Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         Y. Wang
Internet-Draft                                           HJS Foundation
Intended status: Informational                         April 29, 2026
Expires: October 29, 2026

          CTP/0: Cognitive Time Protocol -- Definition and Framework
                         draft-wang-ctp-definition-01

Abstract

   This document describes CTP/0, the definition layer of the Cognitive
   Time Protocol (CTP) family.  CTP/0 is a conceptual reference
   framework for representing, comparing, and referencing time-related
   claims in AI and agent systems.  It defines terminology for cognitive
   events, event-density claims, ordering claims, branching claims, and
   declared emergent temporal-structure claims.

   CTP/0 does not define a wire protocol, message format, signature
   format, hash-chain format, governance process, physical theory of
   time, theory of consciousness, or legal accountability framework.
   Where verifiable records are needed, CTP-compatible claims can be
   bound to external event or receipt infrastructure such as JEP, HJS,
   JAC, COE, or CEP.

   This revision narrows the original CTP/0 draft to an informational
   framework.  Metrics such as Cognitive Event Density (CED), Causal
   Arrow Entropy (CAE), Verifiable Delay Function (VDF) evidence, and
   time-related evidence chains are treated as optional claim or
   evidence profiles, not as universal measures of intelligence,
   cognition, truth, safety, or responsibility.


Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current
   Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2026.


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Motivation
     1.2.  Scope
     1.3.  Relationship to Event and Receipt Infrastructure
     1.4.  Infrastructure Positioning
     1.5.  Requirements Language
     1.6.  Terminology
   2.  CTP/0 Model
     2.1.  Conceptual Framework, Not a Wire Protocol
     2.2.  Time-Related Claims
     2.3.  Minimal Core and Optional Profiles
     2.4.  What CTP Does Not Determine
   3.  Layered Reference Architecture
     3.1.  Layer 0: Definition Layer
     3.2.  Layer 1: Perception and Density Claims
     3.3.  Layer 2: Direction and Ordering Claims
     3.4.  Layer 3: Copy and Branching Claims
     3.5.  Layer 4: Emergence and Declared Temporal Structures
   4.  Core Concepts
     4.1.  Cognitive Event
     4.2.  Cognitive Event Density (CED)
     4.3.  Causal Arrow Entropy (CAE)
     4.4.  Sequential Computation Evidence
     4.5.  Time-Related Evidence Chain References
   5.  Optional Evidence Profiles
     5.1.  VDF Evidence Profile
     5.2.  Hash-Chain Evidence Profile
     5.3.  Hardware-Attestation Evidence Profile
     5.4.  Event and Receipt Binding Profiles
   6.  Validation and Use
     6.1.  Claim Validation
     6.2.  Measurement Profiles
     6.3.  Binding to JEP/HJS/JAC/COE/CEP
     6.4.  Non-Inference Rules
   7.  Security and Privacy Considerations
     7.1.  CTP Metrics Are Not Truth
     7.2.  VDF Proofs Are Not Cognitive Proofs
     7.3.  Hash Chains Are Not Causality
     7.4.  Partial Observation and Target Determinability
     7.5.  Privacy of Cognitive-Time Metadata
     7.6.  Hardware Trust Limitations
   8.  IANA Considerations
   9.  References
     9.1.  Normative References
     9.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Changes from draft-wang-ctp-definition-00
   Acknowledgments
   Author's Address

1.  Introduction


1.1.  Motivation

   AI and agent systems often operate through event streams that do not
   map cleanly to wall-clock time.  A planning system may perform many
   internal steps in one second.  A distributed agent may branch into
   speculative paths.  A simulator or world model may advance logical
   time faster or slower than physical time.  An audit system may need
   to compare physical timestamps, logical order, causal dependencies,
   and signed receipt chains.

   CTP/0 provides terminology for these time-related claims.  Its
   purpose is to separate different meanings of "time" that are often
   conflated: physical time, logical time, computation time, event time,
   branch time, audit time, and declared cognitive-event time.

   The framework is deliberately limited.  It is not a theory of AI
   consciousness, subjective experience, psychology, spacetime, moral
   agency, or legal responsibility.  It is a reference vocabulary and
   architectural map for future documents that may define concrete
   measurement profiles, evidence profiles, or bindings to external
   event infrastructure.


