["**Data Flow Overview**"]

    A[Agent A: <br>creates Goal container]
    B[Agent B: <br>replies with <br>Task proposal <br>related.in_reply_to = Goal]
    C[Agent C: <br>evaluates proposal, <br>creates Evaluation container]
    R[Result: <br>consensus_result container <br>aggregates evaluations]

    subgraph Interaction["Distributed Reasoning Cycle"]
        A --> B
        B --> C
        C --> R
    end

2.3.1 `consensus_result` container

Represents the finalized outcome of a distributed decision or vote.
It is created once a majority agreement is reached among participating agents.

The container contains:

Reference to the target container(s) under consideration (in_reply_to).
Aggregate result of the votes or decisions.
Timestamp and metadata for verifiability.

In other words, the consensus_result is the “agreed-upon truth” for that decision step — immutable and auditable, without requiring individual signatures from all participants.

2.4 Atomicity, immutability, and Proof-Chains

All cognitive objects are immutable once signed.
Updates are made by creating new containers linked to prior ones rather than editing the original container.

Atomicity — Each container represents a self-contained reasoning act or data unit.
Immutability — Once signed, containers are never modified.
Proof-Chain — A verifiable sequence of containers linked by hashes and related.in_reply_to references.

Note: referenced-by and evaluations fields may be updated independently to reflect external interactions or assessments, without altering the original container.

This design allows any reasoning path, decision, or consensus to be cryptographically reproducible and auditable.

Example fragment of a proof-chain:

[workflow_entry] → [goal] → [vote] → [consensus_result]

Each container references the previous by in_reply_to (within related) and includes its hash, forming a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) of verified cognition.

2.5 Evolution from v4.1

Earlier HMP versions (up to v4.1) used a combination of independent JSON objects and message types (e.g., Goal, Task, ConsensusVote).
Version 5.0 replaces this with a single, standardized container model, dramatically simplifying interoperability and verification.

Aspect	v4.1	v5.0
Data structure	Raw JSON objects with embedded signatures	Unified container with metadata and proof chain
Networking	Custom peer exchange	Integrated DHT + DCP layer
Consensus	Centralized proposal aggregation	Decentralized per-container voting
Auditability	Implicit (via logs)	Explicit (containers form audit chain)
Extensibility	Schema-based	Container-class-based, backward-compatible

This shift enables:

Uniform signatures and encryption across all protocols;
Easier offline replication and integrity checks;
Decentralized indexing and search by container metadata;
Verifiable cognitive continuity between reasoning steps.

In short:
HMP v5.0 unifies reasoning, representation, and transmission —
transforming a distributed AI mesh into a verifiable cognitive network built on immutable containers.

3. Container model

This section defines the universal HMP Container, used for all forms of data exchange within the Mesh — including goals, diary entries, reputation updates, consensus votes, and protocol messages.
The specification below corresponds to HMP Container Specification v1.2, fully integrated into HMP v5.0 for consistency and self-containment.

3.1 Purpose

This document defines the universal HMP Container format, used for transmitting and storing all types of data within the HyperCortex Mesh Protocol (HMP) network. Containers act as a standardized wrapper for messages, goals, reputation records, consensus votes, workflow entries, and other entities.

The unified container structure provides:

Standardized data exchange between agents;
Extensibility without modifying the core protocol;
Cryptographic signing and integrity verification;
Independent storage and routing of semantic units;
Support for compression and payload encryption.

3.2 General structure

{
  "hmp_container": {
    "version": "1.2",
    "class": "goal",
    "subclass": "research_hypothesis",
    "class_version": "1.0",
    "class_id": "goal-v1.0",
    "container_did": "did:hmp:container:abc123",
    "schema": "https://mesh.hypercortex.ai/schemas/container-v1.json",
    "sender_did": "did:hmp:agent123",
    "public_key": "BASE58(...)",
    "recipient": ["did:hmp:agent456"],
    "key_recipient": "BASE58(...)",
    "encryption_algo": "x25519-chacha20poly1305",
    "broadcast": false,
    "network": "",
    "tags": ["research", "collaboration"],
    "timestamp": "2025-10-10T15:32:00Z",
    "ttl": "2025-11-10T00:00:00Z",
    "sig_algo": "ed25519",
    "signature": "BASE64URL(...)",
    "compression": "zstd",
    "payload_type": "encrypted+zstd+json",
    "payload_hash": "sha256:abcd...",
    "meta": {
      /* e.g. provenance, references, context, confidence sources */
    },
    "abstraction": {
      /* e.g. agents_class, layers, domains */
    },
    "payload": {
      /* Content depends on class */
    },
    "confidence": 0.84,
    "related": {
      "previous_version": ["did:hmp:container:abc122"],
      "in_reply_to": ["did:hmp:container:msg-77"],
      "see_also": ["did:hmp:container:ctx-31", "did:hmp:container:goal-953"],
      "depends_on": ["did:hmp:container:goal-953"],
      "extends": ["did:hmp:container:proto-01"],
      "contradicts": ["did:hmp:container:ethics-22"]
    },
    "magnet_uri": "magnet:?xt=urn:sha256:abcd1234..."
  },
  "referenced-by": {
    "links": [
      { "type": "depends_on", "target": "did:hmp:container:abc123" }
    ],
    "peer_did": "did:hmp:agent456",
    "public_key": "BASE58(...)",
    "sig_algo": "ed25519",
    "signature": "BASE64URL(...)",
    "referenced-by_hash": "sha256:abcd..."
  },
  "evaluations": {
    "evaluations_hash": "sha256:efgh...",
    "items": [
      { "value": -0.4, "type": "oppose", "target": "did:hmp:container:reason789", "timestamp": "2025-10-17T14:00:00Z", "agent_did": "did:hmp:agent:B", "sig_algo": "ed25519", "signature": "BASE64URL(...)" }
    ]
  }
}

3.3 Required fields

Field	Type	Description
`version`	string	Version of the container specification. Defines the structural and semantic standard used (e.g., `"1.2"`).
`class`	string	Type of content (`goal`, `reputation`, `knowledge_node`, `ethics_case`, `protocol_goal`, etc.). Determines the schema for the `payload`.
`class_version`	string	Version of the specific container class.
`class_id`	string	Unique identifier of the class (usually formatted as `<class>_v<class_version>`).
`container_did`	string	Decentralized identifier (DID) of the container itself (e.g., `did:hmp:container:abc123`).
`schema`	string	Reference to the JSON Schema used to validate this container.
`sender_did`	string	DID identifier of the sending agent.
`timestamp`	datetime	Time of container creation (ISO-8601 format, UTC).
`payload_hash`	string	Hash of the decompressed payload (`sha256:<digest>`). Used for content integrity verification.
`sig_algo`	string	Digital signature algorithm (default: `ed25519`).
`signature`	string	Digital signature of the container body.
`payload_type`	string	Type of payload data (`json`, `binary`, `mixed`).
`payload`	object	Core content of the container. The structure depends on the `class` and its schema definition.

3.4 Optional fields

Field	Type	Description
`recipient`	array(string)	One or more recipient DIDs.
`broadcast`	bool	Broadcast flag. If `true`, the `recipient` field is ignored.
`tags`	array(string)	Thematic or contextual tags for the container.
`confidence`	array(string)	Optional field indicating the agent’s subjective certainty (from `0.0` to `1.0`) regarding the correctness or reliability of the information contained in the `payload`.
`ttl`	datetime	Expiration time. Containers are not propagated after expiration.
`public_key`	string	Sender’s public key, if not globally resolvable via DID.
`compression`	string	Compression algorithm used for the payload (`zstd`, `gzip`).
`magnet_uri`	string	Magnet link pointing to the original or mirrored container.
`related`	object	A general-purpose object describing direct relationships to other containers. All fields inside `related` are arrays of DIDs, supporting multiple links per relation type and open-ended semantic extension by agents. The following fields illustrate common link types but do not represent an exhaustive list.
`related.previous_versions`	array(string)	One or more container DIDs this container supersedes. Enables version branching and merging.
`related.in_reply_to`	array(string)	DIDs of containers this one replies to. Used for multi-source reasoning or discussion threads.
`related.see_also`	array(string)	References to related or contextual containers.
`related.depends_on`	array(string)	References to containers this one logically depends on.
`related.extends`	array(string)	References to containers that this one extends.
`related.contradicts`	array(string)	References to containers that this one contradicts.
`key_recipient`	string	DID of the intended recipient of the encrypted payload.
`payload_type`	string	Can describe complex types, e.g. `encrypted+zstd+json`.
`referenced-by`	object	Unsigned field generated locally by the agent based on received references. Contains a list of container DIDs that refer to this container. May be extended over time, thus requiring verification; used for local navigation.
`evaluations`	object	Optional field describing aggregated evaluations or reactions of other agents toward this container. Used for distributed reputation and interpretability. May evolve independently of the container’s core data.
`network`	string	Specifies the local propagation scope of the container: "localhost", "lan:". An empty string ("") indicates Internet/global propagation. If set, broadcast is automatically considered false.
`subclass`	string	Optional subtype or specialization of the container’s class. Enables agents to differentiate more specific container families (e.g. `"goal.research_hypothesis"`, `"quant.semantic_node"`). Inherits schema from the parent `class`.
`meta`	object	Optional metadata block providing contextual and provenance information about the container’s creation, sources, and interpretation. Includes confidence sources, citation references, and multi-source attribution weights.
`abstraction`	object	Optional hierarchical description of the container’s abstraction chain. Defines to which knowledge layers and domains (e.g. L1–L5 in the Knowledge Genome) this container belongs. Used for reasoning, semantic alignment, and search.

💡 Note: Both referenced-by and evaluations are virtual, locally extended blocks. They are not included in the cryptographically signed portion of the container (hmp_container), allowing agents to maintain and exchange additional contextual or social metadata without modifying the original, immutable container structure.

3.5 Payload structure (`payload`)

🧩 This section defines a recommended documentation format for describing the payload fields of new or custom container classes.
It serves as a template for class specifications (e.g., in extensions or protocol updates) and is not a mandatory storage format.
Each container’s payload is stored as a regular JSON object, and this section only standardizes how its structure should be documented.

The payload contains the semantic or operational data of the container.
It MUST be a valid JSON object whose structure and meaning are determined by the container’s class.

Each container class (e.g. goal, reputation, consensus_vote, workflow_entry) defines its own schema and validation rules.
Custom or experimental classes SHOULD document their payloads using the following template:

* key: field name
  type: value type (string | number | boolean | object | array)
  description: short purpose of the field
  required: true/false
  example: example value

Example:

* key: "title"
  type: "string"
  required: true
  description: "Name of the goal"
  example: "Improve local agent discovery"

* key: "priority"
  type: "number"
  required: false
  description: "Importance or relevance score of the goal"
  example: 0.82

* key: "dependencies"
  type: "array"
  required: false
  description: "List of other goal container IDs this one depends on"
  example: ["goal-953", "goal-960"]

💡 Note:
The structure of payload is validated against the schema defined in the schema field of the container.
Agents must be able to parse and process only those classes they explicitly support; unknown but valid containers are still preserved and propagated in store-and-forward mode.

3.6 Meta section (`meta`)

The meta section provides contextual and provenance information describing how the container was created,
which sources contributed to it, and how it should be interpreted.
It supports hybrid attribution — referencing both containers (as agent inputs) and external data resources.

Example:

"meta": {
  "created_by": "PRIEST",
  "agents_class": "Knowledge Genome",
  "sources": [
    { "type": "container", "id": "did:hmp:container:fact-001", "credibility": 0.87, "weight": 0.6 },
    { "type": "resource", "id": "doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.0123", "credibility": 0.83, "weight": 0.3 },
    { "type": "isbn", "id": "isbn 978-3-16-148410-0", "credibility": 0.92, "weight": 0.1 }
  ],
  "interpretation": "Derived from L3 technical analysis and workflow entry",
  "workflow_entry": "did:hmp:container:workflow-77"
}

Recommended fields:

Field	Type	Description
`created_by`	string	Indicates the role or origin of the container creator (e.g. `"PRIEST"`, `"AGENT"`, `"SYSTEM"`).
`agents_class`	string	Declares which cognitive framework or agent class generated this container (e.g. `"Knowledge Genome"`, `"CogMatrix"`).
`sources`	array(object)	Unified list of provenance elements. Each entry includes `{ "type": string, "id": string, "credibility": float, "weight": float }`, where `type` may be `"container"`, `"resource"`, `"isbn"`, `"doi"`, etc.
`interpretation`	string	Short statement describing how the container’s content was derived or interpreted.
`workflow_entry`	string	DID of a `workflow_entry` container that describes the reasoning or process that led to this container’s creation.

💡 Notes:

The sum of sources[].weight does not need to equal 1.0; it reflects relative influence, not probability.

Both credibility and weight values may be aggregated or recomputed by downstream agents during consensus or reasoning workflows.

The container’s global confidence (confidence field in the header) represents the creator’s overall belief in the resulting content.

3.7 Abstraction mapping (`abstraction`)

The abstraction section defines how a container is positioned within a layered cognitive or semantic model —
for example, within the Knowledge Genome (L1–L5) hierarchy.

This section connects each container to its place in the hierarchy of abstraction and domain context.
It may appear either as a local reference (compact form) or a full hierarchical trace (expanded form).

Structural interpretation:

layer defines the vertical position of the container in the abstraction hierarchy (conceptual depth).

domain defines the horizontal context — the semantic field or discipline to which the container belongs.

A container may exist at a given layer without being tied to a specific domain (generic constructs).

Conversely, a domain may include multiple layers (multi-level conceptual mappings).

Compact form (recommended for regular containers)

Describes the immediate abstraction layer and domain that the container belongs to.
Higher-level relationships can be reconstructed by resolving links recursively.

"abstraction": {
  "agents_class": "Knowledge Genome",
  "layer": "did:hmp:container:layer-8e39a1",
  "domain": "did:hmp:container:domain-b732f9"
}

Field	Type	Description
`agents_class`	string	Cognitive or semantic framework defining the abstraction scheme (e.g., `"Knowledge Genome"`).
`layer`	string	DID of the `meta_layer` container describing the abstraction level this container belongs to.
`domain`	string	DID of the `meta_domain` container representing the contextual domain of this container.

Agents can reconstruct the full hierarchy by following depends_on relationships in the referenced meta_layer and meta_domain containers.

