Open Control Stack | Cognous
Open Control Stack 13 components · 6 groups Bounded synthetic reference 19/19 in head-to-head tests →

One agent action. Reviewable evidence of every step.

Bind what an agent proposes to independently supplied authority, constrain the effect, and reconstruct what happened from the retained record.

View the hub on GitHub Run the reference See all 13 components
1 · Proposed

The Manifest-bound operation, target, amount and commitment.

2 · Permitted

The Control Plane decision, revalidated just before the effect.

3 · Attempted

Each durable attempt and its acknowledgement, or the lack of one.

4 · Observed

What the destination was seen to do: applied, absent, partial.

5 · Verified

Independent confirmation, which the reference does not claim.

Bounded synthetic reference. One refund workflow · synthetic SQLite destination · one host · no production credentials. Not a production deployment, OS security boundary or compliance certification. Public release is pending approval.

Synthetic governance test results 14 October 2026

Cognous passed 19 of 19 adversarial scenarios. The OPA-based comparators passed 13.

Head to head on identical scoring, Cognous’s optional ProtectedDestination profile delivered stronger request admission than an OPA transactional application and a LangGraph plus OPA application — with zero unexpected destination effects.

Adversarial corner scenarios passed
Cognous ProtectedDestinationBEST19 / 19
OPA transactional application13 / 19
LangGraph plus OPA application13 / 19

Five repetitions per scenario in each of two seeded runs.

190/190vs 130/190

Repeated trials passed by Cognous, against 130 for each comparator.

0vs 50

Unexpected destination effects from Cognous, against 50 for each comparator.

180/180denials

Corner-case denials with correlated evidence retained by Cognous.

What separated the configurations
INVALID REQUESTCOGNOUSCOMPARATORS
Unknown argument, body or verifier fieldsRejectedAccepted
Empty effect identifierRejectedAccepted
Invalid operationRejectedAccepted
Exact-command replayRejectedDuplicate receipt returned

On the original 24-scenario baseline all three configurations tied at 480 of 480 repeated trials. The advantage is integrated admission validation and auditable refusal at the effect boundary — a policy decision or durable workflow alone does not supply every application-level control needed there.

Read the results one-pager (PDF) Inspect the GitHub test run Repair and verification PR 112

Scope: Cognous-authored, code-informed tests using synthetic SQLite effects and identical scoring criteria. Comparators are our configured applications, not vendor-certified implementations; OPA and LangGraph can add equivalent checks. Not evidence of universal product superiority, a commercial-system ranking, independent certification or production readiness. Tested commit bf07897.

Why it exists

A log line is no longer enough.

As agents move from drafting text to issuing refunds and changing records, review has to change too. A chatbot is reviewed by what it said; an agent must be reviewed by what it was allowed to do, what it attempted and what the destination was observed to do.

The Open Control Stack keeps those facts separate and connected.

The one rule

Evidence is not permission.

A receipt, signature, log or model response can be valid evidence and still authorize nothing.

A denial is evidence too: it shows the control made a decision.

That separation is the point.

A worked example

One refund agent, four requests.

Each request leaves a reconstructable record — including the one the stack does not prevent.

$250 refund requested
ALLOWED

Within the grant. Rechecked just before the effect; executed once.

$750 refund requested
DENIED

Outside the grant. No attempt is made; the denial is recorded.

Same message delivered twice
ONE REFUND

Same proposal, same effect ID. Redelivery returns the original record.

Same refund, new proposal
TWO REFUNDS POSSIBLE

A different valid proposal gets a new effect ID. Effect-ID dedup is not business-intent dedup.

See all seven cases →

How it works

Five properties, held on the supported path.

Authority comes from outside the request.

Authority Context is supplied by a trusted resolver; the incoming message cannot grant it.

Critical inputs are rechecked before each effect.

Per effect only: not whole-workflow or check-to-commit atomic.

Execution is bounded.

A changed payload, target or adapter produces no effect.

The record survives ambiguity.

A timeout is recorded as unknown, never as “nothing happened.”

Review is reconstructable.

Trace every step without rerunning anything.

The stack at a glance

Thirteen components. Six groups. One rule.

Each component owns one responsibility and states what it does not establish. Governed Exchange connects the groups. The rule: evidence is not permission.

GROUP 01
Knowledge & Provenance

Register evidence commitments and verify issuer provenance under explicit trust assumptions.

GROUP 02
Institutional Governance

Describe institutional authority and its contracts; proposed authority is distinct from operative authority.

GROUP 03
Declaration & Policy Control

Declare proposed actions and evaluate them against independently supplied authority.

GROUP 04
Constrained Execution

Execute bounded operations through the constrained runtime and destination boundary.

CROSS-CUTTING · 13Governed ExchangeGoverned exchange and continuity for a bounded workflow. Connects the groups: receiving a message is not the same as being told to act.Explore →

On the side, not in the path. Evidence Attestation and the Evidence Registry form a separate evidence path for signed claims and commitments. PRP, Research Intelligence and TFA shape how models reason and respond. None is an enforcement dependency, and none can authorize an effect.

One refund agent, seven cases

Read the last column as carefully as the outcome.

Agent: refund agent. Declared action: routine refund in the Action Manifest. Authority: a grant supplied by a trusted resolver, outside the incoming request. Destination: a synthetic SQLite refund table.