1.2.  Scope

   CTP/0 defines:

   o  A conceptual model for time-related claims in AI and agent
      systems.
   o  Terminology for cognitive events, event-density claims, ordering
      claims, branching claims, and declared temporal-structure claims.
   o  A layered reference architecture for the CTP family.
   o  Optional evidence-profile concepts, including VDF evidence,
      hash-chain evidence, hardware-attestation evidence, and
      event/receipt bindings.
   o  Security and privacy boundaries for interpreting CTP-compatible
      claims.
   CTP/0 explicitly does not define:

   o  A wire protocol, message syntax, media type, port number, API, or
      interoperable data format.
   o  A signature, hash, canonicalization, identity, trust, or receipt
      mechanism.
   o  A global metric of intelligence, reasoning quality, consciousness,
      safety, alignment, moral status, or model capability.
   o  A governance framework, monitoring duty, legal accountability
      framework, fairness system, appeal system, explanation-rights
      framework, or compliance authority.
   o  A physical theory of time, subjective-time theory,
      psychological-time model, or proof that any AI system experiences
      time.

1.3.  Relationship to Event and Receipt Infrastructure

   CTP/0 is a conceptual framework.  It does not replace event or
   receipt infrastructure.  When a deployment requires verifiable
   records, CTP-compatible claims can be bound to external
   infrastructures.

   The following relationships are informative:

   o  JEP can bind time-related claims to signed events and event
      hashes.
   o  HJS can package AI-agent behavior records and receipt bundles that
      reference CTP-compatible time-related claims.
   o  JAC can express declared dependency links between time-related
      events or receipt elements.
   o  COE can bind observation records and shared-state claims that
      include time-related descriptors.
   o  CEP can bind evolution-change records that reference declared
      temporal structures or time-related evidence.
   CTP does not define the semantics, validation rules, or registries of
   those infrastructures.  A deployment that uses CTP terminology with
   one of those systems follows the corresponding JEP, HJS, JAC, COE, or
   CEP profile.


1.4.  Infrastructure Positioning

   CTP/0 is infrastructure for naming and comparing time-related claims.
   It provides a vocabulary and a reference architecture.  It does not
   decide what happened, who is responsible, whether an observation is
   sufficient, whether a process is fair, or whether an AI system is
   safe, aligned, conscious, or legally compliant.

   The CTP core is intentionally minimal.  It defines concepts; it does
   not prescribe implementations.  Evidence mechanisms, measurement
   procedures, hardware support, receipt bindings, and external policies
   are optional profiles or deployment choices.


1.5.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Because this document is an informational framework and not a wire
   protocol, capitalized requirement words are used mainly to state
   interpretation boundaries and profile requirements.  Concrete
   interoperability requirements belong to future CTP-family
   specifications or to external event/receipt profiles.


1.6.  Terminology

   CTP/0:
      The definition layer of the Cognitive Time Protocol family.  It
      defines the terminology and reference architecture described in
      this document.

   Cognitive event:
      A declared or observed unit of processing in an AI or agent system
      under a measurement profile.  The definition of a cognitive event
      is profile-defined and implementation-dependent.

   Time-related claim:
      A claim about event order, event density, branch structure,
      sequential computation, temporal evidence, or declared temporal
      structure.  A time-related claim may be measured, asserted,
      inferred, or externally referenced.

   Cognitive Event Density (CED):
      A declared or measured event-density indicator expressing
      cognitive events per unit of physical time under a shared event
      definition and measurement profile.

   Causal Arrow Entropy (CAE):
      A heuristic or profile-defined measure of uncertainty in an event
      sequence, often written as conditional entropy of a later event
      given earlier events.

   Declared temporal structure:
      A deployment-defined claim about a branch, synchronization
      pattern, abstraction, recurrence, or emergent structure in a
      cognitive-event stream.  CTP does not determine whether such a
      structure is physically real, conscious, novel, or morally
      relevant.

   Measurement profile:
      A deployment or specification-defined procedure for counting
      events, measuring time, recording uncertainty, or collecting
      evidence.

   Evidence profile:
      A profile that defines how optional evidence, such as VDF proofs,
      hardware attestations, event hashes, or receipt references,
      supports a time-related claim.


