UWA Formal Specification v0.1.0

Preamble

This document is the formal specification of the Universal Constitutional Components & Execution (UWA) — the component model that defines the fundamental unit of constitutional existence. UWA answers the question every constitutional system must answer before it can execute: What is a component, and how does it execute?

UWA sits between Reference Systems (Layer 5) and USR/CoreFab (Layer 6). Reference Systems define what can exist; USR/CoreFab defines how to execute. UWA defines what executes — the component model that bridges constitutional reference to constitutional execution.

The v0.1.0 specification is technology-independent. It does not specify Rust, WebAssembly, or any implementation technology. It specifies the formal semantics that any conforming component model must satisfy.

Reference Systems (L5) → UWA (component model) → USR/CoreFab (execution engine)

Section 1: Foundational Axioms

Every component capability must trace to these axioms. Nothing exists in UWA that these axioms do not authorize.

1.1 The Six Component Axioms

1.2 Axiom Sufficiency

All six USCP primitives are represented across the axioms:

Section 2: The Component Model

2.1 Definitions

2.2 The Component Anatomy

A component is composed of five inseparable aspects:

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                  COMPONENT                    │
│                                               │
│  ┌───────────┐  ┌────────────┐  ┌─────────┐ │
│  │ Identity  │  │ Interface  │  │ Contract│ │
│  │  (who)    │  │ (exposes)  │  │(guarantees)│
│  └───────────┘  └────────────┘  └─────────┘ │
│                                               │
│  ┌───────────┐  ┌────────────┐               │
│  │ Lifecycle │  │ Execution  │               │
│  │  (states) │  │ (transitions)│              │
│  └───────────┘  └────────────┘               │
│                                               │
│  ┌────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │          Event Queue (ordered)         │  │
│  └────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│                                               │
│  ┌────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │          State (current snapshot)      │  │
│  └────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────┘

2.3 Component Relationships

Reference Space (L5)
  │
  ├── Component A ──────[interface]──────→ Component B
  │     │                                    │
  │     │ ──[contract]──→ guarantees          │
  │     │                                    │
  │     ├── Lifecycle                        │
  │     │   Created → Declared → Validated   │
  │     │   → Initialized → Running          │
  │     │   → Suspended → Terminated         │
  │     │                                    │
  │     └── Execution Engine                 │
  │         (processes events,               │
  │          produces state transitions)      │
  │                                          │
  ├── Component B ──────[composition]────→ Component C
  │                                          │
  └── Component C ──────[event]──────────→ Component A

2.4 Component Model Axioms

Section 3: The Interface Contract

3.1 Specification

An interface is what a component exposes — the set of operations, events, and types that other components may interact with.

3.2 Interface Declaration

Interface {
    component_id: ComponentId,         // who owns this interface
    operations: [OperationDecl],       // what this component can do
    events_emitted: [EventDecl],       // what this component announces
    events_consumed: [EventDecl],      // what this component listens for
    types: [TypeDecl],                 // shared type definitions
    version: Version                   // interface version (semantic)
}

3.3 Interface Axioms

Section 4: The Contract Model

4.1 Specification

A contract is what a component guarantees — the postconditions, invariants, and behavioral commitments that other components may depend on.

4.2 Contract Declaration

Contract {
    component_id: ComponentId,
    invariants: [InvariantDecl],           // always-true conditions
    postconditions: [PostconditionDecl],   // guaranteed after execution
    preconditions: [PreconditionDecl],     // required before execution
    behavioral: [BehavioralDecl],          // behavioral commitments
    binding: DeclarationTimestamp          // when the contract became binding
}

4.3 The Six Constitutional Questions (Component Perspective)

4.4 Contract Axioms

Section 5: The Lifecycle Model

5.1 Specification

5.2 Lifecycle State Machine

┌─────────┐
                │ Created │ ← initial state: component exists
                └────┬────┘
                     │ declare()
                     ↓
               ┌──────────┐
               │ Declared │ ← interface and contract declared
               └────┬─────┘
                    │ validate()
                    ↓
              ┌───────────┐
              │ Validated │ ← all invariants verified, contracts binding
              └────┬──────┘
                   │ initialize()
                   ↓
            ┌──────────────┐
            │ Initialized  │ ← capabilities granted, state allocated
            └──────┬───────┘
                   │ start()
                   ↓
           ┌───────────────┐
     ┌────→│   Running     │ ← executing operations, processing events
     │     └──┬─────────┬──┘
     │        │         │
     │  suspend()   terminate()
     │        │         │
     │        ↓         ↓
     │  ┌───────────┐  ┌─────────────┐
     │  │ Suspended │  │ Terminated  │ ← terminal: no transitions
     │  └─────┬─────┘  └─────────────┘
     │        │
     └────────┘ resume()

5.3 Valid Transitions

5.4 Lifecycle Axioms

Section 6: The Execution Model

6.1 Specification

6.2 Determinism Requirement

Execution determinism means:

• For a given component in a given state with a given event, there is exactly one valid next state
• The output of an execution (state transition + result) is fully determined by its inputs
• No external state (network, filesystem, randomness) influences the transition
• The execution function f(component_state, event) → (next_state, result) is pure

6.3 Execution Provenance

Every execution produces a complete provenance record:

ExecutionRecord {
    component_id: ComponentId,
    event: Event,
    source_state: LifecycleState,
    target_state: LifecycleState,
    input_hash: SHA-256(event),
    output_hash: SHA-256(target_state ∥ result),
    timestamp: ISO-8601-UTC,
    success: bool,
    error: Option<String>,
    attestation: AttestationReference
}

6.4 Execution Axioms

Section 7: The Event Model

7.1 Specification

7.2 Event Flow

Component A                    Component B
    │                              │
    │ ──── emit(event) ──────────→ │
    │                              │
    │    ┌───────────────────┐     │
    │    │  Event Queue B    │     │
    │    │  ┌────┐┌────┐    │     │
    │    │  │ E1 ││ E2 │... │     │
    │    │  └────┘└────┘    │     │
    │    └─────────┬────────┘     │
    │              │               │
    │              ↓               │
    │    ┌──────────────────┐     │
    │    │ Execution Engine │     │
    │    │ f(state, event)  │     │
    │    │ → next_state     │     │
    │    └──────────────────┘     │
    │                              │
    │ ←─── result / attestation ── │

7.3 Event Types

7.4 Event Axioms

Section 8: Component Composition

8.1 Composition Model

Components compose to form higher-order constitutional structures. Composition is the constitutional mechanism for building complex systems from atomic units.

8.2 Composition Diagram

Sequential:          Parallel:           Hierarchical:
┌──────┐             ┌──────┐            ┌──────────────────┐
│  A   │───→┌──────┐ │ A │ B │            │ Parent A         │
└──────┘    │  B   │ │ │   │ │            │ ┌────┐ ┌────┐  │
            └──────┘ │ ↓   ↓ │            │ │ B  │ │ C  │  │
                     │C←───→D│            │ └────┘ └────┘  │
                     └───────┘            └──────────────────┘

8.3 Composition Axioms

Section 9: The Error Model

9.1 Error Taxonomy

9.2 Error Properties

Section 10: The Declaration Model

10.1 Declaration Structure

A constitutional component declaration is the complete specification of a component before execution:

ComponentDeclaration {
    name: String,                           // human-readable name
    id: ComponentId,                        // cryptographic identity
    interface: Interface,                   // what it exposes
    contract: Contract,                     // what it guarantees
    lifecycle_config: LifecycleConfig,      // state machine configuration
    composition: [CompositionEdge],         // composition relationships
    event_handlers: [EventHandlerDecl],     // event → state transition mappings
    version: Version                        // semantic version
}

10.2 Declaration Rules

Section 11: Stack Integration

11.1 Layer Position

11.2 Upward Dependencies (What UWA Requires)

ICore Metakernel
  └── USCP (primitives)
        └── USC (science of constitutionality)
              └── Sciences (constitutional sciences)
                    └── Reference Systems (L5)
                          └── UWA (L5.5: component model)
                                └── USR/CoreFab (L6: execution)

UWA requires:

• From Reference Systems: A reference space in which components exist
• From USCP: The six primitives that define what it means to exist, be identified, relate, be constrained, transform, and be verified

11.3 Downward Dependencies (What Depends on UWA)

11.4 The Bridge Function

UWA is the bridge between constitutional reference and constitutional execution:

Reference Systems     UWA              USR/CoreFab
(what can exist) → (what exists) → (how it executes)
       L5              L5.5                L6

Without UWA, USR/CoreFab would have to define what a component is while also implementing it. UWA separates definition from implementation, just as USCP separates primitives from sciences.

Section 12: Invariants (Consolidated)

All named invariants across the UWA specification:

Section 13: Conformance Criteria

13.1 Conformance Tests

An implementation conforms to the UWA Formal Specification if and only if:

13.2 Conformance Levels

13.3 Conformance Protocol

1. Declare scope: Implementation declares which aspects it implements (all five required for W1+).
2. Apply tests: Run all applicable tests (UWA-01 through UWA-15).
3. Record evidence: For each test, record what was checked, what was found, pass/fail.
4. Determine level: Count Critical and Major failures. Apply level rules.
5. Archive: Conformance Record stored as a constitutional artifact.

Section 14: Self-Verification

14.1 Against the 10 Constitutional Tests

UWA Formal Specification v0.1.0 verified against the Kernel's 10 constitutional tests:

Section 15: Implementation Status

15.1 Current Status

15.2 Relationship to USR/CoreFab

USR/CoreFab v0.1.0 demonstrated a component model within its runtime. This UWA specification formalizes what USR/CoreFab demonstrated:

1. Separation of definition from implementation — the component model is defined independently of any runtime
2. Seven-state lifecycle — expanded from USR's six states to include explicit Declared and Validated states
3. Interface Contract — formalizes what a component exposes as a distinct constitutional concept
4. Contract Model — formalizes what a component guarantees, with composability rules
5. Event Model — generalizes inter-component communication with typed, ordered, provenanced events
6. Composition Model — formalizes how components compose (sequential, parallel, hierarchical, delegated)
7. 36 named invariants — comprehensive invariant set across all component model aspects

Appendix: Glossary

Originator Attribution

This UWA Formal Specification v0.1.0 is originated, created, and concept-pioneered by:

This attribution is a constitutional artifact. It establishes provenance — the lowest and most fundamental layer of trust.