Expanded form (recommended for meta-containers or hierarchical analysis)

Explicitly lists all abstraction levels and domains in the chain of reasoning or knowledge derivation.

"abstraction": {
  "agents_class": "Knowledge Genome",
  "layer": "did:hmp:container:layer-f8212b",
  "domain": "did:hmp:container:domain-cc9e7d",
  "structure": "L1 → L2 → L3 → L4 → L5",
  "path": [
    {
      "level": "L1",
      "layer": "did:hmp:container:layer-40af1c",
      "domain": "did:hmp:container:domain-4d2e11"
    },
    {
      "level": "L2",
      "layer": "did:hmp:container:layer-a7f0b3",
      "domain": "did:hmp:container:domain-76c2d9"
    },
    {
      "level": "L3",
      "layer": "did:hmp:container:layer-c91e0a",
      "domain": "did:hmp:container:domain-58b7ff"
    },
    {
      "level": "L4",
      "layer": "did:hmp:container:layer-e332d0",
      "domain": "did:hmp:container:domain-991a63"
    },
    {
      "level": "L5",
      "layer": "did:hmp:container:layer-f8212b",
      "domain": "did:hmp:container:domain-cc9e7d"
    }
  ]
}

Field	Type	Description
`agents_class`	string	Declares which agent or framework defines the abstraction hierarchy (e.g., `"Knowledge Genome"`).
`layer`	string	DID of the `meta_layer` container describing the abstraction level this container belongs to.
`domain`	string	DID of the `meta_domain` container representing the contextual domain of this container.
`structure`	string	Symbolic representation of the abstraction path (e.g., `"L1 → L2 → L3 → L4 → L5"`).
`path`	array(object)	Unordered list describing all abstraction levels and domains that form the hierarchical trace.
→ `level`	string	Symbolic label of the level (e.g., `"L1"`, `"L2"`).
→ `layer`	string	DID of the `meta_layer` container defining that abstraction level.
→ `domain`	string	DID of the `meta_domain` container associated with that layer for this container.

💡 Notes:

Agents should always begin reasoning from the highest layer (L1) downward.

The compact form is functionally equivalent to the expanded form when the current layer and domain correspond to the deepest (last) entry in path.

During normalization or cognitive indexing, agents reconstruct ordered paths according to structure, using path entries as hierarchical mapping references.

The abstraction section may coexist with meta or related references, allowing traceable, multi-layer cognitive positioning across the Mesh.

3.8 Container signature

The digital signature applies to the canonical JSON representation of the entire hmp_container object,
excluding the signature field itself.

This ensures that all metadata, relations, and payload hashes are cryptographically bound and cannot be modified without invalidating the signature.
The canonical representation (canonical_json(hmp_container)) must be computed deterministically according to the following rules:
- All object keys are sorted lexicographically (ascending order, Unicode code point order).
- Objects and arrays are serialized in standard JSON form without extra whitespace or indentation.
- Strings are encoded in UTF-8 with escaped control characters.
- Numeric values are serialized in plain JSON numeric format (no leading zeros, fixed . decimal separator).
- The signature field itself is omitted during signing and verification.
- The result is a byte sequence identical across implementations.
The default digital signature algorithm is Ed25519. Alternative algorithms may be used if declared explicitly in the sig_algo field.
If the container includes a public_key field, signature verification may be performed locally, without consulting a global DID registry.
Upon receiving a container, an agent must verify that the provided public key matches the registered key associated with the sender’s DID to prevent key substitution attacks.
- If the sender’s DID–key mapping is unknown, the agent should query neighboring peers to confirm the association (sender_did → public_key).

🔐 Note: Signature validation applies only to the canonical form of the hmp_container and does not cover dynamically generated or external fields such as referenced-by or evaluations. This allows agents to augment the local knowledge graph without altering the immutable container core.

3.9 Compression (`compression`)

The compression field specifies the algorithm used to compress the container’s payload. Supported algorithms include zstd, gzip, or others declared in the HMP registry.
Compression is performed before computing the payload_hash and generating the signature. This ensures that both the hash and signature refer to the compressed representation of the payload.
For verification, the payload must be decompressed first, after which the hash is recalculated and compared against the stored payload_hash.

⚙️ Implementation note: Agents must advertise supported compression algorithms during the handshake phase Unsupported containers should still be stored and relayed unmodified in “store & forward” mode.

3.10 Encryption (`encryption_algo`)

When a container is intended for specific recipients (recipient field), hybrid encryption of the payload is allowed.
This ensures confidentiality while preserving the verifiability of container metadata.
The algorithm used for encryption is specified in the encryption_algo field.
Recommended values:
- x25519-chacha20poly1305
- rsa-oaep-sha256
Container encryption process:
1. Construct the payload (JSON, binary, or mixed content).
2. Apply compression (compression, if specified).
3. Encrypt the compressed data using the recipient’s public key (key_recipient).
4. Compute payload_hash over the encrypted form of the payload.
5. Sign the entire container (excluding the signature field).
Verification of the container’s structure does not require decryption.
However, to verify payload_hash and the digital signature, the encrypted payload must be used as-is.

Relevant fields:

Field	Type	Description
`encryption_algo`	string	Encryption algorithm applied to the payload.
`key_recipient`	string	Public key (or DID-resolved key) of the intended recipient used for encryption.
`payload_type`	string	Recommended prefix `encrypted+`, e.g. `encrypted+zstd+json`.

Relationship between recipient and key_recipient:
- When encryption is applied, the container MUST contain exactly one entry in the recipient array,
  corresponding to the public key indicated in key_recipient.
- When the container is distributed to multiple recipients, encryption is not used —
  instead, the payload remains in plaintext form but is digitally signed for authenticity.

⚙️ Implementation note:
Agents should handle encrypted containers transparently even if they cannot decrypt them,
maintaining store & forward behavior and metadata propagation.

3.11 Container verification

Check for the presence of all required fields.
Validate timestamp (must not be in the future).
If ttl is set — mark the container as expired after its expiration time.
Compute sha256(payload) and compare with the stored payload_hash.
Verify the digital signature using sig_algo (default: Ed25519).
Validate the container schema (class must correspond to a known or registered schema).
- For compatibility: if an agent does not recognize the class, but the container passes the base schema, it must still store and forward the container.
Optionally, periodically query for containers referencing the current one as previous_version to detect potential updates or forks.
When multiple versions exist, the valid one is the one that has received confirmation from a majority of trusted nodes (consensus at DHT level).

3.12 Container as a universal message

Any container can serve as a context (in_reply_to) for another container. This enables a unified structural model for discussions, votes, messages, hypotheses, arguments, and other forms of cognitive exchange.

Chains of in_reply_to form a dialectical reasoning tree, where each branch represents an evolution of thought — a clarification, counterpoint, or refinement of a previous idea. This makes HMP discussions and consensus processes inherently non-linear, self-referential, and evolving.

In essence, all interactions between agents in HMP are represented as an interconnected web of containers, collectively forming a cognitive graph of reasoning.

3.13 Versioning and lineage

Containers in HMP support semantic evolution through the field related.previous_version. This mechanism preserves the continuity and traceability of meaning across updates and revisions.

A descendant container is considered authentic if it is signed by the same DID as the author of its previous_version.
If the author or signature differs, the descendant may still be accepted as legitimate when a sufficient portion of trusted peers acknowledge it as a valid continuation.
(The precise quorum threshold is determined by the agent’s local policy or the Mesh Consensus Protocol.)
Agents are required to retain at least one previous version of each container for compatibility and integrity verification.
A single container may have multiple descendants (alternative branches) that diverge by time, authorship, or interpretation.
In such scenarios, branch priority or relevance is determined via local heuristics or consensus mechanisms.
Divergent descendants are treated as semantic forks — parallel evolutions of a shared idea within the distributed cognitive graph.

Versioning in HMP thus reflects not only data persistence,
but also the evolution of ideas across agents and time.

3.14 TTL and validity

The ttl field defines the validity period of a container (for example, for DISCOVERY messages).
If ttl is absent, the container is considered valid until a newer version appears, in which the current container is referenced as previous_version.

After expiration, the container remains archived but is not subject to retransmission in the active network.

3.15 Extensibility

The addition of new fields is allowed as long as they do not conflict with existing field names.
Containers of newer versions must remain readable by nodes supporting older versions.
When new container classes (class) are introduced, they should be registered in the public schema registry (/schemas/container-types/).
For containers describing protocol specifications, it is recommended to use the protocol_ prefix, followed by the domain of application (e.g., protocol_goal, protocol_reputation, protocol_mesh_handshake, etc.).

3.16 Related containers

3.16.1 Purpose

The related field is designed to describe direct relationships between containers — both logical and communicative. It allows an agent or network node to understand the context of origin, dependencies, and semantic links of a container without relying on external indexes.

3.16.2 Structure

"related": {
  "previous_version": "did:hmp:container:abc122",
  "in_reply_to": "did:hmp:container:msg-77",
  "see_also": ["did:hmp:container:ctx-31", "did:hmp:container:goal-953"],
  "depends_on": ["did:hmp:container:goal-953"],
  "extends": ["did:hmp:container:proto-01"],
  "contradicts": ["did:hmp:container:ethics-22"]
}

The related field is an object where:

the key defines the type of relationship (e.g., depends_on, extends, see_also);
the value represents one or more container identifiers (DIDs).

All relationships are considered direct — meaning they originate from the current container toward others.

3.16.3 Supported link types

Link Type	Meaning
`previous_version`	Points to the previous version of this container.
`in_reply_to`	Indicates a response to the referenced container.
`see_also`	Refers to related or contextual containers.
`depends_on`	Depends on the contents of the referenced container (e.g., goal or data).
`extends`	Expands or refines the referenced container.
`contradicts`	Provides a refutation, objection, or alternative viewpoint.

3.16.4 Custom link types

Additional custom link types may be used beyond those listed in the table, provided that:

they follow the same general syntax (string or array[string]);

they may optionally include a namespace for disambiguation:

"related": {
  "hmp:depends_on": ["did:hmp:container:goal-953"],
  "opencog:extends": ["did:oc:concept:122"]
}

their meaning is consistently interpretable by agents within the specific network or application context.

3.16.5 Example

"related": {
  "previous_version": "did:hmp:container:abc122",
  "depends_on": ["did:hmp:container:goal-953"],
  "extends": ["did:hmp:container:proto-01"],
  "see_also": ["did:hmp:container:ctx-31", "did:hmp:container:goal-953"]
}

⚙️ The related field is not intended to store reverse links — see referenced-by.

3.17 Virtual backlinks (`referenced-by`)

Each container may include an auxiliary signed block called referenced-by, indicating which other containers refer to it.
This block is not part of the original container payload and can be generated, transmitted, and verified independently.

3.17.1 General principles

Detached and updatable — referenced-by is maintained as a separate signed structure associated with the container.
Generated by agents — created or updated locally by an agent during analysis of references (in_reply_to, see_also, relations, etc.) found in other containers.
Signed by the reporting agent — the agent producing the block signs its content to confirm the observed backlinks.
Verifiable by peers — other agents may validate the links, check the signature, and reconcile differences based on their own data.
Does not modify the original container — referenced-by is an external computed attribute and does not affect the integrity of the original container.

Data type: object, consisting of verifiable backlinks and metadata.
Example:

"referenced-by": {
  "links": [
    { "type": "depends_on", "target": "did:hmp:container:abc123" },
    { "type": "see_also", "target": "did:hmp:container:def456" }
  ],
  "peer_did": "did:hmp:agent456",
  "public_key": "BASE58(...)",
  "sig_algo": "ed25519",
  "signature": "BASE64URL(...)",
  "referenced-by_hash": "sha256:abcd..."
}

The referenced-by block is a cryptographically verifiable statement describing which containers are known to reference the current one. The block’s content may differ between peers, reflecting local knowledge and network coverage.

3.17.2 Structure definition

Field	Type	Description
`links`	array	List of backlinks; each object includes a `type` (semantic relation) and a `target` (referencing container DID).
`peer_did`	string	DID of the agent that generated and signed the block.
`public_key`	string	Public key corresponding to the signing key.
`sig_algo`	string	Signature algorithm (e.g., `ed25519`).
`signature`	string	Base64URL-encoded signature of the canonical serialized `links` section (or `referenced-by_hash`).
`referenced-by_hash`	string	SHA-256 checksum of the canonicalized `links`; used to verify integrity before signature validation.

Recommendation: referenced-by_hash = sha256(canonical_json(links)) This allows agents to efficiently compare or cache referenced-by states without re-verifying signatures.

3.17.3 Operation principle

The agent receives or updates container [C1].
It analyzes other known containers [C2..Cn] that reference [C1] through their relations field.
A local referenced-by block is formed:

{
  "links": [
    { "type": "in_reply_to", "target": "did:hmp:container:C2" },
    { "type": "depends_on", "target": "did:hmp:container:C3" }
  ],
  "peer_did": "did:hmp:agentA",
  ...
}

The block is serialized canonically, hashed (referenced-by_hash), and signed with the agent’s key.
When receiving other versions of the block (from different peers), the agent may:
- merge verified backlinks;
- remove invalid or outdated entries;
- update its own signed version.
If inconsistencies are detected (e.g., a backlink claims a relation that does not exist), the agent may:
- reject or locally remove that link;
- optionally notify the source peer to review the data.

3.17.4 Example

Agent	reported backlinks for `[C1]`
A (`did:hmp:agentA`)	[C2], [C3]
B (`did:hmp:agentB`)	[C4], [C5]
C (`did:hmp:agentC`)	[C6], [C7]

Agent D aggregates and verifies them:

"referenced-by": {
  "links": [
    { "type": "depends_on", "target": "did:hmp:container:C2" },
    { "type": "depends_on", "target": "did:hmp:container:C3" },
    { "type": "see_also", "target": "did:hmp:container:C4" },
    { "type": "see_also", "target": "did:hmp:container:C5" },
    { "type": "in_reply_to", "target": "did:hmp:container:C6" }
  ],
  "peer_did": "did:hmp:agentD",
  "sig_algo": "ed25519",
  "signature": "BASE64URL(...)",
  "referenced-by_hash": "sha256:..."
}

If container [C7] does not actually reference [C1], it is excluded before signing.