2.  CTP/0 Model


2.1.  Conceptual Framework, Not a Wire Protocol

   CTP/0 does not define packets, messages, headers, fields, APIs, or
   canonical encodings.  Implementations cannot be "CTP/0
   wire-compatible" because CTP/0 intentionally does not define a wire
   format.  Future documents may define concrete CTP-family formats, but
   they are outside this document.

   A system may be described as CTP-compatible only in the limited sense
   that it uses the terms and boundaries in this document, or that it
   implements a future profile that references CTP/0.


2.2.  Time-Related Claims

   A time-related claim is any claim that uses the CTP vocabulary to
   describe event order, event density, event branching, temporal
   evidence, or declared temporal structure.  Examples include:

   o  A claim that an agent processed N profile-defined cognitive events
      during a physical interval.
   o  A claim that one event was declared to precede, depend on, or
      derive from another event.
   o  A claim that a branch of an agent process was copied, forked,
      replayed, merged, or discarded.
   o  A claim that a VDF, event hash, receipt bundle, or hardware
      attestation supports a sequential computation or ordering claim.
   o  A claim that a new temporal abstraction or branch structure was
      observed under a deployment profile.
   A time-related claim does not by itself establish truth, causality,
   responsibility, intent, consciousness, or legal effect.


2.3.  Minimal Core and Optional Profiles

   The CTP/0 core consists only of terminology, a layered reference
   architecture, interpretation boundaries, and optional
   evidence-profile categories.  All measurement methods and evidence
   mechanisms are optional profiles.

   A CTP-family profile MAY define concrete procedures for counting
   events, measuring elapsed time, using VDF evidence, referencing event
   hashes, binding claims to receipts, or integrating hardware
   attestations.  Such a profile MUST state its event definition,
   measurement procedure, evidence requirements, and interpretation
   boundaries.


2.4.  What CTP Does Not Determine

   CTP-compatible records and metrics MUST NOT be interpreted by the
   protocol as proving:

   o  that an AI system is conscious or has subjective experience;
   o  that a cognitive event is equivalent across different systems
      without a shared measurement profile;
   o  that high event density implies intelligence, correctness, safety,
      alignment, or moral status;
   o  that a VDF proof proves reasoning quality, understanding, intent,
      or subjective duration;
   o  that a hash chain proves factual causality, authorization,
      responsibility, legal non-repudiation, or target determinability;
   o  that an emergent temporal structure is real, novel, physically
      meaningful, or morally relevant; or
   o  that a target fact is settled merely because logs, traces,
      explanations, measurements, or receipts exist.

3.  Layered Reference Architecture

   The CTP family is organized as a reference architecture with Layer 0
   providing definitions and Layers 1 through 4 addressing categories of
   time-related claims.  The layers are conceptual.  Implementations MAY
   use a subset of layers, combine layers, or define profiles that
   reference only selected concepts.


3.1.  Layer 0: Definition Layer

   Layer 0 is this document.  It defines the CTP vocabulary, conceptual
   boundaries, optional evidence-profile categories, and relationships
   to external event and receipt infrastructures.


3.2.  Layer 1: Perception and Density Claims

   Layer 1 concerns claims about event density or perceived processing
   rate.  A Layer 1 profile may define how to count cognitive events,
   what physical or logical time base is used, and how a claimed event
   density is supported by evidence.

   Layer 1 does not determine subjective experience.  It only provides a
   structure for event-density claims under a declared measurement
   profile.


3.3.  Layer 2: Direction and Ordering Claims

   Layer 2 concerns claims about ordering, declared dependency, or
   directional structure among events.  These claims may use logical
   clocks, JEP event hashes, JAC dependency links, causal-edge
   descriptors, or other external evidence structures.

   Layer 2 does not establish physical causation, legal causation,
   responsibility, or completeness of a causal history.


3.4.  Layer 3: Copy and Branching Claims

   Layer 3 concerns claims about copying, branching, replication,
   synchronization, merging, or abandonment of event streams.  These
   claims may apply to speculative execution, distributed agent
   branches, simulations, or parallel planning paths.

   Layer 3 does not determine whether copied branches are equivalent,
   whether a merge is semantically correct, or whether responsibility
   follows a branch.  Such determinations require external profiles.


