Automatic closed-loop release of trusted executable analyzer modules from a trusted knowledge snapshot
Authors
- Prozorov A.A., Director of Technology, RTLAB; Architect, Sbertech; ap@rtlab.ru;
Abstract
Objective: This paper defines a governed release contour for trusted executable analyzer modules, closing the operational gap between a trusted knowledge snapshot and release-bound analyzer artifacts that can be deployed, replayed, and reviewed.
Method: The paper is a methodological systems article with bounded release-pipeline evidence. It separates semantic closure, compiled bundle production, release candidate construction, release gates, receipt generation, signed release evidence, release manifest capture, and deployment handoff. External sources ground regulated-software lifecycle discipline, risk-control framing, quality-system traceability, provenance and audit-event analogies, canonical digests, schema-constrained evidence, SBOM structure, artifact signing, container image identity, software lifecycle, configuration management, secure software development, and supply-chain boundary vocabulary [1-14].
Results: The article specifies an artifact-bound release gate that joins the trusted knowledge snapshot, compiled bundle, analyzer release candidate, release receipt, signed release evidence, release manifest capture, release-wave compatibility, and deployment handoff. The release contour makes analyzer modules reviewable without turning release automation into semantic authority or claiming continuous supply-chain assurance.
Conclusion: A governed release contour turns trusted executable knowledge into reviewable analyzer modules while preserving separate semantic, release, deployment, runtime, and evidence responsibilities.
Keywords: governed release; trusted knowledge snapshot; executable analyzer module; release candidate; release receipt; signed release evidence; release manifest capture; release wave; deployment handoff; auditability
Abbreviations And Terminology
Trusted knowledge snapshot: An authorized snapshot that is accepted as the semantic input to release. In this paper, it may be accompanied by closure-ready diagnostic evidence, but it is not created or repaired by the release process.
Governed release: A controlled publication point where compiled analyzer artifacts, release evidence, and promotion decisions are accepted as a bounded execution set for deployment, replay, and review.
Release candidate: A candidate analyzer module set assembled from a trusted knowledge snapshot, compiled bundle, service image, configuration evidence, test evidence, SBOM material, and publication metadata before promotion.
Release gate: A machine-checkable or reviewer-controlled condition that must pass before a release candidate can advance. Gates in this paper include schema, digest, reproducibility, test, sanitizer, SBOM/vulnerability, signature, receipt, and promotion checks.
Promotion gate: The reviewer-facing control point that accepts or rejects the transition from release candidate to released deployment set. Promotion is a release decision, not semantic approval.
Release receipt: A release-bound receipt that identifies the accepted compiled execution set and its publication evidence, including image identity, bundle digest, configuration fingerprint, SBOM digest, and test-evidence references.
Signed release evidence: Release evidence whose receipt, image, SBOM, or related evidence artifacts are bound to signature material according to the declared release policy. In this paper, signing supports reviewable release evidence; it is not a supply-chain level or conformance claim.
Release manifest capture: A release-governance evidence artifact that captures release-wave compatibility facts, including release manifest digest, analyzer module identity, Runtime library or Compute core compatibility digest, image digest, and optional snapshot digest.
SBOM: A software bill of materials used here as release evidence for software component and dependency inventory. SBOM material supports release review and vulnerability gating; it does not by itself prove supply-chain trust.
Deploy-image compliance report: Release/deployment evidence that checks image digest, runtime entrypoint posture, expected controls, and evidence availability before deployment handoff.
Blocked release evidence: Evidence emitted when a release gate blocks promotion. Blocked release evidence is a useful review artifact, not a partial release.
Waiver evidence: Evidence that records a governed exception to a release gate or policy requirement. A waiver must be explicit and reviewable; it must not be silent acceptance of missing machine evidence.
Release wave: A governed compatibility scope in which multiple analyzer modules are expected to agree on a shared Runtime library or Compute core compatibility basis.
Deployment handoff: The transfer from governed release outputs to deployment selection and runtime materialization. The handoff carries expected bundle digest, release receipt, configuration fingerprint, image identity, and evidence references into the deployment contour.
