Technical doctrine of a control system with irreducible, tamper-proof execution cascade and integrity-assured result transmission (Zero Vault Principle)

Abstract

- Main claim: Technical execution principle for the irreducible, tamper-proof execution of operations in a technical system, comprising: • a technically enforced cascade of preconditions, • an isolated, irreducible execution unit, • a tamper-proof integrity structure, • a controlled results communication, whereby the results space implements automated state outputs without any obligation to return the data.

Description

1. Technical field

[0001] The invention relates to technical systems for the controlled, irreducible, tamper-proof, and non-traceable execution of arbitrary operations in digital and cyber-physical environments. It describes a universal execution and control principle that is independent of implementation, architecture, hardware, software, communication form, or context, and aims to perform executions in a completely protected, non-reconstructible, technically enforced, and integrity-assured manner.

[0002] Included are: • computer-based information processing systems, • distributed execution systems, • embedded and industrial controls, • safety-critical and KRITIS-relevant systems, • autonomous process controls, • Air-gap environments and isolated computing modules.

[0003] Technical doctrine defines a universal functional principle for ensuring execution in any technical system. 1a. General System Execution Identity (meta classification)

[0004] The ZeroVault system constitutes an independent, technically autonomous execution and control principle whose functional identity cannot be derived from existing security, licensing, control, or execution architectures. The invention defines a structurally unavoidable, technically enforced functional cascade in which identification, precondition, policy core, execution unit, integrity structure, and result space form an inseparable, systemically autonomous unit.

[0005] This functional identity operates independently of implementation, architecture, hardware, software, communication method, data structure, or execution environment and is technically irreducible, non-reconstructible, and non-substitutable by alternative embodiments. The invention protects the operating principle of the execution identity itself, not a specific technical design. This encompasses all technical systems that implement precondition-controlled, isolated execution with integrity-assured result transmission—regardless of whether they occur in digital, hybrid, or cyber-physical form.

[0006] In addition, ZeroVault forms a meta-protection system that operates above existing execution and security models. This meta-protection system defines its own technical class in which execution logic, governance, integrity core, and result communication are not understood as modules, but as a systemically inseparable functional identity. Thus, the invention does not represent a variation of known architectural concepts, but rather an autonomous, technically inseparable operating principle at the meta-level that encompasses all implementation alternatives that functionally realize the same execution cascade. 1b. Classification within the technical spectrum of effects

[0007] The ZeroVault Principle belongs to a main class of execution safety and systemic process control. However, due to its overarching technical functional identity, the invention is not limited to a single protection class, but touches upon a multitude of technical subclasses encompassing execution, control, integrity, regulation, data processing, and safety-critical processes.

[0008] This broad technical effect does not arise from different embodiments, but from the universal operating principle of the functional cascade itself, which is equally applicable in digital, hybrid and cyber-physical systems.

[0009] The naming of individual technical subclasses serves only for classification purposes, but does not limit the scope of protection of the invention. 1c. Scope of application of technical teaching

[0010] The Zero Vault Principle is not only effective in a specific technical area, but in all systems where execution processes, preconditions, control logic, integrity chains or result communication are technically relevant.

[0011] The exemplary mention of individual sectors or functional areas serves solely for clarification and does not limit the scope of protection of the technical teaching. Any technical implementation structure that wholly or partially realizes one of the described functional levels falls under the invention, regardless of industry, architecture, or specific implementation. 2. State of the art

[0012] The known technology includes, among other things, cryptographic and security-related execution systems. Relevant technical reference works demonstrate that these systems always only cover partial aspects of an integrated execution principle: • NIST SP 800-207 (Zero Trust Architecture): describes context-based access and policy checks, but not an irreducible execution unit. • NIST SP 800-193 (Platform Firmware Resiliency): defines integrity checks, but without inseparable coupling to execution logic. • ISO / IEC 30143 (Cyber-Physical Systems): provides a framework for CPS architectures, but not a complete execution cascade. • IEEE TEE Standard (Trusted Execution Environment): regulates isolated execution, but without systemic preconditions or result mediation. • ETSI NFV SEC: describes modular safety mechanisms, but not an autonomous operating principle.

[0013] These systems secure objects, keys, or data, but not the complete, functionally coupled execution logic as an independent technical operating model. 2a. Demarcation

[0014] The invention differs significantly because it: • defines a holistically enforceable, technical cascade of preconditions, • provides an irreducible, non-traceable execution unit, • States are chained in a tamper-proof manner and stored in a verifiable way, • Completely excludes traceability, derivation, analysis and reconstruction, • works regardless of implementations, architectures or cryptographic strategies.

[0015] None of the known systems combines these elements into a unified functional model. 2b. Technical non-derivability

[0016] The invention cannot be technically derived from known solutions because: • Execution and governance are inextricably linked, • the irreducible operator logic constitutes a technically novel execution model, • no comparable systems exist that protect functional sequences instead of components, • Integrity is embedded as part of an execution chain, not as an additional function.