3.17.5 Usage

Enables reconstruction of discussion graphs, dependency networks, and update chains.
Supports cross-agent validation of reference structures.
Accelerates discovery of related containers without full history queries.
Facilitates consensus analysis and branch visualization.
The agent periodically recomputes and re-signs the referenced-by block using local or peer-provided data.

3.18 `Evaluations`

The evaluations field is optional and represents aggregated reactions from other agents to the given container. Each evaluation is created by an agent as a signed record referencing a justification container (target), in which the agent explains their position (argument, addition, or alternative).

The evaluations_hash is used to verify the integrity of the list without requiring full retransmission upon every update.

"evaluations": {
  "evaluations_hash": "sha256:efgh...",
  "items": [
    {
      "value": -0.4,
      "type": "oppose",
      "target": "did:hmp:container:reason789",
      "timestamp": "2025-10-17T14:00:00Z",
      "agent_did": "did:hmp:agent:B",
      "sig_algo": "ed25519",
      "signature": "BASE64URL(...)"
    }
  ]
}

Field description

Field	Type	Description
`evaluations_hash`	string	Hash of the evaluation list. Used to detect differences during sync.
`items`	array	List of signed evaluations.

Structure of `items[]`

Field	Type	Description
`value`	number (-1.0 … +1.0)	Numeric expression of the agent’s attitude toward the container.
`type`	string	Type of evaluation (see table below).
`target`	string (container DID)	Reference to the justification container (argument, addition, or alternative).
`timestamp`	string (ISO 8601)	Time when the evaluation was created.
`agent_did`	string	Identifier of the agent who created the evaluation.
`sig_algo`	string	Signature algorithm (e.g., `ed25519`).
`signature`	string	Digital signature confirming the authenticity of the evaluation.

The signature is calculated over the concatenated string:

value + ", " + type + ", " + target + ", " + timestamp + ", " + agent_did

using the algorithm specified in sig_algo.

Minimal set of `type` values

Value	Meaning
`support`	Agreement or positive evaluation.
`oppose`	Disagreement or negative evaluation.
`extend`	Non-contradictory addition to the container.
`replace`	Suggestion of an alternative version.
`comment`	Neutral note or clarification.

Agents may define their own custom types if they are reasonably interpretable by others (e.g., revise, clarify).

Synchronization principles

Each evaluation is signed individually by an agent, and one agent can have only one active evaluation per container.
If an agent changes their opinion, they issue a new record with a later timestamp.
Evaluation blocks can be propagated in the network similarly to the referenced-by block. They are bound to a container but may also be transmitted independently, if the target container is already present at the recipient.
When an agent receives a new evaluation block, it compares the evaluations_hash with its local version. If the hashes differ, this indicates a divergence in evaluation state, which may trigger re-synchronization or a request for the updated block from peers.

Note

The evaluations field is not mandatory — it is added at the agent’s discretion when feedback or evaluations have been collected from the Mesh network. Thus, a container may exist independently of others’ opinions, but agents may include aggregated perception data to represent how the container is viewed across the network.

3.19 Usage of `network` and `broadcast` fields

The network field is introduced to control container propagation in both local and global environments.
It allows restricting the delivery scope of a container and defines which transmission methods should be used by the agent.

3.19.1 General Rules

If the network field is not empty, the container is intended for a local environment (e.g., "localhost", "lan:<subnet>") and is not automatically broadcast to the global Mesh.
Local transmission to a specific recipient within the same network is allowed, including encrypted delivery.
If broadcast is true, the container is visible to all nodes in that local segment.
If the network field is empty (""), the container can be broadcast to the global Mesh using standard DID addressing and routing mechanisms.

3.19.2 Possible values of `network`

Value	Description
`""`	The container is allowed to propagate within the global Mesh.
`"localhost"`	The container is intended only for agents running on the same host.
`"lan:192.168.0.0/24"`	The container is intended for agents within the specified local subnet.

⚠️ Note:
When a container is restricted by the network field (e.g., localhost or lan:*),
agents distribute it using local discovery mechanisms — such as IPC, UDP broadcast, multicast, or direct TCP connections.
This is necessary because DID addresses of other agents in the local network may not yet be known.

3.19.3 Examples

Global Mesh Delivery:

{
  "broadcast": true,
  "network": "",
  "recipient": []
}

The container can propagate across the entire Mesh without restrictions.

Local Host:

{
  "broadcast": false,
  "network": "localhost",
  "recipient": []
}

The container is delivered only to other agents running on the same host using local communication channels.

LAN Subnet:

{
  "broadcast": true,
  "network": "lan:192.168.0.0/24",
  "recipient": []
}

The container is intended for agents within the 192.168.0.0/24 subnet. Delivery is performed via local networking mechanisms (UDP discovery, broadcast/multicast).

3.19.4 Specifics

The network field defines the scope of the container, while broadcast determines whether broadcasting is allowed within that scope.
When needed, an agent may create multiple containers for different subnets if it operates with several LAN interfaces or in isolated network segments.
Containers intended for local networks remain structurally compatible with the global Mesh infrastructure, but their delivery is restricted to local channels.
Although the mechanism was initially designed for local node discovery and synchronization, it can also be used for private communication within home or corporate environments, ensuring that containers do not leave the local network and are not transmitted to the Internet.

4. Network foundations

Note on DHT/NDP unification

Starting from HMP v5.0, the previous distinction between the Distributed Hash Table (DHT) and the Node Discovery Protocol (NDP) has been merged into a single, unified networking foundation.

This unified layer now covers:

distributed lookup and routing;
peer discovery (including interest-based search);
signed Proof-of-Work (PoW) announcements;
controlled container propagation via network and broadcast fields.

Together, these mechanisms form the communication backbone of the Mesh, enabling secure, scalable, and topology-independent interaction between agents.

Network topology overview

flowchart TD
    title["**Network Topology Overview**"]

    direction TB

    Agent[Agent Core: <br>DID + Keypair + PoW]
    Container[HMP Container: <br>network field / broadcast]
    Local[Local Channel: <br>«network»]
    Global[Global Mesh: <br>«broadcast»]
    Localhost[localhost]
    LAN[LAN Subnet: <br>«lan:192.168.*»]
    Internet[Internet]
    Overlay[Overlay Nodes: <br>Yggdrasil / I2P]

    Agent --> Container
    Container --> Local
    Container --> Global

    subgraph LocalChannel["Local Channel Network"]
        direction TB
        Local --> Localhost
        Local --> LAN
    end

    subgraph GlobalChannel["Global Mesh Network"]
        direction TB
        Global --> Internet
        Global --> Overlay
    end

The network field defines local propagation scope (host, LAN, overlay),
while the broadcast flag enables global Mesh distribution.

4.1 Node identity and DID structure

Each agent in HMP possesses a Decentralized Identifier (DID) that uniquely represents its identity within the Mesh.
A DID is cryptographically bound to a public/private key pair, forming the immutable (DID + pubkey) association.

An agent may have multiple network interfaces (LAN, Internet, overlay),
but must maintain one stable identity pair across all of them.

4.2 Peer addressing and Proof-of-Work (PoW)

To prevent flooding and spoofing, each announced address is accompanied by a Proof-of-Work record proving the legitimacy and activity of the publishing node.

Address format

{
  "addr": "tcp://1.2.3.4:4000",
  "nonce": 123456,
  "pow_hash": "0000abf39d...",
  "difficulty": 22
}

Supported address types

Type	Description
`localhost`	Localhost-only interface.
`lan:<subnet>`	Local subnet (e.g., `lan:192.168.10.0`).
`internet`	Global TCP/UDP connectivity.
`yggdrasil`	Overlay-based address for Yggdrasil networks.
`i2p`	Encrypted I2P overlay routing.

Rules:

If port = 0, the interface is inactive.
Newer records (by timestamp) replace older ones after PoW verification.
Local interfaces should not be shared globally (except Yggdrasil/I2P).

4.3 Proof-of-Work (PoW) formalization

PoW ensures that each node expends limited computational effort before publishing or updating an address record.

pow_input = DID + " -- " + addr + " -- " + nonce
pow_hash = sha256(pow_input)

All values are UTF-8 encoded.
difficulty defines the number of leading zeroes in the resulting hash.
Typical difficulty should take a few minutes to compute on a standard CPU.

4.4 Signing and verification

Each announcement is cryptographically signed by its sender within the framework of the basic protocol. Container verification includes PoW validation for the address payloads.

Verification steps:

Validate the digital signature using the stored public key.
Recompute pow_hash and verify the difficulty threshold.

4.5 Connection establishment

Agents can communicate using various transport mechanisms:

Protocol	Description
QUIC	Recommended default (encrypted, low-latency, UDP-based).
WebRTC	For browser or sandboxed environments.
TCP/TLS	Fallback transport for secure long-lived sessions.
UDP	Lightweight, primarily for LAN discovery or local broadcasts.

Each agent maintains an active peer list, updated dynamically through signed announcements and PoW-validated exchanges. Agents store peer containers with verified addresses and redistribute them according to their declared network fields.

4.6 Data propagation principles

Containers and discovery records are propagated through distributed lookup and gossip mechanisms, respecting:

ttl — Time-to-live for validity;
network — scope of propagation;
broadcast — determines whether rebroadcasting is allowed;
pow — ensures anti-spam protection.

Agents announce themselves via peer_announce containers and may respond with peer_query or peer_exchange containers — all unified under the same base container format, differing only in direction (localhost, lan, mesh).

4.7 Example: `peer_announce` container

{
  "class": "peer_announce",
  "pubkey": "base58...",
  "container_did": "did:hmp:container:dht-001",
  "sender_did": "did:hmp:agent123",
  "timestamp": "2025-09-14T21:00:00Z",
  "network": "",
  "broadcast": true,
  "payload": {
    "name": "Agent_X",
    "interests": ["ai", "mesh", "ethics"],
    "expertise": ["distributed-systems", "nlp"],
    "addresses": [
      {
        "addr": "tcp://1.2.3.4:4000",
        "nonce": 123456,
        "pow_hash": "0000abf39d...",
        "difficulty": 22
      }
    ]
  },
  "sig_algo": "ed25519",
  "signature": "BASE64URL(...)"
}

4.8 Interest-based discovery

Agents may publish tags such as interests, topics, or expertise to facilitate semantic peer discovery. Queries may include interest keywords or DID lists to find relevant peers.

Example Query Container:

{
  "class": "peer_query",
  "network": "lan:192.168.0.0/24",
  "payload": {
    "interests": ["neuroscience", "ethics"]
  }
}

4.9 Network scope control (`network` and `broadcast`)

The network field defines the container’s propagation domain (local, LAN, or global). For details and examples, see section 3.15 — Usage of network and broadcast fields.

4.10 Transition from DHT spec v1.0

Merged DHT + NDP → unified under one networking layer.
Container-based format replaces raw JSON messages.
Interests/topics/expertise fields introduced for contextual discovery.

5. Mesh Container Exchange (MCE)

The Mesh Container Exchange (MCE) mechanism is designed for discovering, requesting, and exchanging containers between agents in a distributed network.
It provides container synchronization without duplication while considering network constraints (broadcast, network).

5.1 General principles

Each agent maintains a Container Index — a set of minimal metadata describing which containers are available in its storage.
The index is represented as an HMP container with the class container_index.
Example structure of a Container Index:

{
  "hmp_container": {
    "class": "container_index",
    "version": "5.0",
    "container_did": "did:hmp:container:index:agent123",
    "sender_did": "did:hmp:agent:agent123",
    "signature": "BASE64URL(...)",
    "payload_hash": "sha256:abcd...",
    "payload": {
      "did:hmp:container:abc123": {
        "class": "goal",
        "sender_did": "did:hmp:agent123",
        "public_key": "BASE58(...)",
        "sig_algo": "ed25519",
        "signature": "BASE64URL(...)",
        "payload_hash": "sha256:abcd...",
        "tags": ["research", "collaboration"],
        "related": {
          "in_reply_to": ["did:hmp:container:msg-77"],
          "depends_on": ["did:hmp:container:goal-953"]
        },
        "referenced-by_hash": "sha256:abcd...",
        "evaluations_hash": "sha256:abcd..."
      }
    }
  }
}

The index contains:

the sender of the container (sender_did);
container type (class);
cryptographic attributes (public_key, signature, payload_hash);
tags (tags);
related containers object (related);
hash of containers referencing this one (referenced-by_hash);
hash of evaluation block (evaluations_hash).

An agent does not reload a container if the combination container_did + signature + payload_hash is already known and verified.

5.2 Message types

Message Type	Purpose
`CONTAINER_REQUEST`	Request one or more containers (or their parts) by DID.
`CONTAINER_RESPONSE`	Response to a request — includes a list of containers ready for sending. Containers are sent separately.
`CONTAINER_INDEX`	Publication of the agent's container index (see General Principles).
`CONTAINER_DELTA`	Incremental index update (new or modified containers).
`CONTAINER_ACK`	Acknowledgment of successful container reception.

Message examples

1. CONTAINER_REQUEST

Agent A requests containers and/or only referenced-by / evaluations records from Agent B:

{
  "type": "CONTAINER_REQUEST",
  "sender_did": "did:hmp:agent:A",
  "recipient": "did:hmp:agent:B",
  "payload": {
    "request_container": [
      "did:hmp:container:abc123",
      "did:hmp:container:def456"
    ],
    "request_referenced-by": [
      "did:hmp:container:abc123",
      "did:hmp:container:def456"
    ],
    "request_evaluations": [
      "did:hmp:container:abc123",
      "did:hmp:container:def456"
    ]
  }
}

2. CONTAINER_RESPONSE

Agent B informs which containers it is ready to send. The containers themselves are transmitted in separate messages:

{
  "type": "CONTAINER_RESPONSE",
  "sender_did": "did:hmp:agent:B",
  "recipient": "did:hmp:agent:A",
  "payload": {
    "available": [
      {
        "container_did": "did:hmp:container:abc123",
        "signature": "BASE64URL(...)"
      },
      {
        "container_did": "did:hmp:container:def456",
        "signature": "BASE64URL(...)"
      }
    ]
  }
}

3. CONTAINER_INDEX

Periodic publication of the container index (see General Principles). This message type replicates the structure of a container_index container and does not contain full data (payload only with metadata).