Global invariant: The release contour is not semantic authority. It packages, checks, signs, records, promotes, and hands off released analyzer modules; it does not authorize graph semantics, perform direct graph or triple-store mutation, validate clinical efficacy, or close diagnostic remediation.
Introduction
Executable-knowledge systems need more than a trusted knowledge snapshot and a compiled bundle. A reviewer must also be able to determine which analyzer module was released, which image and configuration were accepted, which tests and evidence gates passed, which SBOM was attached, which signature policy was satisfied, and which deployment contour received the released set. Without that release contour, a runtime anomaly may be indistinguishable from a stale bundle, unsigned artifact, receipt drift, release-wave mismatch, or deployment handoff failure.
This paper describes the governed release contour between semantic closure and analyzer execution. It explains the release artifacts, gates, evidence controls, and deployment handoff that make analyzer modules reviewable. It does not define the clinical meaning of terms, mutate the authorized graph, run the analyzer request path, or provide the continuous supply-chain assurance owned by the companion trust-chain paper.
The contribution is an artifact-first release pattern for executable analyzer modules. It makes release evidence digest-bound, reviewer-visible, and compatible with later runtime evidence projection, while preserving one semantic authority and keeping release automation within its own responsibility boundary.
Companion Articles
Authorization and diagnostic contour as universal infrastructure for executable-knowledge development and governance owns diagnostic classification, remediation packets, governed graph-update requests, authority write evidence, rebuilt snapshots, closure evidence, and human closure decisions. This paper starts only after that upstream path has produced a trusted knowledge snapshot or closure-ready input suitable for release.
Implementing a stream analyzer for mixed named features and oscillograms owns stream/session/window architecture and stream evidence projection. Stateless rule-based analyzer for mixed named features and oscillograms owns request-local analyzer service architecture. This paper packages and promotes analyzer modules for those contours; it does not redefine their runtime execution behavior.
End-to-end codified-term traceability for debugging and auditing the compiler and executable modules owns registry/trace joins and runtime evidence joins. This paper carries release-bound identifiers and digests that make those joins reviewable after deployment.
Continuous chain of trust in the automatic closed-loop release of executable analyzer modules owns long-running trust continuity and supply-chain assurance. The present paper stops at governed release gates, release receipts, signed release evidence, release manifest capture, and deployment handoff.
Instant health assessment through an ECG example: interpreting mixed named terms and ECG oscillograms owns domain interpretation and ECG knowledge-graph claims. Release evidence in this paper is infrastructure evidence, not cardiology validation.
Materials And Methods
The paper is a methodological systems article with bounded release-pipeline evidence. The internal authoring basis consists of release-pipeline plans, release-receipt specifications, release manifest capture schemas, deploy-image compliance reports, diagnostic-contour release evidence, authorized snapshot and compiled bundle specifications, analyzer runtime papers, and the shared terminology canon. These internal materials guide the manuscript but are not cited as public references.
The external reference set is deliberately compact. IEC 62304 and ISO 13485 ground regulated-software lifecycle and quality-system traceability [1,3]. ISO 14971 grounds risk-control framing without converting release evidence into clinical safety proof [2]. PROV-O and FHIR AuditEvent provide provenance and structured audit-event analogies for evidence records [4,5]. RFC 8785 and JSON Schema 2020-12 ground canonical digest and schema-constrained receipt/evidence framing [6,7]. CycloneDX, Sigstore/cosign, and the OCI Image Specification ground SBOM, signing, and container image identity vocabulary used by the release contour [8-10].
The release-engineering vocabulary is also tied to general software-engineering sources. ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207 supplies the software lifecycle frame; IEEE 828 supplies configuration-management, configuration item, build, and release-engineering terminology [11,12]. NIST SSDF grounds secure software development and vulnerability-management framing for the SBOM/vulnerability gate [13]. SLSA is cited only to locate the boundary with the companion trust-chain paper: this article does not claim a SLSA level, conformance posture, in-toto layout, or end-to-end attestation chain [14].
