Planisphere patents pending.

Planisphere has U.S. patents pending. The work describes a shared measurement kernel with an inbound evidence boundary called Port and an outbound decision-record contract called Starboard. Port constrains what crosses into and out of the customer data plane. Starboard defines how domain-specific evidence records use the shared measurements without changing them.

Port 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.

Starboard is a typed extensibility contract. Every domain review record — 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.

Port describes the boundary; Starboard describes how domain views use the shared evidence contract. The API reference is canonical for the live contract. The pages at /defense, /medicine, /law, and /education provide audience-specific entry points without claiming certification or legal sufficiency.

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. The evidence boundary and review-record contract resolve the standoff so neither side discloses anything sensitive: the vendor’s weights stay with the vendor, the customer’s matter stays with the customer, and the record 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 patents-pending work describes.