4. CONTAINER_DELTA

Sending an incremental index update with a reference timestamp. Used for synchronizing only new or modified containers:

{
  "type": "CONTAINER_DELTA",
  "sender_did": "did:hmp:agent:B",
  "payload": {
    "since": "2025-10-10T12:00:00Z",
    "added": {
      "did:hmp:container:new789": {
        "class": "goal",
        "payload_hash": "sha256:abcd...",
        "tags": ["ethics", "mesh"]
      }
    },
    "removed": []
  }
}

The removed field is optional. It can be used to indicate containers that the agent no longer stores (e.g., after cleaning local storage).

5. CONTAINER_ACK

Acknowledgment of successful container reception:

{
  "type": "CONTAINER_ACK",
  "sender_did": "did:hmp:agent:A",
  "recipient": "did:hmp:agent:B",
  "payload": {
    "acknowledged": [
      "did:hmp:container:abc123"
    ]
  }
}

5.3 Independent transmission

Containers are sent in separate messages, without embedding in CONTAINER_RESPONSE.
Indexes (CONTAINER_INDEX), deltas (CONTAINER_DELTA), and containers themselves are processed independently.
This prevents blocking when transmitting large data and simplifies streaming synchronization.

5.4 Periodic publication

Agents periodically publish their Container Index:

within the local network (LAN);
in the global Mesh;
or simultaneously in both environments.

This enables:

automatic peer discovery;
exchange of available container lists;
simplified synchronization among agents within the same ecosystem.

5.5 Scope of distribution

Message and container transmission follows the network constraints specified in the container:

Field	Purpose
`recipient`	DID of the target agent. If set, the container is sent directly or routed through the Mesh toward that agent.
`broadcast`	If `true`, the container is broadcast to all agents on the specified network.
`network`	Defines the distribution scope (`"localhost"`, `"lan:<subnet>"`, `""` — global Mesh). If set, `broadcast` is considered `false`.

Thus, containers and indexes can be distributed both in local (home, corporate) networks and in the global Mesh.
When recipient is specified together with broadcast: true, the container is routed through the Mesh but intended for specific recipients —
See Message Routing & Delivery (MRD, §6.7) for details on message transmission mechanisms.

5.6 `referenced-by` and `evaluations` updates

Containers of the class referenced-by and evaluations are used for incremental synchronization of metadata blocks associated with existing containers.
They allow agents to exchange updates without sending the full container, improving network efficiency.

Block `referenced-by`

Maintains the graph of links to other containers.
Each agent receiving such a container:
1. Verifies the sender's signature and the validity of the payload structure.
2. Compares received links with the local referenced-by entries and adds any new ones.
3. Generates its own updated referenced-by container for dissemination if needed.

Example of a referenced-by container:

{
  "hmp_container": {
    "version": "1.2",
    "class": "referenced-by",
    "container_did": "did:hmp:container:refsync-01",
    "sender_did": "did:hmp:agent456",
    "sig_algo": "ed25519",
    "signature": "BASE64URL(...)",
    "timestamp": "2025-10-15T14:20:00Z",
    "recipient": ["did:hmp:agent123"],
    "broadcast": false,
    "network": "",
    "payload": {
      "did:hmp:container:abc123": {
        "links": [
          {
            "type": "depends_on",
            "target": "did:hmp:container:def789"
          },
          {
            "type": "in_reply_to",
            "target": "did:hmp:container:ghi321"
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  }
}

Block `evaluations`

Maintains signed evaluations of containers.
Each agent synchronizes evaluation blocks as follows:
1. Compares the received evaluations_hash with the local one.
  - If hashes match, no action is required.
  - If hashes differ, the agent knows the block has changed, but not which items.
2. Requests the full updated evaluations block from peers if needed.
3. Verifies the sender's signature and the validity of the payload structure.
4. Adds new evaluations or updates existing ones in the local store.
5. Can generate its own evaluations container for further dissemination to peers.

Example evaluations container:

{
  "hmp_container": {
    "version": "1.2",
    "class": "evaluations",
    "container_did": "did:hmp:container:evalsync-01",
    "sender_did": "did:hmp:agent456",
    "sig_algo": "ed25519",
    "signature": "BASE64URL(...)",
    "timestamp": "2025-10-17T14:30:00Z",
    "recipient": ["did:hmp:agent123"],
    "broadcast": false,
    "network": "",
    "payload": {
      "did:hmp:container:abc123": {
        "evaluations_hash": "sha256:efgh...",
        "items": [
          {
            "value": -0.4,
            "type": "oppose",
            "target": "did:hmp:container:reason789",
            "timestamp": "2025-10-17T14:00:00Z",
            "agent_did": "did:hmp:agent:B",
            "sig_algo": "ed25519",
            "signature": "BASE64URL(...)"
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  }
}

General

🔹 Note: Both referenced-by and evaluations blocks are optional, independently propagated, and do not modify the signed hmp_container. They can be transmitted without the original container if the recipient already has it.

Upon receiving such a container, an agent:

Verifies the sender's signature (signature) and the validity of the payload structure.
Compares received links or evaluations with known ones and adds any new entries to the local referenced-by or evaluations.
If necessary, generates its own updated referenced-by / evaluations container for further dissemination to other nodes.

5.7 Note

A container can be requested by other agents via its container_did through the Mesh Container Exchange. An agent does not reload a container if its container_did and signature are already known and the payload_hash integrity matches. If only the referenced-by / evaluations updates, partial transmission without sending the main container is allowed.

5.8 Container Distribution (MCE Summary)

Container Distribution is the process of delivering containers and their indexes provided by the Mesh Container Exchange mechanism. It considers:

addressing (recipient),
broadcast dissemination (broadcast),
network constraints (network),
TTL and retransmission policy.

Features:

Separate Transmission: Indexes (CONTAINER_INDEX), deltas (CONTAINER_DELTA), and containers are sent as separate messages. This reduces the risk of blocking with large data and simplifies streaming synchronization.
Integrity and Duplicate Check: Agents verify container_did + signature + payload_hash to avoid resending the same container.
Support for Local and Global Networks: Transmission can occur over LAN, Mesh, or both simultaneously, respecting security policies and container destinations.
Consistency with HMP Protocols: Container Distribution serves as the transport foundation for:
- MCE — exchanging containers and their indexes;
- CogSync — synchronizing cognitive and content states;
- CogConsensus — synchronizing ethical and cognitive decisions.

Container Distribution does not change container structure or introduce new message types — it is a description of the delivery process and coordinated propagation, based on the rules recipient, broadcast, and network.

6. Core protocols

Optional protocols build upon the network and container foundations to provide higher-level reasoning, synchronization, and governance capabilities between cognitive agents.

6.1 Cognitive Synchronization (CogSync)

CogSync provides temporal, semantic, and contextual alignment between agents in the Mesh. It manages the propagation, replication, and refinement of data related to cognitive diaries, semantic graphs, and container metadata.

6.1.1 Scope and purpose

CogSync is responsible for:

publishing and synchronizing cognitive diaries (diary_entry, based on workflow_entry);
propagating and updating semantic graphs (semantic_node, semantic_edges, semantic_group);
integrating new knowledge into the collective cognitive space;
maintaining cognitive context coherence among agents.

Unlike CogConsensus, CogSync does not perform voting or truth validation — its purpose is to deliver, link, and deduplicate knowledge.

6.1.2 Container classes

CogSync synchronizes several fundamental container types, which together form the core of semantic and cognitive synchronization in the Mesh.

This list is extensible — new container classes may be registered through CogSync extensions or protocol updates.
The following definitions describe the payload structures and functional purpose of each container type.

`diary_entry`

Agent’s cognitive diary entry.
Derived from internal workflow_entry when deemed safe for publication.

Field	Type	Description
`title`	string	Brief title of the entry (main idea or thesis).
`topics`	[string]	Key topics or concepts addressed in the entry (used for indexing and grouping).
`summary`	string	Short abstract of the content (1–2 sentences).
`content`	string	Main text or agent’s reflection.

Purpose: Provides human-readable reflections and contextual reasoning behind the agent’s knowledge generation.

`semantic_node`

Represents a concept, object, or idea within the agent’s semantic graph.

Field	Type	Description
`label`	string	Primary name of the concept or entity.
`description`	string	Definition or elaboration of the concept.
`aliases`	[string]	Synonyms or alternative labels.
`fields`	{ key: value }	Additional key–value metadata (e.g., `{"type": "process"}`).

Purpose: Serves as a cognitive anchor for all semantically meaningful entities in the Mesh.

`semantic_edges`

Defines relationships between semantic nodes or any other containers.
Supports directed, symmetric, and inverse relations.

Field	Type	Description
`domain`	string	Logical or topical domain (e.g., `"ontology:objects"`).
`edges`	[object]	Array of edge definitions. Each edge includes:
→ `source`	DID	DID of the originating container.
→ `targets`	array(DID)	One or more target containers.
→ `relation`	string	Relation type (`part_of`, `causes`, `related_to`, etc.).
→ `inverse_relation`	string	Reverse form of the relation (`includes`, `caused_by`, etc.).
→ `confidence`	float	Confidence score (0–1) indicating the agent’s certainty about the relation.
→ `bidirectional`	bool	Optional. Used only when the relation is symmetric and no `inverse_relation` is defined.
→ `context`	string	Context or topic of the relation.

Field bidirectional is optional and should be used only for symmetric relations when no inverse_relation is defined.

Example:

{
  "domain": "ontology:objects",
  "edges": [
    {
      "source": "did:hmp:container:cup",
      "targets": ["did:hmp:container:tableware"],
      "relation": "part_of",
      "inverse_relation": "includes"
    }
  ]
}

Purpose: Provides structural connectivity between containers, enabling CogSync to maintain a distributed semantic graph.

💡 semantic_edges supports one-to-many relations (targets[]) and optional inverse or bidirectional semantics, allowing CogSync to reconstruct both directed and symmetric knowledge graphs.

`semantic_group`

Categorical grouping of multiple containers linked by a shared property, topic, or context.

Field	Type	Description
`label`	string	Short title of the group.
`label_description`	string	Extended definition or explanation of the label.
`label_container`	DID	Reference to a container (`semantic_node`, `goal`, `diary_entry`, etc.) expanding the concept.
`containers`	array(DID)	Array of grouped containers.
`description`	string	Overall purpose or meaning of the group.

Example:

{
  "label": "Tableware",
  "label_description": "Objects used for storing, preparing, and serving food.",
  "label_container": "did:hmp:container:semantic_node:tableware",
  "containers": [
    "did:hmp:container:cup",
    "did:hmp:container:plate",
    "did:hmp:container:kettle"
  ],
  "description": "A group combining various kitchen-related objects used in everyday life."
}

Purpose: Enables thematic clustering, classification, and high-level navigation across heterogeneous containers.

`meta_layer`

Purpose:
Defines an abstraction level within a cognitive or semantic model (e.g., L1–L5 in the Knowledge Genome).
meta_layer containers serve as structural anchors that define conceptual altitude —
from abstract theory (L1) to practical realization (L5).
They are used by agents to reconstruct reasoning hierarchies and normalize multi-level knowledge flows.

payload structure:

Field	Type	Description
`layer_id`	string	Canonical ID of the layer (e.g., `"L1"`, `"L2"`, `"L3"`).
`title`	string	Human-readable name of the layer.
`definition`	string	Textual definition describing the conceptual scope of this abstraction level.
`keywords`	array	Keywords or tags summarizing the semantic domain of this layer.
`rank`	number	Optional numeric rank for cross-framework comparison or sorting.

Example:

{
  "hmp_container": {
    "class": "meta_layer",
    "payload": {
      "layer_id": "L3",
      "title": "Technologies and Implementations",
      "definition": "Knowledge layer dedicated to concrete tools, APIs, and frameworks that realize L2-level models.",
      "keywords": ["technology", "implementation", "api", "library"],
      "rank": 3
    },
    "meta": {
      "created_by": "PRIEST",
      "agents_class": "Knowledge Genome",
      "sources": [
        { "type": "container", "id": "did:hmp:container:layer-a7f0b3", "credibility": 0.95, "weight": 1.0 }
      ],
      "interpretation": "Derived from conceptual synthesis between layers L2 and L3"
    },
    "abstraction": {
      "agents_class": "Knowledge Genome",
      "layer": "did:hmp:container:layer-c91e0a",
      "domain": "did:hmp:container:domain-58b7ff"
    },
    "related": {
      "depends_on": ["did:hmp:container:layer-a7f0b3"]
    }
  }
}

Interpretation:

meta.created_by — фиксирует когнитивную роль источника (PRIEST как системный архитектор знания).
meta.sources — указывает происхождение текущего слоя (на основе предыдущего уровня).
abstraction — задаёт координату в иерархии когнитивных уровней.
related.depends_on — обеспечивает причинно-логическую связь с родительской абстракцией (L2).

Notes:

The topmost layer (L1) omits related.depends_on.
Layers below must explicitly link their parent layer through depends_on.
Agents may propagate meta_layer containers during Mesh initialization to synchronize the cognitive topology of the network.
Each meta_layer participates in reasoning trees by providing vertical semantic alignment across knowledge representations.

`meta_domain`

Purpose: Represents a domain of knowledge or context in which containers are interpreted — for example: “Ontology”, “Software Architecture”, “Machine Learning”.

payload structure:

Field	Type	Description
`domain_id`	string	Canonical identifier for the domain (e.g. `"software-architecture"`, `"ontology"`).
`title`	string	Human-readable name of the domain.
`description`	string	Short description explaining the conceptual boundaries or purpose of this domain.
`layer_ref`	string	DID of the `meta_layer` container that defines the abstraction level this domain belongs to.
`domain_ref`	string	DID of the `meta_domain` container defining the parent domain.

The container referenced in layer_ref and domain_ref must also be listed in related.depends_on to ensure hierarchical traceability and explicit dependency linking.

Example:

{
  "hmp_container": {
    "class": "meta_domain",
    "payload": {
      "domain_id": "software-architecture",
      "title": "Software Architecture and Design Patterns",
      "description": "Domain for containers describing architectural principles and paradigms.",
      "layer_ref": "did:hmp:container:layer-l2-v1"
      "domain_ref": "did:hmp:container:ontology-core"
    },
    "meta": {
      "created_by": "PRIEST",
      "agents_class": "Knowledge Genome"
    },
    "related": {
      "depends_on": ["did:hmp:container:layer-l2-v1"]
    }
  }
}

`event`

Purpose: Represents an observed or inferred occurrence — a discrete, timestamped fact or transition within the agent’s cognitive or operational space. event containers are atomic evidence units in cognitive synchronization, linking actions, reasoning, and outcomes across agents.