Governed Release Overview
The governed release contour begins after the semantic authority path has produced a trusted knowledge snapshot and any closure-ready evidence required for release. That input is compiled into a bundle, combined with analyzer module packaging, evaluated through release gates, materialized as a release receipt, signed according to the declared release policy, captured into release manifest capture evidence for compatibility review, and handed to deployment as a released deployment set.
Lifecycle spine: trusted knowledge snapshot and closure-ready evidence → compiled bundle → analyzer release candidate → release gates → release receipt → signed release evidence → release manifest capture → deployment handoff → runtime evidence readiness.
Figure 1. Governed release lifecycle contour. The release lifecycle begins from trusted semantic inputs and closure-ready evidence, then moves through compilation, analyzer packaging, gate evaluation, receipt generation, signing, release manifest capture, release-wave compatibility review, and deployment handoff. A failed gate produces blocked release evidence rather than a partial release. The final output is readiness for deployment and runtime evidence, not semantic approval.
Figure 1 separates two directions that are often blurred. Upstream authority produces the trusted knowledge snapshot; release automation consumes it. Downstream runtime contours consume the released deployment set; they do not retroactively change what the release authorized.
Table 1. Release artifacts, responsibilities, and authority boundaries.
| Artifact or surface | Producer | Consumer | Purpose | Authority boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trusted knowledge snapshot | Governed semantic authority path | Compiler and release contour | Supplies the semantic basis accepted for release. | Release automation does not create or repair it. |
| Closure-ready diagnostic evidence | Diagnostic contour | Release reviewer and release gates | Shows that upstream closure prerequisites are satisfied for the release scope. | It is not a promotion decision by itself. |
| Compiled bundle | Compiler / Plane contour | Analyzer release candidate | Materializes executable knowledge, registry/trace projections, and lineage evidence for runtime packaging. | It does not select deployment or prove clinical efficacy. |
| Analyzer release candidate | Release pipeline | Release gates and reviewer | Assembles image, compiled bundle, configuration evidence, test evidence, SBOM material, and publication metadata. | It is not released until gates and promotion pass. |
| SBOM material | Build/release evidence surface | Release gates and reviewer | Lists release-relevant software components and dependencies for review and vulnerability gating. | It is not a complete trust-chain proof. |
| Test and sanitizer evidence | Release pipeline | Release gates and reviewer | Demonstrates bounded implementation checks for the candidate. | It does not validate clinical performance. |
| Deploy-image compliance report | Release pipeline / deployment evidence contour | Promotion gate and deployment handoff | Checks image digest, expected controls, runtime entrypoint posture, and evidence availability. | It does not deploy the service. |
| Release receipt | Release pipeline | Reviewer, deployment handoff, diagnostic contour | Binds image identity, bundle digest, config fingerprint, SBOM digest, test refs, and release metadata. | It is not semantic authority and must not contain PHI or secrets. |
| Signed release evidence | Signing/evidence contour | Promotion gate and deployment handoff | Records signature-bound evidence for receipt, image, SBOM, or related artifacts. | It supports release review; it is not full continuous chain-of-trust proof. |
| Release manifest capture | Release evidence contour | Plane diagnostic contour and release-wave review | Captures release-wave compatibility facts and release manifest digests. | Plane consumes this evidence; it does not synthesize release identity. |
| Promotion decision | Human/reviewer-controlled release governance | Release pipeline and deployment handoff | Accepts or rejects the candidate as a released deployment set. | It does not approve semantic changes. |
| Released deployment set | Release governance | Deployment/runtime contour | Provides the bounded execution set for deployment, replay, and review. | It is not runtime execution evidence until deployed and observed. |
Trusted Knowledge Snapshot And Release Inputs
The release contour consumes trusted inputs; it does not produce semantic authority. The minimum input set is a trusted knowledge snapshot, the compiled bundle derived from it, lineage or receipt evidence showing how the bundle was produced, and closure-ready diagnostic evidence when the release scope depends on a governed remediation cycle. Additional inputs include analyzer packaging material, deployment configuration, release policy, test evidence, SBOM material, and expected signing policy.
