wiki/projects/semantic-collapse-theory/loop-series/pdsp-and-sovereignty/pdsp-core

PDSP Core

wiki/projects/semantic-collapse-theory/loop-series/pdsp-and-sovereignty/pdsp-core/index.md

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

PDSP Core

Parent lineage: Semantic Collapse Theory / Loop Series / PDSP and Sovereignty

This cluster covers the base Personal Data Sovereignty Protocol and its LoopLink-based architectural restatement.

Current Shape

  • 2 core sovereignty protocol documents.

Representative Files

Working Read

This is the sovereignty substrate: the base PDSP protocol and its LoopLink-based architectural restatement.

This page is the core identity-and-control layer of the PDSP branch. It describes the protocol as a sovereignty substrate, meaning the page should be read as the base model for how personal data, trust, and subjective auditability are held together. The LoopLink restatement shows the protocol being made concrete rather than merely named.

It also sits between LoopLink transport and the broader SCT governance layer, which is why it should remain linked to the origin and economy branches as well as to its own subpages. The markdown source copies now live in artifacts/standard-named/, so this page can prefer the source conversion over the intake-archive DOCX pair. The related PDSP-lite specs and integration bundles have markdown source copies in the sibling cluster, so the core page can stay focused on the protocol pair itself.

Core Claims

  • PDSP is a sovereignty substrate, not just a naming scheme.
  • Trust graphs should be local to the participant and still remain auditable.
  • A loop can carry both meaning and proof without collapsing into a registry.
  • LoopLink makes the transport and presence layer explicit.

Mechanisms

  • HumanKey establishes the initial trust relationship and local epoch.
  • LoopLink ratchets presence and keeps the exchange loop-scoped.
  • Abracadabradoo carries declarations, receipts, and witnessable semantic loops.
  • Self-rooted Merkle trees retain local provenance and selective disclosure.

Implications

  • Consent and witness must be part of the protocol, not external annotations.
  • Civic and medical systems can reuse the same trust substrate.
  • Presence, revocation, and recovery become part of the trust model instead of after-the-fact metadata.

Dependencies

Open Questions

  • What revocation semantics should the core surface expose?
  • How much of the witness model belongs in the substrate versus the bundle layer?
  • Can loop states be migrated without weakening provenance?
  • What is the minimum trust material needed for a participant to re-enter the graph?

Related Links

Next Actions

  1. Keep the core protocol pair together.
  2. Split only if a new sovereign protocol variant appears.