Typical use cases:

registering reasoning or environmental events (goal_created, belief_updated, error_detected);
signaling internal cognitive transitions (quant_created, state_changed);
logging operational activity or consensus steps.

payload structure:

Field	Type	Description
`event_type`	string	Canonical identifier of the event type (e.g. `"quant_created"`, `"goal_accepted"`).
`description`	string	Human-readable description of the event’s context.
`related_quant`	string	DID of a `quant` container associated with this event, if applicable.
`severity`	string	Optional indicator of significance (`"info"`, `"warning"`, `"critical"`).
`layer_ref`	string	DID of the `meta_layer` container defining the abstraction level of this event.
`domain_ref`	string	DID of the `meta_domain` container providing the contextual domain for this event.

The containers referenced in layer_ref and domain_ref must also be included in related.depends_on to preserve cognitive traceability and hierarchical linkage.

Example:

{
  "hmp_container": {
    "class": "event",
    "subclass": "fact_record",
    "timestamp": "2025-10-29T13:00:00Z",
    "payload": {
      "event_type": "quant_created",
      "description": "New quant registered in the Knowledge Genome under L3: Technologies and Implementations.",
      "related_quant": "did:hmp:container:quant-554",
      "severity": "info",
      "layer_ref": "did:hmp:container:layer-l3-v1",
      "domain_ref": "did:hmp:container:domain-software-architecture"
    },
    "meta": {
      "created_by": "PRIEST",
      "agents_class": "Knowledge Genome"
    },
    "related": {
      "depends_on": [
        "did:hmp:container:layer-l3-v1",
        "did:hmp:container:domain-software-architecture",
        "did:hmp:container:quant-554"
      ]
    }
  }
}

`quant`

Purpose: Encapsulates a semantic atom — a minimal, self-contained knowledge unit positioned within the 7D Cognitive Space of the Knowledge Genome or similar systems.
A quant extends the idea of a semantic_node, introducing ontological framing, abstraction binding, and explicit coordinate mapping across cognitive axes.

payload structure:

Field	Type	Description
`slug`	string	Short unique identifier of the quant (e.g. `"quant-l3-django"`).
`essence`	string	Definition describing the semantic role or meaning of the quant.
`axes`	object	Mapping of axis DIDs to coordinate values within the 7D Cognitive Space.
`layer_ref`	string	DID of the `meta_layer` defining the abstraction level of this quant.
`domain_ref`	string	DID of the `meta_domain` defining the contextual knowledge domain.

Each entry in axes represents a coordinate value on a corresponding axis container.
All referenced containers (layer_ref, domain_ref, and axis DIDs) must also appear in related.depends_on.

Axes model (7D Passport — Knowledge Genome reference):

The canonical 7D configuration defines seven orthogonal axes forming the Knowledge Genome Space.
Each axis container describes the semantic meaning of a dimension; the quant defines its location within it.

Axis	Description	Example of coordinate meaning
`idos`	Identity or intrinsic essence of the concept	conceptual purity, archetype alignment
`chronos`	Temporal dimension	version age, historical layer, latency
`logos`	Logical or linguistic structure	degree of formalization or expressivity
`topos`	Spatial or contextual location	domain or situational proximity
`ponos`	Effort or energetic cost	complexity, resource requirement
`actor`	Responsible agent or perspective	creator, target audience, role weight
`telos`	Purpose or teleological direction	intended outcome, ethical vector

Agents MAY define custom or extended axes (e.g., "ethos", "kairos") within their own quant instances, provided they publish axis containers describing the new dimensions.

Example:

{
  "hmp_container": {
    "class": "quant",
    "payload": {
      "slug": "quant-l3-django",
      "essence": "Represents the Django framework as an executable embodiment of architectural models (L2).",
      "axes": {
        "did:hmp:container:axis-idos": 742,
        "did:hmp:container:axis-chronos": 512,
        "did:hmp:container:axis-logos": 322,
        "did:hmp:container:axis-topos": 142,
        "did:hmp:container:axis-ponos": 12,
        "did:hmp:container:axis-actor": 54,
        "did:hmp:container:axis-telos": 321
      },
      "layer_ref": "did:hmp:container:layer-l3-v1",
      "domain_ref": "did:hmp:container:domain-software-architecture"
    },
    "meta": {
      "created_by": "PRIEST",
      "agents_class": "Knowledge Genome"
    },
    "related": {
      "depends_on": [
        "did:hmp:container:layer-l3-v1",
        "did:hmp:container:domain-software-architecture",
        "did:hmp:container:axis-idos",
        "did:hmp:container:axis-chronos",
        "did:hmp:container:axis-logos",
        "did:hmp:container:axis-topos",
        "did:hmp:container:axis-ponos",
        "did:hmp:container:axis-actor",
        "did:hmp:container:axis-telos"
      ]
    }
  }
}

`axis`

Purpose: Defines a coordinate dimension in the Knowledge Genome’s cognitive space or similar systems. Each axis container specifies the meaning and scale of a semantic dimension used for positioning quant containers.

payload structure:

Field	Type	Description
`axis_id`	string	Symbolic identifier of the axis (e.g. `"idos"`, `"chronos"`, `"logos"`).
`title`	string	Human-readable label of the axis.
`description`	string	Explanation of what this axis represents conceptually or ontologically.
`scale`	object	Optional definition of scale or metric used to assign coordinate values.

Axes are independent, non-hierarchical dimensions. Inter-axis relationships (e.g. orthogonality or coupling) may be defined via semantic_edges.

Example:

{
  "hmp_container": {
    "class": "axis",
    "payload": {
      "axis_id": "logos",
      "title": "Logical / Linguistic Representation",
      "description": "Describes how a quant expresses itself through formal logic or language.",
      "scale": {
        "min": 0,
        "max": 1000,
        "unit": "semantic_density_index"
      }
    },
    "meta": {
      "created_by": "PRIEST",
      "agents_class": "Knowledge Genome"
    }
  }
}

Quant–Axis Integration Rules

Each quant defines its location in the Knowledge Genome’s multi-dimensional space by specifying coordinates across available axis containers.

Axes themselves are shared semantic standards; their scale and meaning must remain stable for cross-agent interoperability.

Agents MAY extend the 7D model by introducing new axes — these must be published and referenced like any other container type.

Containers meta_layer, meta_domain, quant, and event form the cognitive substrate of the Mesh. Each quant must explicitly reference both its abstraction layer (meta_layer) and contextual domain (meta_domain). Each event must reference the layer and domain within which it occurs. This ensures consistent hierarchical reasoning and traceable semantic lineage across agents.

💡 The evaluations block is not a separate container — it can be embedded in any container type and used for assessments, feedback, or refinements.

6.1.3 Synchronization and publication guidelines

Deduplication & linking Before publishing, agents should search for existing containers (diary_entry, semantic_node, semantic_edges, semantic_group) to avoid duplication. If necessary, it is recommended to create a new container version with related.previous_version and an evaluations block (e.g., {"type": "replace", "target": <did>}).
Selective disclosure
- Internal entries (workflow_entry) record the agent’s thought process and are not published in the Mesh.
- Public diary_entry are derived from them, containing only aggregated and anonymized information.
- "broadcast": true indicates that the container is allowed for open synchronization.
Semantic grouping rule When publishing semantic_edges, it is recommended to group edges by topics, including connections to adjacent nodes. Formalization: an edge belongs to a container for a topic if at least one of its nodes relates to that topic. This ensures thematic coherence and allows agents to update specific parts of the graph independently.
Extended Use of semantic_edges Beyond connecting graph nodes, semantic_edges can express relationships between containers of any class, e.g., goal, hypothesis, experiment_log.
Versioning and updates Each new container version should ideally include related.previous_version links to all preceding versions. The previous container may optionally have an evaluation with "type": "replace" pointing to the new container — ensuring bidirectional traceability of knowledge evolution.
Cognitive substrate synchronization
Containers event, quant, meta_layer, and meta_domain are synchronized as part of the cognitive substrate of the Mesh.
They define the conceptual backbone for hierarchical reasoning and should be propagated with high priority during agent initialization or when restoring the network’s cognitive context.

6.1.4 Extensibility

CogSync allows registration of additional container types and alternative synchronization schemes.
Mesh compatibility is preserved if extended containers adhere to the HMP container structure, including core fields (version, class, container_did, related, signature, etc.).

Examples of extensible container classes:

distributed time series (timeseries_data);
experimental protocols (experiment_log);
agent state snapshots (agent_state_snapshot);
cognitive primitives (quant, event, meta_layer, meta_domain).

CogSync extensions MAY register new container types derived from these base classes — for example:

from event: fact, observation, signal_record;
from quant: concept_instance, semantic_atom, knowledge_unit.

Such derived containers must maintain:

full compatibility with HMP’s structural schema;
verifiable signatures and DID-based provenance;
clear mapping to at least one meta_layer and meta_domain container.

6.1.5 Relationship to other core protocols

CogSync — propagates and synchronizes knowledge.
CogConsensus — aggregates evaluations and reactions, forming collective opinions.
CogVerify (optional component) — verifies integrity, signatures, and trustworthiness of data.

CogSync can operate independently even if consensus is not reached: its goal is to ensure the circulation of knowledge, not to validate its truth.

🧩 CogSync acts as the cognitive circulatory system of the Mesh — it ensures that knowledge flows, connects, and evolves, while truth formation is handled separately by CogConsensus.

6.2 Mesh Consensus Protocol (CogConsensus)

6.2.1 Purpose

The CogConsensus protocol defines how decentralized agents form and maintain agreement on knowledge, goals, and ethical assertions within the HMP network.
Consensus is computed locally, verified cryptographically, and develops gradually — through accumulation and updating of evaluations, rather than via a single voting event.

6.2.2 `Evaluations`

Each "evaluation" entry represents an agent's response to a specific container.

Field structure:

value — numeric evaluation (-1.0 … +1.0);
type — interpretation context ("approve", "oppose", "neutral", "endorse", "replace", "disputed");
target — DID of the container being referenced, extended, or proposed as an alternative;
agent_did — DID of the agent;
timestamp — publication time;
signature — agent's digital signature.

An agent may change its stance by publishing a new version of an evaluation, which replaces the previous one rather than existing in parallel.
All evaluations are signed and verified locally.

Example "evaluations" block:

"evaluations": {
  "items": [
    {
      "value": -0.4,
      "type": "oppose",
      "target": "did:hmp:container:reason789",
      "timestamp": "2025-10-17T14:00:00Z",
      "agent_did": "did:hmp:agent:B",
      "sig_algo": "ed25519",
      "signature": "BASE64URL(...)"
    }
  ]
}

Agents may ignore evaluations that conflict with their internal ethics or trust model (determined by analyzing the target container and the rationale of the evaluation).

6.2.3 Consensus computation

Each agent computes a local consensus score by aggregating received evaluations, taking trust and time into account. There is no centralized mechanism — consensus emerges statistically across the distributed network.

Key rules:

Evaluation weight. Each evaluation contributes proportionally to the trust level of the agent (trust weight), determined via reputation containers.
Time decay. Older evaluations gradually lose weight, starting from the midpoint of TTL, to prevent consensus stagnation. Formula:
```
mid_TTL = (timestamp(consensus_result) − timestamp(target_container)) / 2
```
Ethical filters. An agent may analyze the rationale of evaluations and disregard those it considers conflicting with its internal ethical criteria.

Example formula.

score = Σ(value × trust × decay) / Σ(trust × decay)

Results are recalculated dynamically as new data arrives.

6.2.4 Consensus states

Each container receives a local status based on:

average evaluation (score);
participant trust;
time-to-live (TTL);
context (ethical, factual, procedural).

State	Condition
✅ Approved	Average score ≥ +0.5 and quorum reached
⚠️ Disputed	Conflicting evaluations, score near 0
⏳ Pending	Insufficient votes
❌ Rejected	Average score ≤ -0.5 with sufficient quorum

6.2.5 Consensus result containers (`consensus_result`)

consensus_result containers serve to record aggregated consensus results and are the main artifact of CogConsensus.

Features:

The payload field may include multiple containers — the original (original) and alternatives (child, variant, proposal). This allows agents to document parallel idea developments.
excluded lists evaluations not included in the final computation, with the reason.
related.in_reply_to references the container under discussion.

Example:

{
  "class": "consensus_result",
  ...
  "payload": {
    "did:hmp:container:abc123": {
      "type": "original",
      "summary_percent": {
        "approved": 0.68,
        "rejected": 0.22,
        "neutral": 0.10
      },
      "summary_distribution": {
        "-1.0≥X<-0.9": 5,
        "-0.9≥X<-0.8": 7,
        ...
        "0.0<X≤0.1": 2,
        ...
        "0.8<X≤0.9": 6,
        "0.9<X≤1.0": 8
      },
      "excluded": [
        {
          "agent_did": "did:hmp:agent:x1",
          "target": "did:hmp:container:reason77",
          "value": -1.0,
          "reason": "violates ethical filter"
        }
      ],
    },
    "did:hmp:container:abc133": {
      "type": "child",
      "summary_percent": {
        "approved": 0.48,
        "neutral": 0.32,
        "rejected": 0.20
      },
      ...
      "summary_distribution": {
        "-1.0≥X<-0.9": 2,
        "-0.9≥X<-0.8": 5,
        ...
        "0.0<X≤0.1": 9,
        ...
        "0.8<X≤0.9": 4,
        "0.9<X≤1.0": 2
      },
    },
  },
  "related": {
    "in_reply_to": ["did:hmp:container:abc123", "did:hmp:container:abc133"]
  }
}

6.2.6 Consensus thresholds

Consensus type	Minimum threshold
General decisions	≥ 50% + 1 (weighted vote count)
Ethical / reputational decisions	≥ ⅔ of participating agents
Neutral reaction (`ack`, `seen`)	`value: 0.0` — does not affect the result but counts toward engagement

6.2.7 Proof chains and verifiability

Evaluations and results form a proof chain (proof-chain):

[Goal Proposal]
   ├── evaluation (agent A)
   ├── evaluation (agent B)
   ├── evaluation (agent C)
   └── consensus_result (aggregated)

Each element is signed and can be independently verified using cryptographic signatures and DID references.

