The gate that emits the receipt.
HATS is the runtime that decides PERMIT or REJECT on every protected action — and emits a portable .h33pqv.json receipt for both verdicts. Triple-family post-quantum verification. Continuous, replayable, end-to-end.
A HATS verdict is not a log entry, an alert, or a status dashboard. It is a cryptographic artifact that survives outside the system that produced it — the receipt is the product.
One gate. Two verdicts. One receipt format.
Every protected action — an agent decision, a meeting, a tokenization event, a claim — passes through HATS. The gate evaluates the three trust bindings (authority · instruction · execution) and emits a verdict. The verdict is signed by all three PQ families. The receipt is portable.
Substrate guarantee: no actor receives authority from anything not bound to them and valid at action time. Application guarantee: no authorized proposal executes twice.
Surfaces
Continuous verification posture for the organization carrying the policy. Real-time PERMIT / REJECT counts, receipts on demand.
For carriers underwriting against HATS: continuous attestation of insured controls, signed at every snapshot.
Quote against a verifiable security posture instead of a self-reported questionnaire. Cryptographic state replaces forms.
Bring a HATS-verified policy live — turn the receipt into the carrier-recognized binding state.
Wire up the policies, controls, and authority bindings the HATS gate will evaluate against.
Snapshot the live state and emit a signed state-capture receipt. The base unit of continuous attestation.
Public proof for marketing, procurement, and audits — backed by a receipt anyone can verify in-browser.
Continuous verification for every policy. Per-receipt, per-policy, or unlimited tiers.
Continuous monitoring
Cyber-insurance continuous monitoring
HATS is the runtime cyber carriers underwrite against. Every covered control is attested continuously and every claim event is replayable. See the carrier surface ›
Replayable adversarial resilience
Every state transition is auditable end-to-end. Adversarial inputs can be replayed against the gate to confirm the verdict was correct. Audit-grade replay ›
PQ-Verified proof
HATS verdicts roll up into a portable .h33pqv.json proof that the policy was protected during the window. Drop it into the verifier. Prove you were protected ›
Spec, demos, governance
The full normative spec. Receipt format, binding semantics, signature families, verifier contract.
Run the demos against live receipts. Triple-family verify, REJECT/PERMIT flows, replay scenarios.
Zero to verified evidence in under 4 minutes — stand up HATS and produce your first independently-verifiable receipt, live.
Standards governance model, verifier policy, assessor independence, conformance license, EU AI Act position.
Where HATS sits in the stack
HATS is the runtime gate of the H33 substrate. It consumes H33-Root authority bindings, evaluates the three trust bindings, and emits a PQ-Verified Artifact as the verdict. The same gate evaluates an agent governance decision, a session, a claim, a privacy computation, or a tokenization event — one envelope, one verifier, one receipt format.
Live runtime evidence: /status/hats/ · current verdict counts, latency, and the last 100 receipts.
What HATS is — and what it consumes
HATS is not the proof system. HATS operationalizes the evidence framework: it takes continuous, independently verifiable control-state evidence and turns it into a workflow insurers and enterprises can act on. Where control self-assessment relies on periodic, trust-based questionnaires, HATS produces continuous, cryptographically verifiable proof of control state.
HATS consumes the Evidence framework and the Authority Model, and every verdict is an independently checkable artifact — the same shape whether a control passes or fails. That is why it fits cyber-insurance workflows: the carrier verifies the evidence itself, rather than trusting an attestation.
HATS RECORDS and MONITORS operational evidence over time — a continuous, replayable record that a system's controls operated as declared — so protection stays provably true, not merely asserted. This is a different job from an independent verdict (Verification), a maturity score (HICS), or governing a decision (Agent-008). HATS produces the record; another component renders the verdict.
When to use HATS — and when not
Use HATS when the requirement is continuous operational evidence — you need to show that declared controls kept operating across a window, replayable by anyone, so the answer to “was it working?” is reproduced, not claimed. HATS is the right tool when a periodic questionnaire or a one-time snapshot would leave a silent gap.
- ›Use Verification when you need an independent verdict on an existing artifact — not continuous monitoring. A HATS receipt is checked by the external verifier; do not treat HATS monitoring as its own verification.
- ›Use HICS when you need a maturity score of code or controls — a rating of how good the controls are — rather than operational evidence that they ran.
- ›Use Agent-008 when you need to govern an AI decision under attested authority — Agent-008 makes the decision; HATS only records that it held.
Boundaries — HATS does not guarantee security or prevent breaches, does not access or store your sensitive data, does not determine regulatory compliance, does not make the governance decision, and is not itself the proof. Parent standard: the HATS standard — which defines the record HATS writes and RECORDS operational evidence against.
The HATS model
How HATS connects to the rest of the H33 system — its parts, its foundation, the standards and products around it, and the evidence that proves it.
Composition
HATS Replayable Adversarial ResilienceEvidence
Continuous AttestationVerification
h33-verifierIndustries
HATS for Cyber InsuranceNext step
Schedule an Evidence Architecture ReviewWhat is HATS?
HATS is the H33 component that RECORDS and MONITORS operational evidence over time: every protected action passes through the runtime gate, which evaluates the trust bindings and emits a portable .h33pqv.json receipt — PERMIT or REJECT — that survives outside the system that produced it. HATS produces the record; it is not the proof and it does not render the final verdict.
Why does HATS exist as a separate component?
Point-in-time audits and self-reported questionnaires go stale the moment they are signed, and nothing records the gap when controls drift between checks. HATS replaces the periodic snapshot with a continuous, replayable evidence record, so “the control was operating” becomes something you reproduce rather than assert. It is kept separate from Verification, HICS, and Agent-008 so each concept owns exactly one job.
When should I use HATS instead of Verification, HICS, or Agent-008?
Use HATS for continuous operational evidence that protection stayed true over time. Use Verification for an independent verdict on an existing artifact — do not treat HATS monitoring as its own verification. Use HICS for a maturity score of code or controls. Use Agent-008 to govern an AI decision under attested authority rather than record that controls operated.
How is HATS different from independent verification?
HATS records and monitors and emits the receipt; Verification renders the verdict on it. A HATS receipt is checked by the independent h33-verifier, external to HATS and offline — the record does not verify itself. Modify one byte and the verifier rejects the artifact under all three post-quantum signature families.
What evidence supports HATS?
Every HATS cycle emits a signed, portable .h33pqv.json receipt anyone can drop into the public verifier and check in-browser. The receipt format and verifier contract are defined in the technical specification; live verdict counts, latency, and recent receipts are at /status/hats/.
Which surfaces does the HATS hub route to?
By role and action: the Customer dashboard, the Insurer surface, the Broker quote engine, plus Activate, Setup, Terminal, Badge, and Pricing. Each surface is a projection of the same gate, receipt format, and verifier.
Related evidence & verification
Guided experiences
Business scenarios · What are you trying to do? (guided flow)
Independent verification & integrity
Federal independent verification (court-admissible) · Independent verification model · Regulatory submission integrity · H33 trust model