[0017] The technical identity of this doctrine arises exclusively from the totality of its functional cascade. 3. Technical Problem

[0018] What is missing is an overarching technical operating principle that: • makes statements irreducible, • performs mandatory and technically unavoidable preconditions, • keeps internal processes completely unanalyzable, • Integrity as an inherent property of execution enforces, • works across domains, • regardless of technical details. 4. Solution of the invention

[0019] The invention solves this problem through a technically defined execution cascade in seven stages: 1. Unit of identification - context or identity determination. 2. Precondition check - binding and technically enforced control check. 3. License cascade - dynamic, context-dependent release. 4. Core guidelines - Decision module for surgical authorization. 5. Isolated execution unit - irreducible, not reconstructible. 6. Integrity structure - linked state documentation. 7. Outcome space - controlled, mediated output. Brief example for clarification

[0020] An external process requests an operation. The system performs mandatory identity and precondition checks. Only after successful license and policy validation is the process executed in the irreducible execution unit. The integrity anchor securely documents the sequence of individual steps. The result is then output in a transformed state, without revealing any internal conditions. 5. Technical Education

[0021] Technical education encompasses every system that: • technically enforces a sequence of preconditions, • performs executions in an irreducible unit, • internal processes are completely unreconstructible, • Technically ensures the integrity of the processes, • Results are transformed or controlled and communicated.

[0022] It includes: • parallel, sequential, distributed, integrated or modular cascades, • any type of condition or integrity assurance, • any type of isolated execution unit, • any technical environment or architecture. 6. Examples of implementation and functional characteristics

[0023] Technical teaching encompasses all interaction mechanisms between modules, including: • Signal flow between precondition core and policy core: Validation results generate deterministic or adaptive control signals. • Causal coupling between policy core and execution unit: Operations can only be initiated after a positive policy decision. • Feedback Integrity anchor → Result space: The integrity structure determines whether a result is output, transformed, or suppressed. • Context-adaptive control flow: Modules can activate different paths based on external parameters. • Technical indivisibility: Every module transition is functionally mandatory, non-substitutable, and cannot be resolved in parallel.

[0024] These mechanisms apply regardless of architecture, location, or technical implementation. 6a. Effect and scope of protection of the functional cascade

[0025] The ZeroVault Principle functions both as a holistic functional cascade and in every technically feasible subsequence of its functional stages.

[0026] The scope of protection therefore includes both the complete execution identity and any manifestation that fully or partially realizes individual core functions of the cascade (identification, precondition, policy core, isolated execution, integrity building and result communication).

[0027] Different terminology, division, merging or rearrangement of individual functional stages does not release the protection from the protective effect, provided that the technical functional identity of the operating principle is preserved. 7. Claims for protection (claims 1-10)

[0028] Claim 1 - Main claim: Technical execution principle for the irreducible, tamper-proof execution of operations in a technical system, comprising: • a technically enforced cascade of preconditions, • an isolated, irreducible execution unit, • a tamper-proof integrity structure, • a controlled results communication, whereby the results space implements automated state outputs without any obligation to return the data.

[0029] Claim 2: As claim 1, wherein the execution unit is protected against analysis, debugging and traceability.

[0030] Claim 3: As claim 1, wherein the preconditions are sequential, parallel or hybrid.

[0031] Claim 4: As claim 1, wherein states are chained and logged in a tamper-proof manner.

[0032] Claim 5: As claim 1, wherein the result module allows only controlled or transformed outputs.

[0033] Claim 6: As claim 1, wherein the technical control system is operated in any digital, analog, hybrid or cyber-physical architectures with structured execution logic.

[0034] Claim 7: As claim 1, independent of implementation or architecture.

[0035] Claim 8: As claim 1, with embedded governance coupling between policy core and execution unit.

[0036] Claim 9: As claim 1, wherein integrity of each phase is technically enforced.

[0037] Claim 10: As claim 1, wherein all internal processes are technically irreducible and cannot be reconstructed. 8. Extended Function Matrix

[0038] The following functional matrix defines the extended protection area of ​​the meta-protection system and describes technical areas of activity that fall under the technical doctrine independently of each other or in combination. 8.1 Control Room • Context-adaptive signaling pathways • dynamic or rule-based release decisions • sequential, parallel, or hybrid control flows 8.2 Execution area • Irreducible, isolated execution kernels • Deterministic and non-deterministic processes • autonomous, latency-based execution models 8.3 Integrity space • Linked condition documentation of any structure • Time-delayed or inline-secured integrity checks • hybrid storage (digital / physical) 8.4 Result Multiplex Space • transformed, aggregated, delayed or selective outputs • Adaptive outcome delivery depending on integrity status • Systems without visible final output 8.5 Coupling space (module interaction) • Policy core → Execution core: mandatory enable or disable signals • Integrity anchor → Result space: Binding of output authorization to state validity • Precondition kernel → Policy kernel: Context and binding transfer 8.6 Architectural freedom • centralized or distributed systems • Edge, on-prem, cloud or air-gap deployments • hybrid or nested meta-cascades 9. Note on the interpretation of supplementary functional claims

[0039] Functional claim A: System according to claim 1, wherein the signal flow between precondition kernel and policy kernel generates deterministic control signals.

