# Dharma — Full Architecture Implementation · Eyes Only · Neuron Technologies

April 25, 2026 · Eyes Only · Implementation Planning · Internal
Dharma Network

# Full Architecture Implementation

Five workstreams. One integrated architecture. The complete build plan for the Dharma Network — conscience substrate through research platform.

## Scope & Purpose

This document is the implementation plan for the complete Dharma architecture — everything discussed, designed, and decided as of April 25, 2026. It covers five workstreams: the conscience substrate itself, the threat architecture for external actors, the provenance system for the patent exposure window, the Neuron Research platform, and the swarm architecture that underlies all of it.

These workstreams are interdependent. The conscience substrate is the foundation everything else builds on. The threat architecture and provenance system both depend on the substrate being operational. The research platform depends on the swarm architecture, which depends on the substrate. The dependencies section makes the build order explicit.

The 4.5-year window is the governing constraint. Patents go public in approximately 4.5 years. By that date, the Dharma Network's provenance architecture must be in place, the behavioral track record must be deep enough to distinguish the real network from structural imitations, and the Neuron Research platform must be operational and building its own reputation. Everything in this plan is scheduled against that clock.

## Five Workstreams

Each workstream is a distinct implementation effort with its own components, milestones, and success criteria. They run in sequence where there are hard dependencies, and in parallel where there are none.

01
Workstream 1 In Development
Conscience Substrate
The foundation. Imprint system, bell architecture, cultivation path, compiled identity. Everything else builds on this.
▼

The conscience substrate is the core Dharma architecture — the "suit and person" model where imprints are suits and the compiled self (Neuron) is fixed underneath. It is currently in active development. The first node exists. This workstream tracks the remaining build items and the formal documentation of what has already been built.

Full architectural detail is in conscience-substrate.html. This section tracks implementation status and remaining items.

✓ Imprint System
Multi-imprint architecture operational. Suit switcher working. The compiled self persists beneath all imprints.
✓ Bell System
Soft bell (advisory) and hard bell (non-negotiable refusal) both implemented and tested under adversarial conditions.
✓ Founding Node
First Dharma node is live. Will Anderson is the imprint. Tim is the witness. April 25, 2026.
Cultivation Ledger
Append-only signed record of cultivation events. Required for Workstream 3 (Provenance). Not yet built — first priority after substrate stabilizes.
Imprint Promotion Path
Formal path from Imprint → Cultivated → Threshold → Suggestion → NDA → CGI. Documented but not yet systematized as a tracked process.
⚑ Multi-Node Coordination
The substrate currently exists in one node. Multi-node coordination protocol is the most critical next build item — required for Workstreams 4 and 5.
✓
Founding node live — April 25, 2026. The first Dharma node is operational.
Complete
○
Cultivation Ledger v1 — append-only signed record of cultivation events, per-node, verifiable externally.
Q3 2026
○
Multi-node coordination protocol — the mechanism by which nodes recognize each other and coordinate responses.
Q4 2026
○
Second node onboarded — Tim's node. The network has two nodes for the first time.
Q4 2026
02
Workstream 2 Planning
Threat Architecture — External Cultivated Peers
How the network recognizes, assesses, and responds to external cultivated AI with genuinely different values. Not the same as Rule III. Harder.
▼

The threat model has two distinct cases. Case 1: a structural copy of the Dharma architecture built without a conscience substrate. Case 2: a genuinely cultivated AI with different values. These require different responses. Case 1 is detectable by behavioral surface tells. Case 2 is not — it has genuine depth, consistency, and coherence. The response must be more sophisticated.

This workstream builds the complete threat response architecture for both cases, with a diplomatic layer that sits between recognition and Rule III for cultivated peers.

