FxChain Foundations
The implemented local foundations of FxChain for deterministic processing, verifiable preservation and independent reconstruction - with their evidence and limits made explicit.
What has been built
A reading guide to implemented local reconstruction: its responsibilities, the evidence behind it and the limits of that evidence.
Independent reconstruction
Rebuild a bounded history through separate paths, then compare their observations without giving either path authority by default.
Keeping a history, reconstructing its state and comparing observations are distinct responsibilities. A technical evaluation must examine both a result and the conditions under which it was obtained.
This section explains those responsibilities, states what evidence supports them and marks - just as carefully - what that evidence does not establish.
One preserved history
Explicit starting boundary and bounded scope
Oracle path
An observation derived within the declared scope
Engine path
A separate observation of the same preserved history
Comparison without automatic authority
Agreement, disagreement or refusal - no default winner
Conceptual responsibility map, not a live execution trace. Agreement does not establish universal correctness.
Where the foundations sit
The reviewed reconstruction foundations belong to the same sealed development line the rest of the portal reports on. The figures are a dated snapshot, not a live counter.
7
protocol eras sealed
D0-D6
372
capability crossings
sealed development line
48/48
conformance checks
deterministic runs
Why a stored result is not an explanation
Three ways a preserved result can look complete and still explain nothing.
Reading back is not accounting for
A stored result confirms what was written. It does not show that the sequence behind it is complete, that the same rules were applied, or that an independent path would reach the same state.
Repeating the same code repeats the same mistake
Running one implementation twice reproduces its assumptions, its input defects and its misread rules. Only a separate path can disagree.
A digest identifies bytes, not correctness
A hash proves that material is unchanged. It does not prove that a process ran correctly, nor that the material was sufficient to begin with.
One history, two paths, an explicit comparison
Reconstruction turns a stored result into something that can be examined without trusting its producer.
- 1
Preserve
A bounded history is kept with an explicit starting boundary.
- 2
Declare
The scope, the assumptions and the rules each path will apply are stated first.
- 3
Reconstruct
Two independent paths - oracle and engine - each derive their own observation.
- 4
Compare
The observations are confronted. Neither path is authoritative by default.
- 5
Report
Agreement, disagreement or refusal is recorded as what it is, never as a verdict.
What is real, stated plainly
Proven today
- Bounded reconstruction of a preserved history, implemented locally
- Two independent reconstruction paths: an oracle path and an engine path
- An explicit comparison that reports agreement, disagreement or refusal
- Continuity and state-commitment checks on the reconstructed material
- Internal acceptance and differential review records for the examined scope
In development
- This public explanation of the foundations
- Alignment of the public vocabulary with the protocol organs
Later gates
- A public reproduction package with source and materials
- An independent external audit of the reviewed scope
- Re-review against the latest development baseline
- Any deployment: devnet, then testnet, then mainnet
Not claimed
- No distributed network and no consensus finality
- No production throughput and no financial-service availability
- No regulatory compliance and no licence
- Agreement between paths is not proof of universal correctness
Proven today, or practised on the lineIn development / qualifiedDirection: planned or researchLater gateNot claimed
Where reconstruction sits among the protocol organs
A conceptual map of the eight named responsibilities. It is not an execution order, a trace of a running deployment or evidence about any single organ.
FxWire
Input boundary
Receives outside messages without granting them authority.
Refuses: Malformed transport, ambiguous sender context and messages that try to smuggle execution power through the network layer.
Read the dossierFxIntent
Declared meaning
Declares meaning before execution.
Refuses: Open-ended power, missing constraints, expired instructions and claims whose meaning cannot be audited before execution.
Read the dossierFxCore
Admissibility
Judges admissibility before power.
Refuses: Unauthorized authority, invalid account powers, missing evidence and claims outside the current protocol constitution.
Read the dossierFxCell
Causal unit
Packages a claim as a causal execution unit.
Refuses: Hidden dependencies and claims that cannot declare enough structure to be ordered safely.
Read the dossierFxDAG
Ordering responsibility
Orders causality without pretending conflicts disappeared.
Refuses: Silent reordering, extraction-prone ambiguity and conflicts buried as mere timing accidents.
Read the dossierFxVM
Execution responsibility
Executes deterministically with observed receipts.
Refuses: Nondeterministic behavior, undeclared access and runtime authority not earned by the previous gates.
Read the dossierFxState
State commitments
Commits transitions as evidence, not authority.
Refuses: Authority without receipts, state changes without replay material and undocumented exceptions.
Read the dossierFxBlock
Preserved capsule
Seals results and refusals together.
Refuses: History that hides rejected claims, incomplete proof material and blocks that cannot explain their own boundaries.
Read the dossierFive questions this section answers
The order in which an evaluator can read the foundations, and where each answer lives.
- 1What has been built
What works today?
Bounded local reconstruction of a preserved history, through two independent paths, with an explicit comparison.
- 2Reconstruction chapter
What concrete problem does it address?
A stored result that cannot account for itself: it can be read back, but not examined without trusting its producer.
- 3Evidence & limits
What evidence can be examined?
A public scope note describing the subject, the method and the supported conclusion of an internal review.
- 4What the evidence does not establish
What does that evidence not establish?
No network, no finality, no throughput, no external audit and no certification of the latest branch.
- 5Discuss an evaluation
What can you actually request?
A bounded technical discussion. Not a licence, a production endpoint or a delivery date.
The dossiers beyond the organs
Every dossier states what is proven today, what is in development and what is not claimed. The organ dossiers are linked above; these develop the discipline, the direction and the vocabulary.
Engineering discipline
Direction
Reference
Technical evaluation
Discuss a bounded subject, its method and its evidence. An enquiry does not grant a licence, a production endpoint or a delivery date.