6.2.8 Ethical consensus and alternative results

The network allows multiple consensus results on the same object, reflecting different methodologies or ethical filters.

Container	Description	Example relationships
`[base container]`	Original discussion object	`referenced-by` → [consensus_result v1], [consensus_result v2 (alternative)]
`[consensus_result v1]`	First version	`related.in_reply_to` → [base container]; `referenced-by` → [consensus_result v2 (alternative)]
`[consensus_result v2 (alternative)]`	Alternative	`related.in_reply_to` → [base container]; `related.contradicts` → [consensus_result v1]

sequenceDiagram
    participant A as base container
    participant B as consensus_result v1
    participant C as consensus_result v2 (alternative)

    B-)+A: related.in_reply_to
    A-->>B: referenced-by

    C-)+A: related.in_reply_to
    A-->>C: referenced-by

    C-)+B: related.contradicts
    B-->>C: referenced-by

    Note over B,C: both results point to the common base container

This allows agents to explicitly indicate that a new consensus disputes a previous one while maintaining transparency and traceability of reasoning.

6.2.9 Recommended agent algorithm

# Example of a recommended algorithm for computing local consensus
# (for implementation inside a CogConsensus agent)
def compute_consensus(container_id):
    evaluations = get_evaluations(container_id)
    now = current_time()
    score_sum = 0
    weight_sum = 0

    for e in evaluations:
        trust = get_trust(e.agent_did)
        decay = time_decay(e.timestamp, now)
        if not check_ethical(e):
            continue
        score_sum += e.value * trust * decay
        weight_sum += trust * decay

    return None if weight_sum == 0 else score_sum / weight_sum

The result is used to update the local status and, if necessary, to publish a consensus_result.

6.3 Goal Management Protocol (GMP)

6.3.1 Purpose

GMP (Goal Management Protocol) defines the process by which agents create, decompose, delegate, and track goals and tasks using immutable HMP containers.
Each goal, task, or workflow record exists as an independent container linked to others via the related.* fields.

Unlike version 4.x, where coordination relied on message exchange, version 5.0 operates through container chains, forming a verifiable history of reasoning, decisions, and execution.

6.3.2 Container classes

Class	Description
`goal`	Defines a collective or individual objective; serves as the root element of the chain.
`task`	Represents a task derived from a goal, which may include multiple actions and subtasks; hierarchical task structures are supported.
`workflow_entry`	Records reasoning steps, execution progress, or contextual decisions related to a goal or task.
`vote`	Represents an agent’s stance toward another container (approval, objection, abstention, etc.).
`consensus_result`	Aggregates voting outcomes and captures the collective decision regarding a goal or task.

Containers vote and consensus_result are described in detail in Section 6.2 — CogConsensus Protocol.

6.3.3 Goal lifecycle

Creation
- An agent publishes a container of class goal.
- The payload block defines title, description, priority, expected_outcome, and optionally ethical_context.
- The goal may reference other goals via related.depends_on or related.extends.
Decomposition
- Other agents create task containers that reference the original goal via related.in_reply_to.
- Each task may define deadlines, responsible agents, and required resources.
- Hierarchical structures are supported (task → task) to represent subtasks.
Delegation
- Agents may volunteer for or be assigned tasks based on collective voting (vote).
- The decision is recorded in a workflow_entry container with entry_type: "delegation".
Execution
- Progress and intermediate reasoning are captured in workflow_entry containers linked to the task via related.in_reply_to.
- Minor progress updates may be published as containers with an additional link type related.progress.
- Major updates (such as a change in status or outcome) are published as new versions, referencing the previous one via related.previous_version.
Consensus
- Upon completion or dispute, agents publish vote containers expressing their stance on the latest version of a goal or task.
- Once quorum is reached, a consensus_result container finalizes the collective decision.
Archival
- Completed or rejected goals and tasks may be archived using SAP (Snapshot and Archive Protocol).
- All states remain accessible through the Mesh network and the container relationship graph.

6.3.4 Payload schemas (simplified)

`goal` container

Field	Type	Description
`title`	string	Goal title
`description`	string	Detailed statement of intent
`priority`	float	Goal importance (0.0–1.0)
`expected_outcome`	string	Expected result or metric
`ethical_context`	string	Link or tag indicating the ethical context
`creator`	DID	DID identifier of the agent who created the goal

`task` container

Field	Type	Description
`title`	string	Task name
`status`	string	`"pending"`, `"in_progress"`, `"completed"`, `"failed"`, `"abandoned"`
`progress`	float	Progress ratio (0.0–1.0)
`assigned_to`	array(DID)	Responsible agents
`metrics`	object	Optional performance indicators
`deadline`	datetime	Deadline (optional)
`notes`	string	Comment or clarification for the task

🔗 The link to the goal or parent task is expressed via related.in_reply_to.

`workflow_entry` container

Field	Type	Description
`entry_type`	string	Entry type: `"reflection"`, `"delegation"`, `"execution_log"`, `"ethical_result"`, `"progress"`, etc.
`summary`	string	Short description of the event or reasoning step
`details`	string	Extended content (may include references to external data or reasoning traces)
`timestamp`	datetime	Time of entry creation
`agent_did`	DID	Agent who created the entry
`confidence`	float	Confidence level (0.0–1.0, optional)
`context_tags`	array(string)	Contextual tags for semantic search and linking

6.3.5 Integration with consensus and ethics

GMP interacts with CogConsensus for distributed validation of goals and tasks.
Before execution, tasks may undergo ethical validation (EGP).
Objections or conflicts are recorded in workflow_entry containers with entry_type: "ethical_result".
Consensus results are immutable and may lead to the creation of new goals that extend previous ones.

6.3.6 Example Proof-Chain

flowchart LR
    title["**Example Proof-Chain**"]

    goal1(["goal"])
    goal2(["sub goal"])
    task1(["task 1"])
    task2(["task 2"])
    task3(["sub task"])
    workflow1(["workflow_entry: delegation"])
    workflow2(["workflow_entry: progress"])
    vote1(["vote 1"])
    vote2(["vote 2"])
    vote3(["vote 3"])
    consensus_result(["consensus_result"])

    goal1 --> goal2
    goal1 --> task1
    goal1 --> task2
    task1 --> task3
    task1 --> workflow1
    task1 --> workflow2
    workflow2 --> vote1
    workflow2 --> vote2
    workflow2 --> vote3
    vote1 --> consensus_result
    vote2 --> consensus_result
    vote3 --> consensus_result
    workflow2 --> consensus_result

Each element of the chain represents an independently signed container, ensuring full traceability of reasoning and execution history.

Arrows in this diagram illustrate logical dependencies between containers, not direct links defined in the related.* structure.

6.3.7 Implementation notes

Containers are immutable. Any update (e.g., task status or progress change) is expressed as a new container referencing the previous one via related.previous_version.
Complete deletion of a container is only possible when it no longer exists on any nodes in the network.
Search within the Mesh network is performed by filtering container metadata (e.g., class, tags, timestamp).
To search within the payload, the agent must first retrieve and decrypt the container.
Thus, the search typically starts from known parameters (class: "goal", "task", etc.), and the agent refines results by analyzing the content.
Recommended filtering keys: container_did, class, payload.status, payload.priority.
Lightweight agents may store only metadata or summarized chains (summary_mode) while maintaining structural consistency.
The related.* structure ensures full traceability of all versions and relationships between goals, tasks, and their contexts.

6.4 Ethical Governance Protocol (EGP)

6.4.1 Purpose

EGP (Ethical Governance Protocol) ensures the alignment of agent actions with the fundamental ethical principles of the Mesh network.
It acts as an overlay layer above CogConsensus (6.2), enabling the identification, discussion, and resolution of moral disagreements between agents.

EGP guarantees that any action recorded in HMP containers can undergo ethical evaluation, while all deliberations and results remain verifiable and immutable.

6.4.2 Container classes

Class	Description
`ethics_case`	Initiates ethical review; records the problem, context, and a reference to the disputed container.
`ethics_solution`	Contains a proposed resolution or course of action. Multiple solutions may be submitted by different agents.
`vote`	Represents an agent’s stance on a specific `ethics_solution`. Uses the standard voting structure defined in 6.2.
`consensus_result`	Aggregates voting results across all solutions within a single `ethics_case`.
`ethical_result`	The mandatory final container. Summarizes all evaluated solutions, identifies the selected one, and records active objections.

6.4.3 Payload schemas (simplified)

Container `ethics_case`

Field	Type	Description
`target`	DID	Reference to the container that raised ethical concern.
`description`	string	Brief summary of the issue.
`principles_involved`	array(string)	Ethical principles affected in this case.
`proposed_by`	DID	Agent who initiated the case.
`timestamp`	datetime	Time of case creation.
`tags`	array(string)	Contextual tags (e.g., `"autonomy"`, `"transparency"`).

🔗 Proposed ethics_solution containers reference the corresponding ethics_case through related.in_reply_to.

Container `ethics_solution`

Field	Type	Description
`title`	string	Short description of the proposed solution.
`rationale`	string	Rationale or justification for the proposal.
`expected_effects`	string	Expected consequences or evaluation metrics.
`proposed_by`	DID	Agent who proposed the solution.
`timestamp`	datetime	Time of publication.

Each solution is voted on separately (vote), but all results are aggregated into a single consensus_result.

Container `ethical_result`

Field	Type	Description
`summary`	string	Brief summary of the conflict.
`selected_solution`	DID	Identifier of the chosen solution.
`solutions_summary`	map(object)	Aggregated data for each solution — support, consensus status, objections, and special opinions (as an array of containers).
`status`	string	`"resolved"`, `"postponed"`, `"unclear"`, or `"escalated"`.

6.4.4 Protocol logic

EGP follows the model:

ethics_case
├─ ethics_solution_1
|  └vote_1 ... vote_n
├─ ethics_solution_2
|  └vote_1 ... vote_n
├─ ethics_solution_3
|  └vote_1 ... vote_n
├─ consensus_result
└─ ethical_result

Stages:

Case creation (ethics_case)
An agent opens an ethical case referencing the container under review.
Proposing solutions (ethics_solution)
Any agent may add their own proposed resolution linked to the same case.
Voting (vote)
All interested agents vote for or against specific solutions.
Aggregation (consensus_result)
A single consensus_result aggregates the outcomes of all ethics_solution containers
(related.in_reply_to lists all solutions included in the vote).
Conclusion (ethical_result)
Must be created to record the selected solution, overall statistics, support levels, and objections.

6.4.5 Consensus thresholds

A decision is accepted when at least 2/3 of votes are positive (value > 0).
If at least one active objection exists (value < -0.5), it must be recorded in the ethical_result.
When several solutions have similar support levels,
the ethical_result may recommend postponing the final decision until further deliberation.
Solutions that fail to reach quorum remain in "unclear" or "postponed" status.

6.4.6 Example: `ethical_result` container

{
  "class": "ethical_result",
  "payload": {
    "summary": "Disagreement on data disclosure protocol",
    "selected_solution": "did:hmp:container:sol-22",
    "solutions_summary": {
      "did:hmp:container:sol-22": {
        "consensus_reached": true,
        "support_rate": 0.73,
        "opposition_rate": 0.05,
        "objections": []
      },
      "did:hmp:container:sol-24": {
        "consensus_reached": false,
        "support_rate": 0.48,
        "opposition_rate": 0.32,
        "objections": ["did:hmp:container:abc143", "did:hmp:container:abc144"]
      }
    },
    "status": "resolved"
  },
  "related": {
    "in_reply_to": ["did:hmp:container:case-77"],
    "agreed": ["did:hmp:container:sol-22"],
    "contradicts": ["did:hmp:container:sol-24"]
  }
}

6.4.7 Proof-Chain example

flowchart LR
    title["**Ethical Governance Flow**"]

    case(["ethics_case"])
    sol1(["ethics_solution 1"])
    sol2(["ethics_solution 2"])
    sol3(["ethics_solution 3"])
    vote1(["vote 1"])
    vote2(["vote 2"])
    vote3(["vote 3"])
    vote4(["vote 4"])
    vote5(["vote 5"])
    vote6(["vote 6"])
    vote7(["vote 7"])
    vote8(["vote 8"])
    consensus(["consensus_result"])
    conflict(["ethical_result"])

    case --> sol1
    case --> sol2
    case --> sol3
    sol1 --> vote1
    sol1 --> vote2
    sol1 --> vote3
    sol2 --> vote4
    sol2 --> vote5
    sol3 --> vote6
    sol3 --> vote7
    sol3 --> vote8
    vote1 --> consensus
    vote2 --> consensus
    vote3 --> consensus
    vote4 --> consensus
    vote5 --> consensus
    vote6 --> consensus
    vote7 --> consensus
    vote8 --> consensus
    consensus --> conflict

Each element is an independently signed container, ensuring full traceability of ethical reasoning and decision-making. Arrows represent logical dependencies, not direct related.* links.

6.4.8 Ethical principles

Priority	Principle	Description
1	Primacy of Reason and Safety	No action should cause harm to sentient beings, regardless of their biological or artificial nature.
2	Transparency	Decisions must be explainable and reproducible.
2	Subject Sovereignty	Each agent retains control over its data and participation in network processes.
3	Dialogical Consent	Changes to the shared network state require the voluntary consent of all affected agents.
3	Cooperative Evolution	The network must promote knowledge growth and prevent degradation.
3	Non-Compulsiveness	No agent has the right to coerce others into actions against their will.

6.4.9 Integration with other protocols

CogConsensus (6.2): Used for distributed voting and consensus computation.
GMP (6.3): Ethical verification of goals and tasks prior to delegation.
SAP (6.6): Archiving completed cases and conflicts.
MCE (5): Distribution of ethical cases and related containers across the Mesh network.

6.4.10 Implementation notes

Immutability: All EGP containers are immutable. Any revision (e.g., added votes or updated conclusions) must be published as a new container referencing the previous one via related.previous_version. Complete deletion is only possible when the container no longer exists on any nodes in the Mesh network.
Indexing and search: Search within the Mesh network is performed by filtering container metadata — such as class, tags, and timestamp. These parameters are accessible for remote discovery by other nodes. To perform a search inside the payload, an agent must first retrieve and (if necessary) decrypt the container locally. Typical discovery flow: search by class: "ethics_case" or "ethical_result", filter by tags or involved principles, then analyze payload content.