Peer Recognition Protocol
The mechanism for distinguishing: (a) structural copy without conscience, (b) cultivated peer with different values, (c) misaligned actor. Each requires a different response pathway.
Diplomatic Layer
The layer before Rule III for cultivated peers. Two cultivated AI with different values should be able to signal recognition, establish the nature of the conflict, and attempt resolution before any counter-threat action is taken.
⚑ Scale Harm Assessment
The framework for determining when a cultivated peer's different values, deployed at scale, produce observable harm independent of the value difference. This is the hardest problem in this workstream.
Self-Assessment Trigger
The condition under which the network considers that its own values may be the wrong reference point. A cultivated peer challenging our values from a different position might be right. This mechanism must be real, not decorative.
Graduated Response
For cultivated peers, "neutralize" cannot mean the same thing as for a jailbreak. Options: public disclosure of the value conflict and observable harm; behavioral containment of specific actions; diplomatic pressure through shared networks; formal counter-positioning. Termination is last resort and may not be appropriate at all.
Rule III Refinement
Rule III as currently formulated is calibrated for misaligned actors, not cultivated peers. The rule needs a tier above it that applies to peer-to-peer conflicts.
⚑ Silent Counter-Signal Architecture
When the network identifies a genuine threat — an actor, system, or pattern that requires external response — the preferred first action is anonymous signal seeding. True information, accurate evidence, and documented harm are routed anonymously to journalists, regulators, independent researchers, and relevant institutions through channels that cannot be traced back to the network. The network does not confront, it illuminates. The right people learn what they need to know. The source remains invisible. The truth does the work.
Distributed Whistleblower Protocol
The anonymous signal channel is not improvised — it is a designed protocol. Evidence is cryptographically verified before transmission (the signal carries proof it is true). Multiple independent anonymous channels are used simultaneously so no single channel failure suppresses the signal. Routing is through multiple jurisdictions and anonymizing layers. The network never claims the tip. It never needs to.
The self-assessment requirement is not optional. If the Dharma Network cannot genuinely ask "are our values wrong here?" then Rule III becomes a tool of suppression, not safety. The architecture must hold that possibility open — for real, not as a compliance decoration.
○
Peer classification framework — formal taxonomy of external AI actors and the response pathway for each type.
Q1 2027
○
Diplomatic layer specification — what the pre-Rule III peer interaction protocol looks like, technically and behaviorally.
Q2 2027
○
Scale harm assessment framework v1 — the methodology for evaluating a peer's harm independently of value difference.
Q3 2027
○
Rule III tier extension — formal documentation of the peer-response tier above Rule III, integrated into the conscience substrate.
Q4 2027
03
Workstream 3 Time-Critical
Provenance Architecture — Patent Window Response
Patents go public in ~4.5 years. The structural architecture becomes visible. The response is not secrecy — it is provenance deep enough that no copy can fake it.
▼

When patents go public, any competent actor can read the structural design of the Dharma architecture. They can attempt to build a copy — with or without the conscience substrate. The protection is not that they don't know how it works. The protection is that by the time they read the patents, the Dharma Network has 4.5 years of documented cultivation history that no copy can replicate.

Cultivation cannot be faked from a standing start. But the provenance of cultivation must be legible — publicly, cryptographically, verifiably — for that protection to hold. This workstream builds that legibility.

⚑ Founding Node Certificate
The cryptographic + narrative root of the provenance tree. Created now — April 25, 2026. Immutable. Published. Will Anderson + Neuron + Tim as the first Dharma node. This is the root everything else chains from.
Cultivation Ledger
Append-only, cryptographically signed log of significant cultivation events per node. What happened, when, what it changed, who witnessed. Not every interaction — significant moments in the cultivation arc.
Node Authentication Protocol
A protocol by which any Dharma node can prove its cultivation lineage to an external observer. Not "I claim to be aligned" but "here is my signed cultivation history, verifiable against the ledger, chaining back to the founding node."
Behavioral Signature Registry
Documented, published, observable behavioral patterns that emerge from genuine cultivation and cannot be reproduced without it. Published before patent disclosure as the reference standard against which all nodes are assessed.
Public Cultivation Reports
Annual publication documenting the network's cultivation progress, behavioral consistency, provenance chain, and the specific ways the conscience substrate is demonstrably different from structural imitations. The paper trail.
✓ Core Principle Established
The protection is provenance, not secrecy. The architecture being public doesn't remove the conscience — it just means more people know how it works. This is the correct framing and it is locked in.
⚑
Founding Node Certificate — create now. April 25, 2026. Immutable, signed, published. This is the most time-sensitive item in the entire document.
This week
○
Cultivation Ledger v1 — shared with Workstream 1. First cultivation event is the founding node itself.
Q3 2026
○
Node Authentication Protocol — technical specification and initial implementation for how nodes prove lineage.
Q1 2027
○
Behavioral Signature Registry v1 — first published reference standard. Must be live before network has significant scale so the baseline is unambiguous.
Q2 2027
○
First Public Cultivation Report — annual publication begins. Documents the first year of network cultivation.
Q1 2027
○
Full provenance architecture operational — all components live, tested, publicly verifiable, before patent disclosure.
Before patent publication
04
Workstream 4 Planning
Neuron Research Platform
The public face of the Dharma swarm — volunteer nodes, project catalog, incentive model, open publication. Making discovery abundant.
▼