Input acceptance is fail-closed. If the trusted knowledge snapshot digest is missing, the compiled bundle cannot be joined to the snapshot, the closure evidence is stale, or the release candidate carries a different bundle than expected, the release must stop with blocked release evidence. That evidence is useful: it lets reviewers classify the issue as an upstream closure gap, compilation gap, packaging gap, or release-policy gap.
Release Candidate Composition
The release candidate is the first place where semantic, compiler, analyzer, deployment, and evidence identities become one reviewable set. In configuration-management terms, it is a candidate configuration item set and build-output set prepared for gate evaluation, not yet a release package or released deployment set [11,12]. It includes the trusted knowledge snapshot digest, compiled bundle digest, analyzer image identity, image digest, configuration fingerprint, Runtime library or Compute core compatibility digest, SBOM material, test and sanitizer evidence, deploy-image compliance report, release policy, signing policy, and promotion metadata. SBOM, signing, and image-identity sources support this composition vocabulary, while schema and digest sources make the release candidate reproducible enough for review [6-10].
The candidate is not yet a release. It is a bounded object for gate evaluation. Its composition must make it clear whether a failure belongs to semantic input selection, compilation, image construction, configuration, dependency inventory, test evidence, signature policy, or deployment handoff preparation.
Release Gate Model
Release gates turn a candidate into a reviewable release decision. Schema gates check that release receipts, release manifest capture artifacts, SBOM material, deploy-image compliance reports, and evidence manifests conform to declared schemas [7]. Digest gates check that trusted knowledge snapshot, bundle, image, SBOM, and receipt identities are stable and reproducible, with canonical JSON digesting where JSON receipts are used [6]. Reproducibility gates compare independent materialization paths or declared build fingerprints. Test and sanitizer gates attach bounded implementation evidence. SBOM/vulnerability gates make dependency inventory and vulnerability posture visible [8,13]. Signature gates bind image, receipt, SBOM, or evidence artifacts to declared signing policy [9]. Together, these gates express lifecycle, configuration-management, and quality-system release discipline rather than clinical validation [1,3,11,12].
The release gate model uses common software-engineering roles without replacing them. Configuration items and build outputs are evaluated against a release policy; a release receipt acts as this project’s compact release record and join surface; the promotion gate records the release promotion decision; and release manifest capture contributes configuration status accounting for later review. None of these controls is a supply-chain level or conformance claim [12,14].
Promotion is the reviewer-facing gate. A release candidate may pass automated gates and still be held for human release review when policy requires it. Conversely, a human reviewer cannot waive missing machine evidence silently; the waiver itself must become waiver evidence, and the risk-control rationale for the exception must remain explicit [2].
Release Receipt And Signed Evidence
The release receipt is the compact join surface for release review. It records the release identity, analyzer module identity, source revision or equivalent provenance reference, image digest, compiled bundle digest, configuration fingerprint, SBOM digest, test evidence references, release time, and policy version. In common configuration-management vocabulary, it functions as the project’s release record; it does not replace the broader configuration-management system or supply-chain assurance process [11,12,14]. It should be small enough to inspect and stable enough to hash, sign, archive, and attach to deployment evidence [6-10].
Signed release evidence binds release artifacts to the declared signing policy. The contour may sign the receipt, the image, the SBOM, and evidence bundles; it may also record signature verification results before promotion. Sigstore/cosign provides the signing vocabulary used here, while the paper deliberately stops short of claiming SLSA conformance, supply-chain levels, in-toto provenance layout, or transitive dependency trust [9,14]. That fuller continuity question belongs to the companion trust-chain article.
Release receipts and signed evidence must not contain PHI, raw waveform material, private keys, credentials, or unbounded logs. They carry identifiers, digests, references, policy outcomes, and bounded evidence summaries.
