<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="no"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
     ipr="trust200902"
     docName="draft-singh-apex-psi-06-01"
     category="info"
     xml:lang="en">

<front>
  <title abbrev="PSI-06 Inception-Lock Protocol">
    PSI-06: Inception-Lock Protocol for Human-Originated Data Signals
  </title>
  <author initials="K." surname="Singh" fullname="Kawaljeet Singh">
    <organization>Apex Intelligence Empire</organization>
    <address>
      <postal>
        <city>Balaclava, Victoria</city>
        <country>Australia</country>
      </postal>
      <email>kawaljeet.singh3008@gmail.com</email>
      <uri>https://apex-infrastructure.com</uri>
    </address>
  </author>
  <date year="2026" month="August" day="10"/>
  <abstract>
    <t>
      PSI-06 specifies an inception-lock protocol that cryptographically
      anchors a raw human-originated data signal (keystroke, biometric,
      survey response, application screen capture, trip acceptance
      timestamp) to a signing key at the point of capture.  The protocol
      prevents tampering with source data between capture and submission,
      enabling verifiable proof of what a user was shown and when they
      saw it.  Receipts are protected by a hybrid dual-signature scheme
      combining Ed25519 (classical) and ML-DSA-65 (post-quantum), making
      the evidence chain resistant to both classical and quantum
      adversaries.  This is critical for accountability proceedings
      involving algorithmic platforms, where the information displayed
      to the user may differ from the information recorded by the
      platform.
    </t>
  </abstract>
</front>

<middle>
  <section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">
    <t>
      Human-originated data is the most vulnerable point in any
      integrity chain.  When a platform displays a time estimate of
      "55 min, $25" without qualifying language such as "estimated",
      the user's experience of that moment diverges from the platform's
      later recorded data.  PSI-06 defines an inception-lock that signs
      the signal at the point of capture, before any processing or
      storage, enabling the user to prove what they saw and when.
    </t>
    <t>
      This has direct application to algorithmic accountability
      proceedings.  In the case of gig-economy dispatch platforms,
      workers accept task offers based on displayed time and earnings
      estimates.  The platform's recorded data may differ from what was
      displayed.  The inception-lock protocol closes this evidentiary
      gap with a receipt that the platform cannot alter.
    </t>
  </section>

  <section anchor="requirements" title="Requirements Language">
    <t>
      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
      NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
      "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
      described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/>
      when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
    </t>
  </section>

  <section anchor="protocol" title="Protocol">
    <t>The capture device MUST:</t>
    <ol>
      <li>Canonicalise the raw signal with RFC 8785 (JCS).</li>
      <li>Sign the canonicalised signal with an Ed25519 key provisioned
        in hardware or in a trusted execution environment.</li>
      <li>Sign the same canonicalised signal with an ML-DSA-65
        post-quantum key, forming a hybrid dual signature.</li>
      <li>Emit an inception-lock receipt before returning control to
        the capturing application.</li>
    </ol>
    <t>The receipt MUST include:</t>
    <ul>
      <li>signal_digest: SHA-256 of the canonicalised signal.</li>
      <li>device_id: hardware-bound public key fingerprint.</li>
      <li>captured_at: RFC 3339 timestamp with microsecond precision.</li>
      <li>application_id: identifier of the capturing application.</li>
      <li>display_hash: SHA-256 of the screen content at capture time.</li>
      <li>signature_classical: Ed25519 signature over all preceding fields.</li>
      <li>signature_pq: ML-DSA-65 signature over all preceding fields.</li>
    </ul>
  </section>

  <section anchor="receipt-format" title="Receipt Format">
    <sourcecode><![CDATA[
{
  "psi":                "06",
  "signal_digest":      "<sha256 hex>",
  "device_id":          "<hardware-bound public key fingerprint>",
  "captured_at":        "<RFC 3339 microsecond precision>",
  "application_id":     "<app bundle identifier>",
  "display_hash":       "<sha256 hex of screen content>",
  "signature_classical":"<Ed25519 base64url>",
  "signature_pq":       "<ML-DSA-65 base64url>"
}
]]></sourcecode>
  </section>

  <section anchor="verification" title="Verification">
    <t>
      A verifier MUST recompute the SHA-256 digest over the canonicalised
      signal and validate BOTH signatures.  A receipt failing either
      signature check MUST be treated as unsealed and MUST NOT be
      admitted into an integrity chain.  Implementations MAY additionally
      anchor the receipt digest in a public PSI-04 ledger to obtain an
      independent third-party timestamp.
    </t>
  </section>

  <section anchor="use-case" title="Use Case: Algorithmic Platform Accountability">
    <t>
      When a gig-economy worker accepts a task offer, the application
      displays time and earnings figures.  The inception-lock captures:
    </t>
    <ul>
      <li>The displayed time estimate (e.g., "55 min").</li>
      <li>The displayed earnings estimate (e.g., "$25").</li>
      <li>The absence of qualifying language (e.g., "estimated",
        "approximately").</li>
      <li>The exact timestamp of acceptance.</li>
    </ul>
    <t>
      This creates a cryptographically verifiable record of what the
      worker was shown at the moment of decision.  The platform's
      internal records of what was displayed can be compared against the
      inception-locked evidence; discrepancies become provable in
      formal proceedings.  Because the receipt carries a hybrid
      dual signature, the evidence chain remains valid across the
      post-quantum transition horizon of such proceedings.
    </t>
  </section>

  <section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
    <t>
      The inception key MUST reside in hardware-backed secure storage
      (TPM 2.0, Secure Enclave, or equivalent).  Software-only keys are
      acceptable for evidentiary purposes but MUST be disclosed to the
      trier of fact.  The hybrid scheme protects against harvest-now,
      decrypt-later adversaries: the ML-DSA-65 signature remains valid
      even if Ed25519 is later broken by cryptographically relevant
      quantum computers.
    </t>
    <t>
      The protocol does not prevent the platform from altering its
      internal records.  It creates an independent chain of evidence
      that the platform cannot alter.
    </t>
  </section>

  <section anchor="privacy" title="Privacy Considerations">
    <t>
      The inception-lock receipt contains no personally identifying
      information beyond the device identifier.  Implementations SHOULD
      support pseudonymous device identifiers that cannot be linked to a
      natural person without additional information held solely by the
      user.
    </t>
  </section>

  <section anchor="iana-considerations" title="IANA Considerations">
    <t>This document has no IANA actions.</t>
  </section>
</middle>

<back>
  <references>
    <name>References</name>
    <xi:include href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8032.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8785.xml"/>
    <reference anchor="FIPS204" target="https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/204/final">
      <front>
        <title>Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard</title>
        <author><organization>NIST</organization></author>
        <date month="August" year="2024"/>
      </front>
    </reference>
    <reference anchor="PSI04" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-singh-apex-psi-04/">
      <front>
        <title>PSI-04: Evidentiary Document Integrity</title>
        <author initials="K." surname="Singh" fullname="Kawaljeet Singh">
          <organization>Apex Intelligence Empire</organization>
        </author>
        <date month="July" year="2026"/>
      </front>
    </reference>
  </references>
</back>

</rfc>