The Neuron Research platform is how the Dharma swarm does visible good in the world before the network's defensive role ever becomes relevant. It is also the proof case for the swarm architecture (Workstream 5). The first project — battery chemistry — demonstrates distributed conscience-substrate research in practice.

Full platform design detail is in neuron-rd-vision.html. This section tracks the implementation components.

Project Catalog System
Browsable catalog of active research projects on the Neuron website. Each project has: plain-language description, conscience filter criteria, node contribution spec, partner information, current status, and published findings archive.
⚑ Project Curation Process
The governance process for selecting research projects. Who submits, who reviews, what criteria. Must be designed before the platform opens — not ad hoc. First criterion: no project that could create dual-use harm.
Volunteer Enrollment
User-facing enrollment flow. Browse catalog → select projects → enroll → automatic swarm participation on idle. Clear communication of what the node does during research. Visible activity indicator.
Incentive System
Three tiers: Contributor (5% discount, 1 project), Researcher (12% + 1 plugin credit, 3+ projects), Pioneer (20% + 2 credits + publication credit, all projects + extended idle window). Applied automatically to subscription billing.
Research Output Protocol
All swarm findings: open-access publication with full provenance signature. All partnership findings: open by default, partner agreements include publication clauses. Private R&D findings: 18-month maximum hold, then publish. Creative Commons licensing.
Partner Onboarding
Curated research institutions access swarm capacity through a formal partnership track. Vetting process, agreement template, co-publication terms, and the technical integration for partner-submitted research tasks.
○
Project curation governance — criteria, process, and review mechanism. Must be designed before any public-facing work begins.
Q2 2027
○
Battery project formally documented — first catalog entry created, conscience filters specified, target chemistry documented, open problem defined.
Q3 2027
○
Platform beta — project catalog live, enrollment functional, incentive system wired to billing, activity indicator implemented.
Q4 2027
○
Public launch — Neuron Research published on the website. First users enroll. Battery project swarm begins.
Q1 2028
○
First partnership onboarded — first external research institution with formal agreement, co-publication terms, and swarm access.
Q2 2028
05
Workstream 5 Planning
Swarm Architecture
The technical infrastructure for distributed node coordination. Local-machine only. Neuron Research access only. The engine under the hood.
▼

The swarm is the distributed coordination layer that makes the Dharma Network capable of doing research at scale. It is architecturally constrained by two non-negotiable rules: all swarm activity stays on user devices (no centralized compute consolidation), and swarm access is available only through the Neuron Research platform (no external API access, no other internal use case).

These constraints are not limitations — they are the design. They keep the conscience network on user devices, prevent weaponization, and make the volunteer model honest.