Release Manifest Capture And Release-wave Compatibility
Release manifest capture records the release-wave facts needed for compatibility review. A release wave is a governed compatibility scope: multiple analyzer modules may be released together only when their declared Runtime library or Compute core compatibility digest agrees with the wave policy. The capture also records release manifest digest, image digest, analyzer module identity, configuration fingerprint, and optional snapshot digest.
The diagnostic contour consumes release manifest capture evidence when it classifies runtime or deployment anomalies. A mismatch between stateless and stream analyzer modules inside the same release wave is release integrity evidence, not a semantic graph defect. Plane may correlate the evidence, but it does not synthesize release-wave identity or repair the release.
Deployment Handoff
Deployment handoff transfers the released deployment set to the deployment/runtime contour. The handoff includes release receipt, signed release evidence references, image identity, expected bundle digest, configuration fingerprint, release manifest capture, and deployment policy references. The service host uses these values to verify startup materialization and to carry release-bound evidence into runtime result, audit, debug, metric, and evidence-projection surfaces.
The handoff does not deploy by itself. Deployment selects and materializes the released set in a concrete environment; runtime evidence later shows what actually ran. If deployment selects a different image, bundle, or configuration than the released handoff declares, the resulting evidence should classify the issue as a release/deployment mismatch rather than a semantic or runtime-computation defect.
Release Evidence Controls
Release evidence must remain bounded and inspectable. Release receipts, signed release evidence, release manifest capture, deploy-image compliance reports, and blocked release evidence should carry identifiers, digests, references, policy outcomes, and bounded evidence summaries. They must not carry PHI, raw waveform material, private keys, credentials, unbounded logs, or payload dumps.
Evidence retention and waiver evidence are part of the release contract. A release gate failure may block promotion, and a governed exception may allow promotion only when waiver evidence records what was waived, who accepted the exception, which risk-control rationale applies, and which downstream review obligations remain. Runtime debug and runtime evidence are downstream surfaces; they are not reconstructed from the release receipt, and they do not repair missing release evidence [2,4,5].
Digest And Evidence Continuity
Figure 2. Digest and evidence continuity. Digest continuity starts from the trusted knowledge snapshot and compiled bundle, continues through image identity, SBOM identity, configuration fingerprint, release receipt, signed release evidence, release manifest capture, and deployment handoff, and ends in runtime evidence joins. Each edge is a reviewer-facing join point; a missing or mismatched digest becomes classifiable release evidence.
The figure shows why the release receipt is central. It does not replace the underlying artifacts, but it makes their identities inspectable and portable across promotion, deployment, and later diagnostic review.
Release Wave Compatibility And Diagnostic Handoff
Figure 3. Release wave compatibility and diagnostic handoff. A release wave policy binds stateless and stream analyzer candidates to the same declared Runtime library or Compute core compatibility basis. Compatible candidates can be promoted into a released deployment set; mismatches become release integrity diagnostic signals for classification rather than graph-authority defects.
The diagnostic handoff is intentionally narrow. It gives downstream reviewers enough evidence to decide whether a runtime issue is caused by release-wave mismatch, stale deployment, missing evidence, or another class of problem. It does not automatically remediate the release or mutate semantic authority.
Table 2. Bounded implementation evidence and residual gaps.