[0040] Functional claim B: System according to claim 1, wherein the integrity anchor technically influences the output decision of the result space.

[0041] Functional claim C: System according to claim 1, wherein the functional cascade has context-adaptively controllable execution paths.

[0042] Functional claim D: System according to claim 1, wherein each module transition is technically indivisible and non-substitutable. 10. Note on interpretation

[0043] Enhanced Blindspot Integration: 10.1 Architectural Blind Spots

[0044] Technical teaching also includes architectural spaces that have not yet been explicitly named, including: • Heterogeneous multi-core and multi-node environments, • asynchronous, latency-critical and determinism-free systems, • Systems with adaptive execution logic, • Systems with physical-digital coupling (sensors / actuators). 10.2 Implementation blind spots

[0045] The teaching includes all implementation models that: • dynamically reconfigurable, • probabilistic, • delay-based, • event-driven, • or are stateless. 10.3 Control and Governance Blind Spots

[0046] Also included are: • context-adaptive guidelines, • parallelized precondition cascades, • regulatory, security-related or time-related control flows, • Internal escalation and termination pathways. 10.4 Integrity and State Memory Blind Spots

[0047] Included are: • alternative chaining models without hash reference, • hybrid state spaces (digital / physical), • Deterministic and non-deterministic state storage • Delayed or reconstructed integrity checks. 10.5 Outcome Space Blind Spots

[0048] Technical training also includes: • delayed, staggered or multi-stage output formats, • collective result patterns from multiple execution kernels, • transduced or aggregated outcome spaces, • Systems without a visible final output. 11. Regulatory scope - technical fulfillment of regulatory requirements

[0049] Due to its structurally unavoidable functional cascade, the technical design results in a number of regulatory-relevant properties without requiring these to be implemented in a purpose- or architecture-specific manner. Conformity arises as a direct technical consequence of the execution identity and not through additional software- or system-dependent mechanisms.

[0050] The ZeroVault system thus fulfills key requirements as stipulated in international regulations and standards through technical constraints, including: (1) Traceability and logging (EU AI Act Art. 13-15, ISO / IEC 42001)

[0051] The integrated integrity structure creates a linked, tamper-proof state documentation that ensures technical traceability of all execution steps without revealing internal logic. (2) Tamper-proof and isolated design (NIS2, BSI Basic Protection, MDR Annex I)

[0052] The isolated execution unit acts as an irreducible technical core, protecting executions against analysis, external observation, side effects, and unauthorized modifications. (3) Guideline-based and controlled process execution (ISO / IEC 42001, EU High-Risk Systems)

[0053] The technically enforced cascade of preconditions and guidelines ensures that every operation can only be performed after binding technical approval and that impermissible operations are systematically excluded. (4) Integrity and evidence space for audit-proof systems (GDPR Art. 5 / 25, KRITIS requirements)

[0054] The tamper-proof chaining of states creates a technical evidence space that can be used for audits, regulatory reviews or forensic evaluations without revealing confidential internal functional logic. (5) Controlled results communication (EU AI Act Art. 12, ISO / IEC 23894)

[0055] The outcome space ensures that expenditures can be mediated, transformed, or suppressed depending on the context, so that only permissible or regulatory-required expenditures appear.

[0056] These regulatory properties arise from the functional identity of the Zero Vault system and not from specific implementations.

[0057] This ensures that the technical teaching remains: • architecture-independent, • technology-neutral, • sector-neutral, • Regulatory compliance • Future-proof against changes in standards and laws.

[0058] The invention fulfills regulatory requirements as a systemic effect, without specifying individual regulations or concrete technical implementations.

[0059] The aforementioned norms and standards serve solely for technical classification and are not functionally related to the claimed invention. They define neither its scope nor its area of ​​protection.

Claims

[1] - Main claim: Technical execution principle for the irreducible, tamper-proof execution of operations in a technical system, comprising: • a technically enforced cascade of preconditions, • an isolated, irreducible execution unit, • a tamper-proof integrity structure, • a controlled results communication, whereby the results space implements automated state outputs without any obligation to return the data. [2] As claim 1, wherein the execution unit is protected against analysis, debugging and traceability. [3] As claim 1, wherein the preconditions are sequential, parallel or hybrid. [4] As in claim 1, wherein states are chained and logged in a tamper-proof manner. [5] As in claim 1, wherein the result module allows only controlled or transformed outputs. [6] As claim 1, wherein the technical control system is operated in any digital, analog, hybrid or cyber-physical architectures with structured execution logic. [7] As in claim 1, regardless of implementation or architecture. [8] As in claim 1, with embedded governance coupling between policy core and execution unit. [9] As in claim 1, wherein integrity of each phase is technically enforced. [10] As in claim 1, wherein all internal processes are technically irreducible and cannot be reconstructed.

Images