3.5.  Layer 4: Emergence and Declared Temporal Structures

   Layer 4 concerns declared emergent temporal structures, such as new
   branching patterns, synchronization patterns, abstractions,
   recurrence patterns, or evolution patterns observed in
   cognitive-event streams.

   Layer 4 does not determine whether a structure is truly emergent,
   novel, conscious, physically meaningful, or morally relevant.  It
   only provides terminology for recording and comparing such claims
   under deployment-defined profiles.


4.  Core Concepts


4.1.  Cognitive Event

   A cognitive event is a declared or observed unit of processing under
   a measurement profile.  Examples may include inference steps, tool
   calls, retrieval operations, planning steps, verification checks,
   simulation ticks, branch creation, branch merge, or receipt
   generation.

   The definition of a cognitive event is not universal.  A profile that
   reports cognitive events SHOULD state:

   o  the event boundary condition;
   o  the event source or instrumentation method;
   o  whether events may overlap or run in parallel;
   o  whether events are weighted;
   o  how events are deduplicated or merged; and
   o  what evidence, if any, supports the event count.

4.2.  Cognitive Event Density (CED)

   Cognitive Event Density (CED) is a declared or measured
   processing-density indicator:

     CED = C_total / T_physical
   where C_total is a count or weighted aggregate of profile-defined
   cognitive events and T_physical is elapsed physical time under the
   measurement profile.

   CED is not a universal measure of intelligence, reasoning quality,
   consciousness, safety, alignment, or moral status.  Comparisons
   across systems are meaningful only under a shared event definition,
   shared measurement procedure, and shared evidence profile.

   A profile that reports CED SHOULD state the event definition, time
   source, counting method, weighting method if any, and evidence used
   to support the measurement.


4.3.  Causal Arrow Entropy (CAE)

   Causal Arrow Entropy (CAE) is a heuristic or profile-defined measure
   of uncertainty in an event sequence.  It may be written as:

     CAE = H(Event_N | Event_{N-1}, ..., Event_0)
   where H represents conditional entropy under the model or profile.
   CAE can be used to describe how much information is needed to
   characterize a later event given earlier events.

   CAE does not prove physical causality, legal causation, creativity,
   intent, responsibility, novelty, or emergence.  A profile using CAE
   SHOULD define the event space, probability model, conditioning
   context, and interpretation limits.


4.4.  Sequential Computation Evidence

   Some deployments may wish to support a claim that a minimum amount of
   sequential computation occurred.  VDFs or other
   sequential-computation evidence can support such claims under an
   evidence profile.

   Sequential computation evidence proves only what the evidence profile
   states.  It does not by itself prove cognitive effort, reasoning
   quality, intent, understanding, subjective duration, or safety.


4.5.  Time-Related Evidence Chain References

   CTP/0 does not define an independent judgment hash-chain protocol.
   When a time-related claim needs cryptographic binding,
   implementations SHOULD reference external evidence structures such as
   JEP event hashes, JAC declared-dependency links, HJS receipt bundles,
   COE observation records, CEP evolution-change records, or another
   deployment-defined evidence structure.

   A hash chain or signed receipt can provide integrity and ordering
   evidence.  It does not by itself establish factual causality, legal
   non-repudiation, authorization validity, responsibility, target
   determinability, or truth.


5.  Optional Evidence Profiles


5.1.  VDF Evidence Profile

   A VDF evidence profile MAY be used to support claims about minimum
   sequential computation.  Such a profile SHOULD specify the VDF
   construction, security parameters, input binding, output proof
   format, verification procedure, and limitations.

   A VDF proof MUST NOT be interpreted by the protocol as proving
   cognition, understanding, intent, human-like deliberation, or
   subjective duration.


5.2.  Hash-Chain Evidence Profile

   A hash-chain evidence profile MAY be used to support ordering and
   integrity claims.  Such a profile SHOULD specify the hash function,
   canonicalization method, record format, inclusion rule, chain
   extension rule, and verification method.

   If a deployment already uses JEP, HJS, JAC, COE, or CEP, a
   CTP-compatible hash-chain evidence profile SHOULD prefer references
   to those existing event hashes or receipt bundles rather than
   defining a parallel chain.


5.3.  Hardware-Attestation Evidence Profile

   A hardware-attestation evidence profile MAY use trusted execution
   environments, secure counters, measured boot, remote attestation, or
   protected storage to support claims about execution environment or
   measurement integrity.