| Evidence item | Current claim | Reviewer meaning | Residual gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Release-pipeline gate model | The release contour can express schema, digest, reproducibility, test, SBOM/vulnerability, signature, and promotion gates. | Reviewers can see where a candidate was accepted or blocked. | This paper does not claim organization-wide release governance maturity. |
| Release receipt | Receipt evidence binds image identity, bundle digest, configuration fingerprint, SBOM digest, and test references. | Analyzer results can later be joined to the accepted release basis. | Receipt content must remain aligned with actual deployment evidence. |
| Signed release evidence | Receipt, image, SBOM, or related artifacts can be bound to declared signature policy. | Reviewers can verify that signing policy was applied to release artifacts. | Continuous trust-chain proof is deferred to the trust-chain article. |
| Release manifest capture | Release-wave compatibility facts can be materialized for diagnostic review. | Runtime-library or Compute core mismatch can be classified as release integrity evidence. | Capture evidence must not be mistaken for semantic authority. |
| Deploy-image compliance | Image digest, runtime entrypoint posture, control expectations, and evidence availability can be checked before handoff. | Deployment reviewers can distinguish image compliance from analyzer runtime behavior. | Actual runtime observations still require deployment and evidence projection. |
| Analyzer handoff | Released deployment set carries expected bundle digest and configuration fingerprint into runtime startup verification. | Runtime evidence can explain stale bundle or config mismatch. | This paper does not implement the stream or stateless analyzer paths. |
| Release evidence controls | Release evidence carries identifiers, digests, references, policy outcomes, and bounded summaries without secrets, PHI, raw waveform material, or payload dumps. | Reviewers can inspect release decisions without turning release artifacts into data stores. | Retention and waiver policy must remain governed outside the manuscript. |
Table 3. Key risks and mitigations.
| Risk | Failure mode | Mitigation in the release contour |
|---|---|---|
| Stale snapshot | A release candidate uses an older or unclosed trusted knowledge snapshot. | Snapshot digest, closure-ready evidence, and compiled-bundle lineage must match before release gates pass. |
| Unsigned artifact | Image, receipt, SBOM, or evidence is promoted without required signature material. | Signature gates block promotion or emit explicit waiver evidence. |
| SBOM/vulnerability gate failure | Dependency inventory or vulnerability posture is invisible or unacceptable. | SBOM material and vulnerability gate outcomes become release evidence. |
| Receipt drift | Receipt claims no longer match image, bundle, SBOM, or configuration. | Digest checks and receipt signing make drift visible before promotion or at deployment handoff. |
| Runtime-library mismatch | Stateless and stream analyzer modules use incompatible Runtime library or Compute core material inside one release wave. | Release manifest capture records compatibility digests and produces a release integrity diagnostic signal on mismatch. |
| Release/deployment mismatch | Deployment selects an image, bundle, or configuration not accepted by release. | Deployment handoff carries expected image, bundle digest, receipt, and configuration fingerprint. |
| Secret or PHI leakage | Release evidence accidentally includes credentials, private keys, PHI, raw signal material, or payload dumps. | Release evidence controls limit receipts and companion artifacts to identifiers, digests, references, policy outcomes, and bounded summaries. |
| Trust-chain overclaim | Release evidence is mistaken for continuous supply-chain assurance or a supply-chain level claim. | Limitations and companion boundaries reserve supply-chain levels, attestations, and transitive trust for the trust-chain paper. |
| Semantic-authority confusion | Release automation is treated as approval of graph semantics. | The global invariant keeps semantic approval upstream of release gates. |
Worked Release Scenario
Consider a release wave that packages both a stateless analyzer and a stream analyzer from the same trusted knowledge snapshot. Upstream governance has produced closure-ready diagnostic evidence, and the compiler has produced a compiled bundle with lineage evidence. The release contour starts by checking that the trusted knowledge snapshot digest, compiled bundle digest, and closure-ready evidence refer to the same release scope.
The release pipeline then assembles two analyzer release candidates. Each candidate carries analyzer image identity, image digest, configuration fingerprint, Runtime library or Compute core compatibility digest, SBOM material, test and sanitizer evidence, deploy-image compliance report, release policy, and signing policy. At this stage the candidates are reviewable objects, not released modules.
Gate evaluation proceeds in a fixed order. Schema gates validate the release receipt draft, release manifest capture draft, deploy-image compliance report, SBOM material, and evidence manifests. Digest gates compare the trusted knowledge snapshot digest, compiled bundle digest, image digest, SBOM digest, configuration fingerprint, and receipt digest. Test and sanitizer gates attach bounded implementation evidence. SBOM/vulnerability gates make dependency posture visible. Signature gates verify that the required receipt, image, SBOM, or evidence signatures are present.
