TTP EXTENSION · REVOCATION PROPAGATION

Validation against a stale authority view ≠ current authorization.

A verifier can have a locally self-consistent proof registry and still be behind current authority. Consequential decisions therefore need authority-view currentness evidence, not only local rule validation.

Canonical rule

PROOF P
↓
READ REGIONAL AUTHORITY VIEW V_local
↓
RESOLVE / VERIFY AUTHORITATIVE GENERATION G_now
↓
V_local.generation >= G_now ?
├─ no → STALE AUTHORITY VIEW → HOLD
└─ yes
   ↓
CHECK RULE STATUS / DIGEST / GENERATION
   ↓
ACTIVE + CURRENT?
├─ no → REJECT / REPROVE
└─ yes
   ↓
EVALUATE PROOF SCOPE NOW
   ↓
CURRENT OWNER ADOPTS
   ↓
FENCED COMMIT
   ↓
PROVE ORIGIN → PROPAGATION → VIEW CURRENTNESS → PROOF → EFFECT

I79–I82

• I79 — Validation against a stale authority view ≠ current authorization.
• I80 — Revocation propagation is part of the consequence safety boundary.
• I81 — Regional authority views must prove currentness against a monotonic authoritative generation or hold.
• I82 — Split-brain authority verdicts require fail-closed reconciliation before consequence.

Minimal decision

IF proof.static_bindings_valid
AND local_view.generation >= authoritative_generation
AND local_rule.id == proof.rule_id
AND local_rule.digest == proof.rule_digest
AND local_rule.status == ACTIVE
AND local_rule.generation == proof.rule_generation
AND proof.scope_holds_now
AND current_execution_authority_is_valid
THEN eligible for adoption
ELSE hold / reconcile / reprove / recompute

LOCAL CONSISTENCY ≠ AUTHORITY CURRENTNESS.