This site is satire. Data may be incomplete, links may break, scores are opinions. Verify at Congress.gov before citing us in your dissertation.

Leg day: Fri → Fri (19d) Recess

ABSURDITY INDEX OF THE UNITED STATES

Assurance Playbook

Monitoring + Non-Equivocation

Internal pre-flight guide

ABSURDITY INDEX OF THE UNITED STATES

Monitoring and Non-Equivocation Testing (Internal)

Purpose:

  • Validate EWP non-equivocation claims:
    • the bulletin board (BB) cannot show different histories to different observers without detection
  • Stand up monitor operations early, because cryptography alone does not create transparency.

Primary reference:

  • EWP PRD: non-equivocation and monitor requirements in PRD-VOTECHAIN-ELECTION-WEB-PROTOCOL.md

Inputs (Before You Start)

  • A BB implementation that supports:
    • signed tree heads (STHs)
    • inclusion proofs
    • consistency proofs
  • A VoteChain anchoring mechanism for STH roots
  • At least 3 monitor instances (ideally run by different teams even internally)
  • Alerting:
    • paging for equivocation signals and monitor downtime

What To Do

1. Define Monitor Responsibilities

Each monitor should:

  • fetch new STHs from BB
  • fetch anchors from VoteChain
  • verify signature validity and anchor linkage
  • request and verify consistency proofs across STH history
  • gossip STHs to peer monitors (or publish to a shared transparency channel)

Expected output:

  • monitor-spec.md describing polling cadence, gossip mechanism, and alert thresholds.

2. Validate Consistency Proof Semantics

Before any equivocation simulation:

  • ensure consistency proofs are well-defined and verifiable
  • ensure “missing proofs” are treated as high-severity signals

Expected output:

  • a conformance vector set for consistency proofs.

3. Simulate Non-Equivocation Failures (Controlled)

In a controlled staging environment, test:

  • inconsistent STH views (two clients see different roots at the same size)
  • missing anchors (BB root not anchored when it should be)
  • delayed anchors (anchors arrive late)
  • monitor downtime (coverage gaps)

Expected:

  • monitors detect, alert, and preserve evidence artifacts (STHs, signatures, proof transcripts).

What To Expect (Common Gaps)

  • Monitors do not agree on “what constitutes failure” (spec ambiguity).
  • Alerting is noisy or absent, leading to slow detection.
  • Consistency proof APIs are missing or underspecified.

How To Patch

  1. Tighten the spec:
    • define what monitors MUST fetch, what MUST be verified, and what is a critical alert
  2. Add conformance tests for:
    • STH signatures, anchor linkage, consistency proof verification
  3. Improve operational monitoring:
    • uptime SLOs, alert routing, on-call runbooks
  4. Re-run the simulation until:
    • detection time and evidence quality meet targets

What To Hand Off To Third Parties

  • Monitor design and runbooks
  • Evidence from controlled equivocation simulations
  • Conformance vectors for STH/inclusion/consistency proofs
  • Uptime/coverage reports during simulated voting windows