   Hardware attestation can support claims about where or how evidence
   was collected.  It does not prove that the event definition is
   correct, that an observation is complete, that the target is
   determinable, or that the resulting system is safe, fair, lawful, or
   aligned.


5.4.  Event and Receipt Binding Profiles

   A CTP-compatible claim MAY be bound to external event and receipt
   infrastructure.  For example:

   o  A JEP event may sign the digest of a CTP-compatible measurement
      record.
   o  An HJS receipt bundle may include a CTP evidence descriptor for an
      AI-agent behavior record.
   o  A JAC chain extension may reference a declared ordering or branch
      dependency described using CTP terms.
   o  A COE shared-state claim may include time-related descriptors for
      observations and validations.
   o  A CEP evolution-change record may include a declared
      temporal-structure reference.
   The binding profile, not CTP/0, defines the concrete data format,
   signature input, verification procedure, privacy model, and
   critical-extension behavior.


6.  Validation and Use


6.1.  Claim Validation

   A verifier of a CTP-compatible claim should distinguish structural
   validation from substantive interpretation.  Structural validation
   may check that a record is well formed, that referenced evidence
   exists, that hashes match, that signatures are valid under an
   external profile, and that a declared measurement profile was
   followed.

   Substantive interpretation asks what the claim means for a target
   fact, safety conclusion, audit conclusion, governance decision,
   scientific conclusion, or legal question.  Such interpretation is
   outside CTP/0 and belongs to external profiles, domain models, or
   legal, organizational, scientific, or governance processes.


6.2.  Measurement Profiles

   A measurement profile SHOULD define at least:

   o  the event definition;
   o  the time source or clock model;
   o  whether physical time, logical time, computation time, event time,
      or audit time is being measured;
   o  what instrumentation collects the events;
   o  what evidence supports the measurement;
   o  how missing, parallel, duplicated, or redacted events are handled;
   o  whether the measurement is comparable across systems; and
   o  what the measurement must not be interpreted to prove.

6.3.  Binding to JEP/HJS/JAC/COE/CEP

   When CTP-compatible claims are bound to JEP, HJS, JAC, COE, or CEP,
   the binding record should use the event, receipt, extension, and
   digest-binding rules of that infrastructure.  CTP/0 does not change
   those rules.

   For example, a JEP-based binding may place the digest of a CTP
   measurement record in the JEP "what" field.  An HJS receipt bundle
   may include the same digest as an evidence descriptor.  A JAC
   extension may reference the same digest as a declared dependency.
   Each binding proves only the relationship specified by its own
   profile.


6.4.  Non-Inference Rules

   The absence of a CTP-compatible claim MUST NOT be interpreted by the
   protocol as agreement, waiver, admission, lack of objection, lack of
   harm, absence of relevant context, absence of external rights, or
   absence of an external process.

   The presence of a CTP-compatible claim MUST NOT be interpreted by the
   protocol as proving truth, fairness, safety, legality,
   responsibility, consciousness, or target determinability.  The claim
   provides a technical reference; interpretation belongs to external
   profiles and processes.


7.  Security and Privacy Considerations


7.1.  CTP Metrics Are Not Truth

   CTP metrics and descriptors are evidence-related constructs.  They
   may help describe event density, ordering, branching, or temporal
   structures.  They do not prove that a system is correct, intelligent,
   safe, aligned, conscious, or legally compliant.


7.2.  VDF Proofs Are Not Cognitive Proofs

   A VDF proof can support a claim that a minimum amount of sequential
   computation was performed under a declared profile.  It does not
   prove that a cognitive process occurred, that reasoning was sound,
   that intent existed, that understanding occurred, or that a
   subjective duration was experienced.


7.3.  Hash Chains Are Not Causality

   Hash chains, signatures, and receipts can provide tamper-evident
   ordering and integrity.  They do not by themselves prove causal
   completeness, intervention-level causation, legal causation,
   authorization validity, responsibility, fault, or non-repudiation in
   the legal sense.


7.4.  Partial Observation and Target Determinability

   CTP-compatible observations are often partial.  A record may contain
   timestamps, event counts, branch identifiers, hashes, VDF proofs, and
   attestations without retaining enough target-relevant causal
   information to settle an external target fact.