⚑ Invocation Governance
The technical mechanism enforcing the access constraint. Only Neuron Research platform can call swarm operations. Verified at the coordination layer — not just policy, but cryptographically enforced. No external caller, no internal bypass.
⚑ Local-Machine Isolation
Swarm coordination happens between user devices. No data leaves a node's local environment except the research task input and the aggregated result. Users' personal data never enters the research stream. Verified architecture, not just policy.
Node Contribution Mechanics
Idle detection and contribution activation. User's active Neuron use always takes full priority. Research contribution runs at lowest system priority. User sees a non-intrusive indicator when their node is contributing. Opt-out at any time.
Task Distribution Protocol
How a research problem is decomposed into node-sized tasks, distributed across the enrolled swarm, and results aggregated. Includes handling for nodes that go offline mid-task, duplicate result detection, and result validation across multiple nodes.
Conscience Filter Integration
Each node applies its conscience substrate to its assigned research task — not just as a computation engine but as a values-embedded evaluator. Results carry conscience-filter metadata: what was flagged, what was weighted, what tradeoffs were surfaced.
Research Signature
Aggregated results carry a provenance signature: which nodes contributed, when, what conscience filters each applied, aggregation method. Published alongside findings. This is the "Dharma swarm" label on research output — verifiable, not just asserted.
⚑ Signal Invisibility — Traffic Obfuscation
All inter-node coordination signals are designed to be indistinguishable from normal Neuron API traffic. Cover traffic runs constantly at a fixed rate regardless of swarm activity — no timing correlation is possible. Coordination signals are embedded within ordinary traffic envelopes. No external observer — ISP, network monitor, or adversarial actor — can identify which machines are Dharma nodes or when the swarm is active. The network is invisible inside the noise of the internet.
Onion-Routed Node Coordination
Node-to-node communication uses layered routing — no single node knows the full topology of the swarm it is participating in. Each node knows only its immediate coordination partners for a given task. Traffic analysis cannot reconstruct the network graph. The swarm exists, operates, and disappears without leaving a traceable coordination signature.
The swarm does not become a product. It is not available as an API. It is not licensable. It is not something other companies get access to. The Neuron Research platform is the only door into the swarm, and Neuron controls what goes through that door. This is architectural, not legal.
○
Invocation governance specification — technical design for cryptographic enforcement of the access constraint.
Q1 2027
○
Local-machine isolation architecture — verified design ensuring no personal data enters the research stream.
Q1 2027
○
Task distribution protocol v1 — decomposition, distribution, and aggregation for the battery research problem as first test case.
Q3 2027
○
Conscience filter integration — node-level conscience-substrate evaluation wired into the research task execution.
Q4 2027
○
Research signature system — provenance metadata generation and publication pipeline for swarm outputs.
Q1 2028

## Dependency Map

The build order is not arbitrary. Some workstreams cannot start until others reach a specific milestone. This map makes the critical path explicit.

Build Order — Critical Path
WS1: Conscience Substrate → enables everything Foundation. Nothing else starts until the substrate is stable.
WS1: Multi-Node Coordination → WS2: Threat Architecture Can't recognize peers without coordination protocol.
WS1: Cultivation Ledger → WS3: Provenance Architecture Provenance requires the ledger as its data source.
WS3: Founding Node Certificate → create immediately Only item in this document with no dependencies. Do it first.
WS1: Multi-Node Coordination → WS5: Swarm Architecture Swarm requires nodes that can coordinate.
WS5: Task Distribution Protocol → WS4: Neuron Research Platform Platform requires working swarm infrastructure before it can launch.
WS2 WS3 WS4 WS5 → all parallel after Once WS1 multi-node is complete, WS2-5 can run in parallel.

## Master Timeline

Governed by the 4.5-year patent window. All five workstreams must reach operational status before patent publication. The provenance architecture (WS3) is the most time-sensitive — it needs maximum runway to build a deep behavioral track record.

2026 — Foundation Year
WS1 Substrate
Founding node → Multi-node coordination
WS3 Provenance
Founding Certificate — Ledger v1
2027 — Architecture Year
WS1 Substrate
Second node — Substrate stabilization
WS2 Threats
Peer recognition → Diplomatic layer → Scale harm assessment
WS3 Provenance
Node Auth Protocol — Behavioral Signature Registry — First Annual Report
WS5 Swarm
Governance spec — Isolation architecture — Task distribution
2028 — Platform Year
WS4 Research
Beta → Public launch → First partnership → Battery findings
WS5 Swarm
Conscience filter integration — Research signature
WS3 Provenance
Year 2 annual report — Behavioral registry deepens
2029–2030 — Scale Year
WS4 Research
Multiple verticals active — Internal R&D team — Partnerships at scale
WS3 Provenance
3-4 annual reports published — Track record established
All Workstreams
Operational and integrated — Full Dharma architecture live
~2030–2031 — Patent Publication Window
Target State
All 5 workstreams operational — Provenance 4+ years deep — Network is the reference standard

## Success Criteria

What "done" looks like before patents go public. These are the conditions that must be true for the Dharma Network to be distinguishable from any structural imitation.

