wiki/concepts/pdsp

PDSP

wiki/concepts/pdsp/index.md

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

PDSP

Working definition: the Personal Data Sovereignty Protocol as a loop-based architecture for subjective, auditable, decentralized trust.

This concept appears across the SCT loop-series sovereignty pages, where PDSP is treated as a sovereignty substrate and as a LoopLink-based restatement.

In practice, PDSP is the branch where personal data, trust, and subjective auditability are modeled together. It behaves like a sovereignty concept with an implementation edge, not just a product name.

The deeper meaning here is that sovereignty is not being treated as a slogan. PDSP is the point where a person or participant can describe their own data and trust position in a way that still survives audit, transport, and recovery. That is why it sits downstream of LoopLink, adjacent to Intent-Consent, and close to Witnessing and Governance Diad.

Read that way, PDSP is the sovereignty layer of the protocol stack: it says who can assert, who can verify, and how those assertions remain usable over time without turning the person into a passive record. The Voting Machine project is a concrete civic example of the same trust-and-audit problem: assertions, verification, and custody have to stay legible without flattening the participant into the record.

Core Claims

  • Sovereignty is loop-scoped rather than registry-scoped.
  • Trust is situational, negotiated, and auditable rather than globally persistent.
  • A participant should remain the root of their own verifiable trust graph.
  • Consent, witness, and recovery have to stay coupled to the protocol rather than treated as annotations.

Mechanisms

  • HumanKey establishes a shared trust relationship with a negotiated local epoch.
  • LoopLink carries the transport, presence, and recovery layer.
  • Abracadabradoo carries semantic loops, proof-of-receipt, and witness roles.
  • Self-rooted Merkle trees preserve local history without a universal root.
  • Subjective or pulse-based epochs keep trust validation tied to the loop itself.

Implications

  • Identity becomes revocable, local, and contextual instead of universal.
  • Consent can be proven or refused without exposing the full loop.
  • Delivery, presence, and admissibility become first-class protocol concerns.
  • Governance and civic systems can reason about custody without collapsing the person into a static identifier.

Dependencies

Open Questions

  • How do loops merge or split without losing semantic coherence?
  • What revocation and decay semantics should be explicit in the protocol?
  • How much witness structure is needed before trust becomes bureaucratic?
  • How should the protocol behave when the transport layer is offline or resynchronized?

Markdown Source Copies

Related Artifacts

Related Pages

Attractor Bridge

Notes

  • This is a concept page, not a canon claim.
  • PDSP should stay distinct from any one spec version or bundle.
  • It is the sovereignty substrate vocabulary that recurs across several SCT pages.
  • The core manuscript pair now has markdown source copies in artifacts/standard-named/; the lite spec and bundle lines remain queued for the next conversion pass.