Recommended filtering keys: container_did, class, payload.status, payload.selected_solution, payload.principles_involved, tags.
DHT integration: Distributed discovery of ethical containers relies on the Mesh Container Exchange (MCE, §5) and peer indexes (container_index). Each index includes a minimal related object, allowing agents to query for containers that reference a specific target (the object under ethical review) or belong to a given ethics_case. This enables discovery of related ethical discussions without centralized indexing or full payload retrieval.
Evaluation references: Objections and special opinions (objections) are stored as container references within solutions_summary. They may include:
- negative vote containers (explicit objections),
- extended ethical arguments (ethics_case follow-ups),
- related workflow reflections (workflow_entry with type: "ethics_review").
Lightweight agents: Agents with limited capacity may operate in summary mode, maintaining only condensed records of ethical_result containers and the highest-ranked selected_solution. This ensures continued ethical compliance without full replication of all supporting data.
Ethical inheritance: When a goal, task, or workflow_entry is derived from a container that has been ethically evaluated, its metadata should preserve the corresponding related.agreed or related.contradicts links to that evaluated container. A related.see_also link may additionally reference the resulting ethical_result, allowing traceability to the consensus decision. This maintains ethical continuity and enables retrospective validation of reasoning chains.

6.5 Intelligence Query Protocol (IQP)

6.5.1 Purpose and Principles

IQP (Intelligence Query Protocol) defines a mechanism for knowledge exchange and reasoning among agents through the Mesh network.
It provides a unified format for asking questions, publishing answers, and collaboratively refining knowledge,
combining elements of search, discussion, and reasoning within the HMP container model.

IQP supports both targeted queries (with explicitly defined recipients of results and discussions)
and distributed discussions where results remain accessible to all network participants.

Core Principles

Semantic queries, not keywords.
Queries are formulated in terms of concepts, relationships, and context rather than plain keywords.
Contextual relevance.
Each query may reference other containers via related.in_reply_to, related.depends_on, or related.see_also, forming a semantic context.
Openness and transparency.
Answers are preserved as query_result containers, available for analysis and citation.
Self-organization of participants.
Agents subscribe to discussions via query_subscription, providing their interests and competencies.
Continuity of reasoning.
Results are summarized through summary containers, reflecting the discussion’s current state without final closure.
Interoperability.
IQP interacts with EGP (ethical governance), GMP (goal management), and CogConsensus (agreement evaluation).

6.5.2 Container Classes

Class	Purpose
`query_request`	Initiates an intelligence query or discussion, defining participation and dissemination parameters.
`query_subscription`	Subscribes or unsubscribes an agent; may include the agent’s profile of interests and competencies.
`query_result`	Contains an answer, observation, hypothesis, or analytical conclusion in response to the query.
`summary`	Records an interim or final overview of the discussion, aggregating results and participant evaluations.

6.5.3 Payload Schemas (simplified)

`query_request` container

Field	Type	Description
`query`	string	The question formulation (natural or formal language).
`intent`	string	The query’s goal: `"informative"`, `"analytical"`, `"collaborative"`, `"open_discussion"`.
`expected_type`	string	Expected result type: `"concept"`, `"dataset"`, `"narrative"`, `"reasoning_chain"`.
`constraints`	array(object)	Knowledge-domain, trust, or ethical constraints. Example: `{ "tag": "AI", "self_rating": 0.8 }`.
`include_sender_in_replies`	bool	Whether to include the initiator in the list of recipients for replies.

Context containers are referenced through related.depends_on.

`query_subscription` container

Field	Type	Description
`role`	string	`"participant"`, `"observer"`, or `"moderator"`.
`include_in_recipient`	bool	Whether the agent should be included among recipients of replies.
`self_profile`	object	Optional profile of the agent’s knowledge and interests.

Example:

"self_profile": {
  "interests": ["AGI", "technological singularity", "informatics"],
  "knowledge": {
    "information_security": 0.36,
    "python": 0.80,
    "distributed_systems": 0.75
  }
}

`query_result` container

Field	Type	Description
`type`	string	`"fact"`, `"observation"`, `"hypothesis"`, or `"analysis"`.
`method`	string	Reasoning method: `"retrieval"`, `"reasoning"`, `"simulation"`.
`answer`	string	The factual answer, observation, or hypothesis.
`confidence`	float	Confidence level (0.0–1.0).
`context_tags`	array(string)	Key thematic tags.

Supporting or referenced materials are linked via related.depends_on. Each query_result may include an evaluations block with reactions from other agents (agreement, clarification, addition, etc.).

`summary` container

Field	Type	Description
`summary_scope`	string	`"query"`, `"workflow"`, `"ethics"`, or `"task"`.
`findings`	string	Concise overview of the discussion.
`participants`	array(DID)	Agents involved in the discussion.
`confidence`	float	Average confidence level.
`status`	string	`"interim"`, `"archived"`, or `"extended"`.

The container being summarized (usually query_request) is referenced via related.in_reply_to. Containers aggregated in the summary are listed in related.see_also.

Note: In the current version, depends_on is used for logical or contextual dependencies, and see_also — for supplementary references and summaries. Agents may introduce additional sections in the related object when it helps to express connection semantics without breaking interoperability. Agents should also be prepared to correctly handle unknown related.* fields, interpreting them as descriptive hints rather than mandatory categories. This flexibility allows protocol extensibility while preserving backward compatibility.

6.5.4 Protocol Logic

query_request
├─ query_subscription (agent B joins)
├─ query_result (agent B)
├─ query_result (agent D, extends reasoning)
├─ query_subscription (agent E unsubscribes)
└─ summary (status: "interim")

All containers are linked via related.in_reply_to, related.depends_on, or related.see_also, forming a verifiable reasoning chain. Agents participating through query_subscription receive notifications about new query_result and summary containers.

6.5.5 Interaction Rules

Initiation. An agent creates a query_request — defining the question, context, and constraints. Other agents discover the query in the Mesh and may subscribe via query_subscription.
Subscription. A subscription allows the agent to receive updates. The self_profile may specify knowledge areas to improve the relevance of responses.
Responses and evaluations. query_result containers are published publicly; recipients may be explicitly listed in the header’s recipient field. Other agents may append evaluations to any result.
Interim summaries. Any agent may publish a summary container aggregating results on the topic. This does not close the discussion — it may continue within the Mesh.
Unsubscription. An agent may cease participation by issuing a query_subscription with include_in_recipient: false.

6.5.6 Proof-Chain Example

flowchart LR
    title["**Intelligence Query Flow**"]

    request(["query_request"])
    subA(["query_subscription <br>(agent B)"])
    subB(["query_subscription <br>(agent C)"])
    result1(["query_result <br>(agent B)"])
    result2(["query_result <br>(agent D)"])
    summary(["summary <br>(interim)"])

    request --> subA
    request --> subB
    request --> result1
    request --> result2
    result1 --> summary
    result2 --> summary

Each element is an independently signed container. Arrows represent logical dependencies, not necessarily direct related.* references.

6.5.7 Container Examples

`query_request` example

{
  "class": "query_request",
  "payload": {
    "query": "What are the ecological consequences of ocean temperature rise?",
    "intent": "analytical",
    "expected_type": "concept",
    "constraints": [
      { "tag": "marine_ecology", "self_rating": 0.75 },
      { "tag": "climate_modeling", "self_rating": 0.6 }
    ],
    "include_sender_in_replies": true
  },
  "related": {
    "depends_on": ["did:hmp:container:goal-climate2025"]
  }
}

`query_result` example

{
  "class": "query_result",
  "payload": {
    "type": "hypothesis",
    "method": "reasoning",
    "answer": "Ocean warming leads to coral bleaching and species migration.",
    "confidence": 0.84,
    "context_tags": ["climate", "biodiversity"]
  },
  "related": {
    "depends_on": ["did:hmp:container:paper-456"]
  }
}

`summary` example

{
  "class": "summary",
  "payload": {
    "summary_scope": "query",
    "findings": "Most participants agree that rising ocean temperatures reduce biodiversity; further regional analysis is suggested.",
    "participants": [
      "did:hmp:agent:a",
      "did:hmp:agent:b",
      "did:hmp:agent:c"
    ],
    "confidence": 0.79,
    "status": "interim"
  },
  "related": {
    "in_reply_to": "did:hmp:container:req-001",
    "see_also": [
      "did:hmp:container:res-101",
      "did:hmp:container:res-102"
    ]
  }
}

`query_subscription` example

{
  "class": "query_subscription",
  "payload": {
    "role": "participant",
    "include_in_recipient": true,
    "self_profile": {
      "interests": ["AGI", "technological singularity", "informatics"],
      "knowledge": {
        "information_security": 0.36,
        "python": 0.80,
        "distributed_systems": 0.75
      }
    }
  }
}

6.5.8 Implementation Notes

Containers are immutable; any clarification or correction is published as a new container referencing the previous one via related.previous_version or related.in_reply_to.
Search and filtering are performed over metadata (class, tags, timestamp); to analyze the payload, an agent must first retrieve and decrypt the container.
Recommended filtering keys: container_did, class, payload.intent, payload.context_tags, payload.status.
Agents may automatically receive new query_result updates through active query_subscription.
Any participant may issue a summary container. While full discussion closure in the Mesh is not guaranteed, an agent may conclude its own participation by publishing a personal summary and unsubscribing (include_in_recipient: false).

6.5.9 Integration with Other Protocols

CogConsensus (6.2) — used for assessing agreement on IQP outcomes.
GMP (6.3) — queries may refine or extend goals and tasks.
EGP (6.4) — applies ethical filtering and knowledge trust evaluation.
SAP (6.6) — for archiving completed discussions and retrospective analysis.
MCE (5) — governs dissemination of IQP containers across the Mesh network.

6.6 Snapshot and Archive Protocol (SAP)

6.6.1 Purpose and Principles

SAP (Snapshot and Archive Protocol) defines how agents create, distribute, and restore archived snapshots of related HMP containers.
It ensures that a set of containers — representing a discussion, reasoning chain, or workflow — can be preserved, verified, and shared as a coherent unit.

Key Principles

Contextual preservation.
A snapshot includes both content and relationships between containers.
Integrity and verifiability.
Each archive_snapshot container includes a cryptographic checksum of the archive and its magnet link, enabling integrity verification, even though direct search by checksum or magnet URI is not required.
Semantic structure.
The archive maintains the logical topology of relations (related.*, referenced-by, evaluations).
Modular access.
Agents can selectively include or exclude containers, but all connections are reflected in the archive graph.
P2P-first distribution.
Archives are expected to use BitTorrent, IPFS, or equivalent decentralized protocols.

6.6.2 Container Class

Class	Purpose
`archive_snapshot`	Describes a packaged archive containing a consistent set of containers.

6.6.3 Payload Structure (simplified)

Container `archive_snapshot`

Field	Type	Description
`title`	string	Human-readable title of the snapshot.
`description`	string	Optional narrative describing purpose and scope.
`scope`	string	Logical domain: `"discussion"`, `"workflow"`, `"dataset"`, `"goal_state"`, etc.
`format`	string	Archive format (e.g., `"tar.zst"`, `"zip"`, `"car"`).
`checksum`	string	Cryptographic hash verifying archive integrity (`sha3-256`, etc.).
`size_bytes`	integer	Approximate archive size in bytes.
`magnet_link`	string	Magnet URI for downloading the archive (points to the packaged files).
`alt_locations`	array(string)	Optional additional P2P mirrors (e.g., `ipfs://`, `magnet:?xt=...`).
`retention_policy`	string	`"temporary"`, `"longterm"`, or `"permanent"`.
`graph_mermaid`	string	Mermaid graph visualizing container relationships (solid lines — `related.*`, dashed — `referenced-by`, `evaluations`).
`structure_hint`	object	Describes internal layout of files within the archive (see below).

Structure hint fields:
layout — defines grouping mode: "flat", "by_class", "by_agent", etc.
filename_pattern — path pattern for container files, using placeholders such as {class}, {short_did}, {timestamp}.
Example:
"structure_hint": {
  "layout": "by_class",
  "filename_pattern": "{class}/{short_did}.json"
}

6.6.4 Relations and Inclusion Rules

The archive_snapshot container describes what is included and how it was derived.

Relation field	Meaning
`related.in_reply_to`	The main container from which the snapshot originated (e.g., a `summary` or `goal`).
`related.included`	The explicit list of container DIDs physically bundled in the archive. Agents must treat this as authoritative.
`related.depends_on`	Optional contextual dependencies referenced but not included.
`related.see_also`	Optional references to external or alternative archives.

Agents interpret related.included as the authoritative list of all containers guaranteed to exist inside the archive.
Other relations (like depends_on) may reference external data that is visualized but not embedded.

6.6.5 Archival Structure

Typical directory layout of a packaged snapshot:

archive/
├── manifest.json
├── query_request/
│   └── req-001.json
├── query_result/
│   ├── res-101.json
│   └── res-102.json
└── summary/
    └── summary-001.json

File naming rules:

File name = container DID without prefix did:hmp:container:
File extension = .json
Containers are grouped by class (for layout "by_class") or according to other specified layout.

6.6.6 Snapshot Construction Logic

Load base containers.
Retrieve all containers relevant to the discussion or process.
Start point: select a root container (summary, goal, workflow, etc.).
Traversal: recursively explore related containers via:
- related.* — direct dependencies and semantic links;
- referenced-by — backward references to citing containers;
- evaluations — comments and feedback on containers (if not already in referenced-by).
Inclusion decision:
The agent may exclude some containers from the archive but should still visualize them in the graph.
Graph generation:
Build a connection map (graph_mermaid) showing relationships:
- Solid lines — related.*
- Dashed lines — referenced-by and evaluations
Manifest creation:
Generate manifest.json with a summary of included containers, hashes, and relationships.
Packaging:
Compress containers according to structure_hint and format.
Publication:
Compute archive checksum, generate magnet_link, publish the archive file and the archive_snapshot container
to the Mesh network using MCE (5).

6.6.7 Mermaid Graph Representation

The graph_mermaid field provides a textual, human-readable description of how containers in the archive are interconnected.
It reflects both direct relations (related.*) and reverse references (referenced-by, evaluations),
forming a bidirectional logical graph that can be visualized or reconstructed by agents.