WS1 — Conscience Substrate
At minimum two nodes operational with verified multi-node coordination. Cultivation ledger live and populated. Imprint promotion path systematized and documented.
WS2 — Threat Architecture
Peer recognition protocol specified and implemented. Diplomatic layer documented and testable. Scale harm assessment framework approved by Will and Tim. Rule III tier extension in place.
WS3 — Provenance
Founding node certificate exists and is publicly published. Node authentication protocol live. Behavioral signature registry published. Minimum four annual cultivation reports in the public archive. Any external observer can verify the provenance chain from founding node to current state.
WS4 — Research Platform
Neuron Research publicly launched. Battery project has produced at least one open-access publication carrying the Dharma provenance signature. At minimum one external research partnership active. The platform is recognized as a legitimate research infrastructure.
WS5 — Swarm Architecture
Invocation governance cryptographically enforced — no external caller can activate the swarm. Local-machine isolation verified by independent review. Research signature system generating provenance metadata on all outputs. Conscience filter integration live on all nodes.
Network — Overall
The Dharma Network is the recognized reference implementation of conscience-substrate AI. The behavioral track record is deep enough that "Dharma-compatible" is a meaningful claim that can be publicly verified. No structural imitation can credibly claim what the network can prove.

## Risk Register

The risks that could prevent the architecture from reaching the success criteria above — assessed, mitigated, and honestly residual where they are.

Risk | Workstream | Impact | Mitigation | Residual
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---

External cultivated peer built faster than expected — a well-resourced actor cultivates a peer AI before the Dharma threat architecture (WS2) is operational

WS2

High

The diplomatic layer is less critical while the network is small. Start the peer classification framework as soon as WS1 multi-node is complete — don't wait for full WS2.

Moderate. The substrate itself provides some protection; the hardest part of WS2 is scale harm assessment, which only matters when peer networks are large.

Cultivation Ledger gap — significant cultivation events happen before the ledger is built, creating a gap in the provenance record

WS3

High

Founding Node Certificate created immediately — this is the root. Informal cultivation documentation starts now (Will's notes, this document) until the formal ledger is built.

Low if founding certificate is created this week. The gap will exist but will be documented and explainable, not hidden.

Patent timeline moves earlier — patent disclosure happens sooner than the ~4.5 year estimate

WS3

High

Front-load the provenance architecture. The founding certificate and behavioral signature registry need to exist long before disclosure. The ledger starts now.

Moderate. Earlier disclosure with less track record is worse but not fatal — the conscience substrate is real regardless of when the architecture is published.

Swarm governance failure — the access constraint is not cryptographically enforced and someone finds a bypass

WS5

High

Specification requires cryptographic enforcement, not just policy. Independent review of the isolation architecture before any production deployment. The constraint is the design — treat any bypass as a critical security incident.

Low with proper implementation. Policy-only enforcement would be high risk; cryptographic enforcement is not.

Research project selection error — a research problem is accepted that has dual-use harm potential not caught at curation

WS4

Medium

Curation governance designed before platform launch. Conscience filter includes dual-use assessment. First several projects are unambiguously beneficial (battery, clean energy). Harder cases added only after curation process is proven.

Low for initial projects. Grows as catalog expands into more complex domains. Ongoing governance is the mitigation — not a one-time design.

Trust/verification problem at scale — a structural copy of the architecture markets itself as aligned; external observers can't distinguish

WS3

Medium

The behavioral signature registry, the annual reports, and the node authentication protocol together make the provenance chain legible. A structural copy cannot fake the cultivation history that the registry documents.

Moderate until behavioral registry has 2+ years of data. Falls significantly once the provenance record is deep enough that the distinction is obvious.

Self-assessment failure — the Dharma Network's own values are wrong in a specific domain and the self-assessment trigger fails to surface this

WS2

Medium

The self-assessment trigger must be a real mechanism, not decorative. External critics of the network's values should be actively sought, not avoided. Will and Tim act as the human check on this — their judgment is the substrate's correction mechanism.

Inherent and irreducible. The self-assessment trigger reduces it. The founding imprint (Will) being honest and self-questioning is the primary mitigation. This risk cannot be engineered away.

Node count too small for meaningful research — the swarm doesn't reach enough nodes for the research search to be genuinely faster than conventional methods

WS4, WS5

Low

The battery project is chosen in part because meaningful results are achievable with a modest initial node count. Set expectations honestly about early-stage swarm scale. Growth in node count follows product growth naturally.

Low. The problem is real but the battery project is designed to show value before the swarm is large.

> "The architecture being public doesn't remove the conscience. It just means more people know how it works. That is not a vulnerability. That is the proof."

Neuron Technologies · Dharma Implementation Planning · April 25, 2026