The Planisphere patent family.

Planisphere has two U.S. provisional applications pending that describe the two faces of the Astrolabe measurement kernel. The inbound side — the named evidence boundary that gates what crosses into and out of the customer data plane substrate — is the Port application. The outbound side — the operator-readiness typed review-record contract that lets per-vertical *-boards inherit the shared kernel without forking it — is the Starboard application. Same inventor (L. C. Ross), same owner (PlanisphereUS, Corp.), filed two days apart in May 2026.

The invention is a named, typed, code-enforced boundary between a measurement substrate and a customer’s data plane. Any hosted AI tool docks at the Port for behavior evidence. The boundary admits exactly one shape of object outbound: derived, sha-pinned, Merkle-rooted evidence metadata. It refuses seven classes of object inbound and outbound: raw probe responses, callable references, API keys, bearer tokens, customer PII, the raw behavioral-signature vector, and the raw rank trajectory.

The form-factor is enforced not by a paragraph in a contract but by planisphere.tests.test_port_contract — a continuous-integration test that fails the build if either list is silently expanded. The two lists are the contract; the test is the proof; the pending patent work covers the shape.

The invention is a typed extensibility contract. Every per-vertical regulatory attestation report — Defense, Medicine, Law, Education, and any subsequent *-board — inherits the shared behavioral-measurement root unchanged and overlays a per-domain regulatory mark. The contract names what may be overlaid, what must be inherited, and the conformance test that prevents a new vertical from forking the kernel while still extending the regulator-facing surface.

Where the Port work covers the shape of what crosses, the Starboard work covers the shape of how the verticals extend. Together they define a typed envelope a new domain can adopt without rederiving the math — and that a regulator can audit by checking the per-domain overlay against the canonical kernel. The inheritance matrix is documented at /schema; the per-board sites at /defense, /medicine, /law, /education are conformance witnesses.

The market’s default question is “show me the model, show me the prompts, show me the data.” That question is unanswerable for a frontier vendor and undesirable for a regulated customer. Both patents resolve the standoff by shaping the boundary and the extensibility contract so neither side discloses anything sensitive: the vendor’s weights stay with the vendor, the customer’s matter stays with the customer, and the attestation root is verifiable by any third party from the manifest and the public key alone — through any *-board cover sheet.

The published methodology is the rest of the answer. Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20372606 is the concept record — CC BY 4.0, recomputable from the same inputs by anyone with the pinned analysis code. The in-browser evidence check runs the math against any issued evidence record locally: drop the record in, the math runs in your tab, files never leave. The evidence check doesn’t care which *-board issued the record — it checks the shared kernel the pending applications describe.