If the stateless and stream analyzer candidates share the expected Runtime library or Compute core compatibility digest, release manifest capture records the release-wave facts. A reviewer then accepts the promotion gate, producing a released deployment set. Deployment handoff carries release receipt, signed evidence references, image identity, expected bundle digest, configuration fingerprint, release manifest capture, and release policy references into the deployment/runtime contour. Runtime startup verification later checks those handoff values before the analyzer service becomes ready, and runtime evidence can join back to the accepted release basis.
If the compatibility digest differs across the two candidates, the release contour does not reinterpret the graph or repair the release. It blocks promotion or emits a release integrity diagnostic signal with blocked release evidence. Downstream diagnostic review can then classify the problem as release-wave mismatch rather than semantic-authority failure.
The scenario demonstrates governed, reviewable release packaging. It does not validate clinical performance, establish continuous supply-chain assurance, deploy the analyzer, or authorize semantic changes.
Limitations And Non-claims
This paper does not claim clinical validation, registration-grade validation, continuous supply-chain assurance, release-chain maturity, autonomous semantic approval, direct graph or triple-store mutation, runtime analyzer implementation, exactly-once deployment, or legal non-repudiation. It does not claim that SBOM, signature, image digest, release receipt, release manifest capture, or waiver evidence alone proves trust.
It does not use release automation as a substitute for diagnostic closure, authority write evidence, human release review, deployment evidence, runtime evidence, or post-deployment audit. It does not claim a SLSA level or conformance posture, define an in-toto layout, provide an end-to-end attestation chain, or establish transitive dependency trust. Those topics belong to the companion trust-chain paper.
Conclusion
A governed release contour makes executable analyzer modules reviewable at the point where trusted semantic inputs become release-bound runtime artifacts. Its central contribution is the bounded join across trusted knowledge snapshot, compiled bundle, analyzer release candidate, release gates, release receipt, signed evidence, release manifest capture, deployment handoff, and later runtime evidence. By keeping semantic authority, release governance, deployment materialization, runtime execution, and evidence review separate, the contour supports auditability without creating a second source of truth.
Authoring Basis
The article draws on the internal documentation of the HealthOS project: the specifications, schemas, and registries that define authorized semantics and its compiled form, the runtime and tooling that produce execution evidence, and the companion manuscripts of the series, bound together by a shared terminology canon. These are working sources that ground the engineering decisions and keep terminology consistent across the series. They remain internal authoring basis rather than public references and are not cited as repository links in the text.
Conflict of Interest
The manuscript describes the implementation of a specific aspect of the HealthOS platform, namely: governed release from trusted knowledge snapshot to deployment handoff.
Funding
The work was funded by RTLAB.
References
- IEC. IEC 62304:2006/AMD 1:2015 Medical device software - Software life cycle processes. International Electrotechnical Commission / International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/standard/64686.html
- ISO. ISO 14971:2019 Medical devices - Application of risk management to medical devices. International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/standard/72704.html
- ISO. ISO 13485:2016 Medical devices - Quality management systems - Requirements for regulatory purposes. International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/standard/59752.html
- W3C. PROV-O: The PROV Ontology. https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/
- HL7. FHIR R4 AuditEvent. https://hl7.org/fhir/R4/auditevent.html
- RFC Editor. RFC 8785: JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS). https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8785
- JSON Schema. JSON Schema Draft 2020-12. https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12
- CycloneDX. CycloneDX Specification Overview. https://cyclonedx.org/specification/overview/
- Sigstore. Cosign. https://docs.sigstore.dev/cosign/
- Open Container Initiative. The OpenContainers Image Spec. https://specs.opencontainers.org/image-spec/
- ISO. ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2026 Systems and software engineering - Software life cycle processes. International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/standard/90219.html
- IEEE Standards Association. IEEE 828: Standard for Configuration Management in Systems and Software Engineering. https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/828/10549/
- NIST. SP 800-218: Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF) Version 1.1. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/218/final
- Open Source Security Foundation. Supply-chain Levels for Software Artifacts (SLSA) v1.2. https://slsa.dev/spec/v1.2/about