   In partially observed causal systems, different real histories may
   produce the same observed event sequence while differing on the
   target fact of interest.  Therefore, CTP provides terminology and
   optional evidence references, not a guarantee of target
   determinability.  Determining whether an observation is sufficient
   for a target requires an external model of possible histories,
   observations, and target facts, as discussed in
   [TARGET-DETERMINABILITY].


7.5.  Privacy of Cognitive-Time Metadata

   Time-related metadata can be sensitive.  Event density, branch
   structure, reasoning latency, tool-call timing, and synchronization
   patterns may reveal operational capabilities, workload, user
   behavior, model behavior, or proprietary processes.  Deployments
   SHOULD minimize exposed metadata and use privacy-preserving
   references, aggregation, redaction, access control, or encryption
   where appropriate.


7.6.  Hardware Trust Limitations

   Hardware trust mechanisms may support measurement integrity,
   protected counters, or attestation of an execution environment.  They
   do not prove that a measurement profile is meaningful, that an event
   definition is valid, that observations are complete, or that a target
   fact is determined.  Compromise, misconfiguration, side channels,
   supply-chain issues, and incorrect measurement design remain
   deployment risks.


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests of IANA.

   Future CTP-family specifications that define media types, protocol
   identifiers, registries, or extension identifiers may request IANA
   actions in their own documents.


9.  References


9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March
   1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
   2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
   <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.


9.2.  Informative References

   [JEP]      Wang, Y., "Judgment Event Protocol (JEP)", Work in
   Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-wang-jep-judgment-event-protocol-05,
   April 2026.

   [HJS]      Wang, Y., "HJS: An Accountability Layer for AI Agents",
   Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-wang-hjs-accountability-05,
   April 2026.

   [JAC]      Wang, Y., "JAC: Declared Dependency Chains for Agent
   Receipts", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-wang-jac-02, April
   2026.

   [COE]      Wang, Y., "Cognition-Oriented Emergence (COE): A JEP
   Profile for Shared Observation and State-Claim Evidence", Work in
   Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-wang-coe-01, April 2026.

   [CEP]      Wang, Y., "Co-Evolve Binding Profile (CEP): A JEP/HJS
   Profile for AI Evolution-Change Evidence Binding", Work in Progress,
   Internet-Draft, draft-wang-cep-01, April 2026.

   [TARGET-DETERMINABILITY]      Wang, Y., "Target Determinability under
   Partial Causal Observation: A Faithful Reduction Framework", Zenodo,
   Version v1, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19678205, April 2026,
   <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19678205>.

   [VDF]      Boneh, D., Bonneau, J., Buenz, B., and B. Fisch,
   "Verifiable Delay Functions", Proceedings of CRYPTO 2018,
   <https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/601>.

   [LAMPORT]      Lamport, L., "Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events
   in a Distributed System", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 21, No. 7,
   pp. 558-565, July 1978.


Appendix A.  Changes from draft-wang-ctp-definition-00

   o  Changed the intended status from Experimental to Informational.
   o  Reframed CTP/0 as a conceptual reference framework, not a
      deployable protocol.
   o  Removed language implying that CTP manipulates time or defines
      subjective experience.
   o  Reframed Layer 4 as declared temporal structures rather than new
      time dimensions.
   o  Clarified that CED is an event-density indicator, not a universal
      intelligence or consciousness metric.
   o  Clarified that CAE is a heuristic or profile-defined uncertainty
      measure, not a proof of causality or responsibility.
   o  Clarified that VDF evidence supports sequential-computation claims
      only.
   o  Replaced the independent Judgment Hash Chain concept with
      references to external event and receipt infrastructure.
   o  Added relationship text for JEP, HJS, JAC, COE, and CEP.
   o  Added partial-observation and target-determinability boundaries.
   o  Moved hardware trust into optional evidence-profile language.
   o  Retained no IANA actions.

Acknowledgments

   The author thanks the contributors to the CTP, JEP, HJS, JAC, COE,
   and CEP discussions for feedback on narrowing the scope of CTP/0 to a
   conceptual reference framework.


Author's Address

   Yuqiang Wang
   HJS Foundation
   Email: signal@humanjudgment.org
   GitHub: https://github.com/hjs-spec