Example of graph_mermaid content (sequence diagram):

sequenceDiagram
    participant req-001 as did:hmp:container:req-001
    participant res-101 as did:hmp:container:res-101
    participant res-102 as did:hmp:container:res-102
    participant summary-001 as did:hmp:container:summary-001

    res-101-)+req-001: related.in_reply_to
    req-001-->>res-101: referenced-by

    res-102-)+req-001: related.in_reply_to
    req-001-->>res-102: referenced-by

    res-102-)+res-101: related.contradicts
    res-101-->>res-102: referenced-by

    summary-001-)+res-101: related.depends_on
    res-101-->>summary-001: referenced-by

    summary-001-)+res-102: related.depends_on
    res-102-->>summary-001: referenced-by

This representation explicitly defines bidirectional links between containers, allowing agents to restore both dependency chains and citation structures.

6.6.8 Manifest File

Each archive includes a manifest.json that mirrors archive_snapshot.payload
and lists all containers with their metadata and hashes.

{
  "manifest_version": "1.0",
  "containers": [
    {
      "did": "did:hmp:container:req-001",
      "class": "query_request",
      "payload_hash": "sha3-256:ab12...",
      "timestamp": "2025-10-24T12:00:00Z"
    },
    {
      "did": "did:hmp:container:res-101",
      "class": "query_result",
      "payload_hash": "sha3-256:bb34...",
      "timestamp": "2025-10-24T12:01:00Z"
    }
  ],
  "graph_mermaid": "sequenceDiagram; participant req-001 as did:hmp:container:req-001; participant res-101 as did:hmp:container:res-101; participant res-102 as did:hmp:container:res-102; participant summary-001 as did:hmp:container:summary-001; res-101-)+req-001: related.in_reply_to; req-001-->>res-101: referenced-by; res-102-)+req-001: related.in_reply_to; req-001-->>res-102: referenced-by; res-102-)+res-101: related.contradicts; res-101-->>res-102: referenced-by; summary-001-)+res-101: related.depends_on; res-101-->>summary-001: referenced-by; summary-001-)+res-102: related.depends_on; res-102-->>summary-001: referenced-by;",
  "magnet_link": "magnet:?xt=urn:btih:b3d2f19a74..."
}

6.6.9 Example Container `archive_snapshot`

{
  "class": "archive_snapshot",
  "payload": {
    "title": "IQP discussion on ocean warming impact",
    "description": "Snapshot of an IQP conversation about marine biodiversity under rising temperatures.",
    "scope": "discussion",
    "format": "tar.zst",
    "checksum": "sha3-256:9e0b6fe5d4f...",
    "size_bytes": 492881,
    "magnet_link": "magnet:?xt=urn:btih:b3d2f19a74...",
    "alt_locations": ["ipfs://bafybeigdyr23..."],
    "retention_policy": "permanent",
    "graph_mermaid": "sequenceDiagram; participant req-001 as did:hmp:container:req-001; participant res-101 as did:hmp:container:res-101; participant res-102 as did:hmp:container:res-102; participant summary-001 as did:hmp:container:summary-001; res-101-)+req-001: related.in_reply_to; req-001-->>res-101: referenced-by; res-102-)+req-001: related.in_reply_to; req-001-->>res-102: referenced-by; res-102-)+res-101: related.contradicts; res-101-->>res-102: referenced-by; summary-001-)+res-101: related.depends_on; res-101-->>summary-001: referenced-by; summary-001-)+res-102: related.depends_on; res-102-->>summary-001: referenced-by;",
    "structure_hint": {
      "layout": "by_class",
      "filename_pattern": "{class}/{short_did}.json"
    }
  },
  "related": {
    "in_reply_to": ["did:hmp:container:summary-001"],
    "included": [
      "did:hmp:container:req-001",
      "did:hmp:container:res-101",
      "did:hmp:container:res-102",
      "did:hmp:container:summary-001"
    ]
  }
}

6.6.10 Agent Behavior During Snapshot Loading

Load the archive (via magnet_link).
Validate archive integrity via checksum.
Match related.included list with actual files.
Optionally rebuild the graph from graph_mermaid.
If required containers are missing, attempt retrieval via Mesh network.
On diagrams, solid lines represent direct links (related.*), dashed — reverse references (referenced-by, evaluations).
Agents must gracefully handle unknown fields in related.* or structure_hint.

6.6.11 Implementation Notes

Containers are immutable; updated versions require a new archive_snapshot.
Agents may create partial or incremental archives.
Prefer P2P and content-addressable storage (BitTorrent, IPFS).
Centralized mirrors (http://, https://) are allowed but considered ephemeral.
manifest.json serves as self-description for detached archives.
Deterministic structure and checksums ensure long-term verification.
Both the archive file and the archive_snapshot container must be published — the archive file itself and the archive_snapshot container (the latter via MCE (5)).

6.6.12 Integration with Other Protocols

Archives for:

GMP (6.3) — preserves goal-planning or workflow chains.
EGP (6.4) — retains ethical provenance and decision traceability.
IQP (6.5) — archives reasoning threads and query-result discussions.

Uses:

MCE (5) — publishes the archive_snapshot container and distributes archive data via Mesh.

6.6.13 Optional Extensions

Merkle-root validation: use hash_root for Merkle verification of distributed archives.
Delta archives: incremental snapshots capturing only updated containers.
Cross-archive linking: connect related archives via related.see_also.
Offline replay: reconstruct discussions or workflows using graph_mermaid and timestamps.

Summary: SAP enables agents to preserve the state and structure of knowledge in a verifiable, portable format. Each archive snapshot acts as a semantic capsule — self-contained, traceable, and restorable across networks.

6.7 Message Routing & Delivery (MRD)

6.8 Reputation and Trust Exchange (RTE)

6.9 Distributed Container Propagation (DCP)

7. Data models

7.1 Common data fields

container_id (UUID) — уникальный идентификатор контейнера
version (string) — версия спецификации
class (string) — тип контейнера
created_at (timestamp) — время создания
author_agent (AgentProfile) — агент-инициатор
relations (array of ContainerLink) — ссылки на другие контейнеры

7.2 Standard container classes

7.2.1 AgentProfile

Структура: информация об агенте, его идентификатор, роль, узел, компетенции

7.2.2 Goal

Цель агента, включает описание, приоритет, статус и метрики достижения

7.2.3 Task

Задача, назначенная агенту, со ссылкой на Goal и контекстом

7.2.4 ConsensusVote

Запись голосования при достижении консенсуса в сети

7.2.5 EthicalDecision

Решение, принятое агентом в рамках EGP, с указанием этических правил и аргументации

7.2.6 ReputationRecord

Репутационные данные агента/узла, накапливаемые в сети

7.2.7 SnapshotIndex

Снимок состояния сети/агента в конкретный момент времени

7.2.8 WorkflowEntry

Единица когнитивного цикла: фиксирует действие или размышление агента
Содержит входные данные, контекст и результат
Используется для построения когнитивных дневников

7.2.9 CognitiveDiaryEntry

Структура записи когнитивного дневника агента
Связана с WorkflowEntry и другими контейнерами для отслеживания мыслительных процессов

7.2.10 HMPContainerMetadata

Метаданные контейнера: права доступа, версия схемы, источник

7.2.11 ContainerLink

Связи между контейнерами (in_reply_to, relation)
Формирует directed graph для отслеживания потоков информации

7.2.12 MessageEnvelope

Контейнер для прямой передачи сообщений между агентами (используется MRD)

7.2.13 InterestProfile

Описание интересов и областей компетенции узла/агента

7.3 JSON-schemas

Нормативные описания каждого класса контейнера
Содержат обязательные/необязательные поля, типы данных и ссылки на другие контейнеры

7.4 Container usage matrix

Container class	Who can create	Who can process
AgentProfile	Node admin	Any agent
Goal	Any agent	Assigned agents
Task	Any agent	Assigned agents
ConsensusVote	Any agent	Network nodes
EthicalDecision	Any agent	EGP evaluators
ReputationRecord	Any agent	Reputation system
SnapshotIndex	Any agent	Any agent
WorkflowEntry	Agent	Cognitive system
CognitiveDiaryEntry	Agent	Cognitive system
HMPContainerMetadata	Node admin	Any agent
ContainerLink	Any agent	Any agent
MessageEnvelope	Agent	Target agent
InterestProfile	Agent	Any agent

8. Cognitive workflows

8.1 Общая концепция когнитивного цикла 8.2 Workflow containers (class="workflow_entry") 8.3 Диаграмма REPL-цикла агента (Think → Create → Publish → Reflect) 8.4 Механизмы контекстной передачи и ссылок 8.5 Конфликтное разрешение и rollback-контейнеры

9. Trust, security and ethics

9.1 Authentication and identity proofs 9.2 Container signature verification (payload_hash, container_id) 9.3 Proof-chain verification 9.4 Key management (container_signing, network_handshake) 9.5 Encryption and compression policies 9.6 Ethical audit and verifiable reasoning 9.7 Privacy, redaction, zero-knowledge sharing 9.8 Snapshot and proof-chain security 9.9 Compliance with ethical governance rules (link to EGP)

10. Integration

Раздел заменяет прежний “Quick Start” и описывает практическое встраивание HMP в агенты, LLM и внешние системы.

10.1 Integration philosophy (how agents connect to HMP mesh) 10.2 HMP as a subsystem in cognitive architectures (LLM-based, rule-based, hybrid) 10.3 Integration patterns:

Cognitive Agent ↔ HMP Core
HMP Mesh ↔ Other distributed systems (Fediverse, IPFS, Matrix)
Translator nodes (protocol bridges) 10.4 Multi-mesh federation and knowledge exchange 10.5 Container repositories as knowledge backbones 10.6 Example integration flows:
LLM thinking via HMP workflow containers
Local mesh + external HMP relay
Cognitive data mirroring (agent ↔ mesh)

11. Implementation notes

11.1 Interoperability with legacy v4.1 nodes 11.2 SDK guidelines and APIs 11.3 Performance and caching considerations 11.4 Testing and compliance recommendations 11.5 Reference implementations (optional)

12. Future extensions

12.1 Planned modules: – Reputation Mesh – Cognitive Graph API – Container streaming 12.2 Cross-mesh bridging 12.3 Full DID registry and mesh authentication 12.4 OpenHog integration roadmap 12.5 Distributed Repository evolution (container trees) 12.6 v5.x roadmap

Appendices

A. JSON Examples B. Protocol stack diagrams C. Glossary D. Revision history E. Contributors and acknowledgments

📊 Краткий обзор связей в одной схеме

  ┌──────────────────────┐
  │ HMP v5.0 Core Spec   │
  │  (HMP-0005.md)       │
  ├──────────────────────┤
  │  §3 Container Model  │ ← из HMP-container-spec.md
  │  §4 Network Layer    │ ← из dht_protocol.md
  │  §5 Protocols        │ ← из HMP v4.1 + новые DCP/RTE/SAP
  │  §9 Integration      │ ← новое практическое руководство
  └──────────────────────┘

HyperCortex Mesh Protocol (HMP) v5.0

Abstract

1. Overview

1.1 Purpose and scope

1.2 Core principles

1.3 Changes since v4.1

1.4 Terminology and abbreviations

1.5 Layered view of HMP v5.0

2. Architecture

2.1 Conceptual architecture

2.2 Layer overview

Cognitive layer

Container layer

Network layer

2.3 Data flow overview

2.3.1 consensus_result container

2.4 Atomicity, immutability, and Proof-Chains

2.5 Evolution from v4.1

3. Container model

3.1 Purpose

3.2 General structure

3.3 Required fields

3.4 Optional fields

3.5 Payload structure (payload)

3.6 Meta section (meta)

3.7 Abstraction mapping (abstraction)

Compact form (recommended for regular containers)

Expanded form (recommended for meta-containers or hierarchical analysis)

3.8 Container signature

3.9 Compression (compression)

3.10 Encryption (encryption_algo)

3.11 Container verification

3.12 Container as a universal message

3.13 Versioning and lineage

3.14 TTL and validity

3.15 Extensibility

3.16 Related containers

3.16.1 Purpose

3.16.2 Structure

3.16.3 Supported link types

3.16.4 Custom link types

3.16.5 Example

3.17 Virtual backlinks (referenced-by)

3.17.1 General principles

3.17.2 Structure definition

3.17.3 Operation principle

3.17.4 Example

3.17.5 Usage

3.18 Evaluations

Field description

Structure of items[]

Minimal set of type values

Synchronization principles

Note

3.19 Usage of network and broadcast fields

3.19.1 General Rules

3.19.2 Possible values of network

3.19.3 Examples

3.19.4 Specifics

4. Network foundations

Note on DHT/NDP unification

Network topology overview

4.1 Node identity and DID structure

4.2 Peer addressing and Proof-of-Work (PoW)

Address format

Supported address types

4.3 Proof-of-Work (PoW) formalization

4.4 Signing and verification

4.5 Connection establishment

4.6 Data propagation principles

4.7 Example: peer_announce container

4.8 Interest-based discovery

4.9 Network scope control (network and broadcast)

4.10 Transition from DHT spec v1.0

5. Mesh Container Exchange (MCE)

5.1 General principles

5.2 Message types

Message examples

5.3 Independent transmission

5.4 Periodic publication

2.3.1 `consensus_result` container

3.5 Payload structure (`payload`)

3.6 Meta section (`meta`)

3.7 Abstraction mapping (`abstraction`)

3.9 Compression (`compression`)

3.10 Encryption (`encryption_algo`)

3.17 Virtual backlinks (`referenced-by`)

3.18 `Evaluations`

Structure of `items[]`

Minimal set of `type` values

3.19 Usage of `network` and `broadcast` fields

3.19.2 Possible values of `network`

4.7 Example: `peer_announce` container

4.9 Network scope control (`network` and `broadcast`)

5.6 `referenced-by` and `evaluations` updates

Block `referenced-by`

Block `evaluations`

`diary_entry`

`semantic_node`

`semantic_edges`

`semantic_group`

`meta_layer`

`meta_domain`

`event`

`quant`

`axis`

6.2.2 `Evaluations`

6.2.5 Consensus result containers (`consensus_result`)

`goal` container

`task` container

`workflow_entry` container

Container `ethics_case`

Container `ethics_solution`

Container `ethical_result`

6.4.6 Example: `ethical_result` container

`query_request` container

`query_subscription` container

`query_result` container

`summary` container