CaseWhat happensWhat the record showsWhat it does not establish
1Refund within the grant
Allowed
Control Plane allows; critical inputs are rechecked just before the effect; the runtime executes the frozen operation once.Decision, revalidation, attempt and an observed “applied” state.Independent verification; that authority could not change between recheck and commit.
2Refund outside the grant
Denied
Control Plane denies. No attempt is made.The proposal, the denial and the authority it was evaluated against.That the grant itself was well designed.
3Payload changed after approval
Rejected
Amount, target or adapter no longer matches the frozen envelope. The runtime rejects it.A rejected attempt and no effect.OS confinement: a privileged host process could bypass the package.
4Timeout after the attempt
Unknown
Acknowledgement unknown. Reconciliation concerns the original effect; a later observed absence does not authorize a replacement.Unknown acknowledgement, observations and reconciliation, with the interrupted history kept.Remote finality or exactly-once delivery.
5Authority changes before recovery
Recovery denied
Recovery is denied under current authority.Both facts, separately: the historical applied effect and the current denial.Rollback or cancellation of the original refund.
6Same message delivered twice
One refund
Same proposal, same effect_id. Redelivery returns the original retained artifacts.One effect, with the redelivery linked to it.Cross-host or remote exactly-once delivery.
7Same refund, new proposal
Known limit
A second valid proposal for the same customer refund has a new commitment, so a new effect_id. Both can execute.Two separate effects, each fully traceable.Business-intent deduplication on the default path. The optional refund-intent profile blocks it, but is not enabled by default.
Case 6 · same message, twice
One refund
Case 7 · same intent, two proposals
Two refunds

Effect ID is not business intent. Deduplication keys on the effect a specific proposal names, not on what the business meant. An optional refund-intent profile binds one intent to one effect, but the default path does not enable it; otherwise a deployment must guard business intent itself, for example with an idempotency key on the destination.

Scope and limits

What the reference shows, and where it stops.

Each accepted claim is tied to executed evidence and a stated boundary.

BOUNDED

One refund workflow and a single agent, followed end to end.

SYNTHETIC

A SQLite destination. No real accounts, payment services or production credentials.

LOCAL

Cooperating writers on documented local Linux filesystems, on one host.

OPEN

Public contracts, code, tests and retained failures you can rerun.

Area✓ What holds in the reference✕ What does not
AuthorityAuthority Context is supplied by a separately configured trusted resolver and resolved outside the incoming request.Production resolver authentication and credential custody.
Effect timeAuthorization-critical inputs are revalidated immediately before each effect. Individual record transactions are protected.Check-to-commit atomicity by default. The optional same-host profile (C1) is off by default.
DuplicatesSame-effect deduplication by effect_id, including across processes sharing one SQLite file.Business-intent deduplication on the default path; the refund-intent profile is separate and optional.
ExecutionApplication-level restrictions on the supported path, using a frozen operation snapshot.OS confinement, live OpenShell and deployment-wide bypass resistance.
DeliveryReconciliation of the original effect, with interrupted history kept.Rollback, cancellation, remote finality and exactly-once delivery.
Current release evidence

Rerun it yourself.

Public contracts, code, tests and retained failures. A missing, skipped, failed or unexecuted required scenario blocks the release gate.

35
Acceptance scenarios

All resolved; required suites run twice.

1,009
Python tests × 2 runs

Fresh October 13 reproduction.

20
Node tests

Same reproduction.

73
Optional C1 profile tests

Passed in a separate run; off by default.

Read the output as input. The reference’s output is input to human governance review. It does not amend policy, confer authority or approve deployment. Publication and operational trust remain on hold; newer component releases are not selected automatically.

For reviewers

Ask six questions of any refund.

Q1
Who supplies authority?

Institution, mandate, grant, approval, policy, time.

Q2
What was proposed?

Operation, target, amount and commitment.

Q3
What was allowed just before the effect?

The decision and its revalidation.

Q4
What happened at the destination?

Attempt, acknowledgement, observation.

Q5
Can the record be traced?

Through Replay, Evidence Pack and ODES.

Q6
What remains to be qualified?

The risk register and support status.

Getting started

Run it, inspect it, then decide.

Runs locally with no production credentials, Docker or OpenShell. Run one bounded refund and read what it leaves behind.

Platform

Linux with Git. Reference CI runs on Ubuntu.

Runtimes

Python 3.11 with venv and pip; Node 20 and npm.

Network

GitHub clones and Python and npm package downloads.

Not needed

Production credentials, Docker or an OpenShell installation.

# disposable Linux checkout · Python 3.11 · Node 20 git clone https://github.com/cogno-us/cognous-open-control-stack.git cd cognous-open-control-stack python3.11 -m venv .venv source .venv/bin/activate python tools/reference_release.py run --results-dir results/reference
Checks out exact pins→Installs dependencies→Two isolated repetitions→Writes results + artifact index

Start with results/reference/scenario-results.json. A passing characterization of a known limitation, such as case 7, does not mean the limitation was prevented. The runner deploys no services, writes to no public chain and provisions no infrastructure.

Where to go next
Developer quickstart Governance reviewer quickstart Architecture and responsibility map Support status Optional execution profiles

Existing licenses and notices apply; the selected stack is not wholly Apache-2.0.

Let’s talk

Bring one workflow your agents should run.

Together we will map where its authority, destination, credentials and enforcement differ from the reference, and what evidence each difference needs before you rely on it.