QODIQA Formal Enforcement Model
Deterministic Execution Semantics

#Purpose and Scope

This document defines formal execution semantics for the runtime consent enforcement layer. Its purpose is to eliminate ambiguity in the execution model by specifying all permitted states, transitions, decision logic, and enforcement invariants in a binary, testable, and auditable form.

This document does not modify, override, or reinterpret any existing QODIQA specification. It provides formalization, constraint definition, and deterministic execution semantics only.

The scope of this document is strictly limited to the execution semantics layer. This document SHALL NOT be construed to alter the behavioral requirements, architectural definitions, governance structure, or certification criteria established in other QODIQA corpus documents. All normative content herein is additive and subordinate to the QODIQA Core Standard.

#Relationship to QODIQA Corpus

This document is a normative extension to the QODIQA corpus. It formalizes the execution semantics of enforcement logic that is defined in substantive terms across the following corpus documents. All definitions and constraints herein are derived from and consistent with those documents.

In the event of apparent conflict between this document and any other QODIQA corpus document, the QODIQA Core Standard SHALL take precedence. All conflicts SHALL be reported to the QODIQA Governance Authority for resolution.

#Deterministic Execution Model

The enforcement layer SHALL operate as a deterministic finite-state machine. Every execution path through the enforcement layer SHALL be fully defined, fully traceable, and free of implicit or undefined behavior.

The enforcement layer SHALL NOT contain ambiguous execution paths. An ambiguous execution path is defined as any path whose outcome depends on factors not present in the explicit input triple (Request, ConsentState, PolicySet) at the moment of evaluation.

Implicit behavior is defined as any system behavior that is not explicitly specified by a defined state, a defined transition, or a defined constraint. Implicit behavior is prohibited. Every behavior of the enforcement layer SHALL be the direct result of an explicitly defined execution step.

The enforcement layer SHALL NOT defer evaluation to external components during the active decision path. All inputs required for evaluation SHALL be fully resolved prior to the initiation of the PolicyEvaluation state. Any failure to resolve required inputs SHALL result in an immediate transition to the Deny decision state.

#Canonical State Machine

The enforcement layer SHALL implement precisely the state machine defined in this section. No implementation SHALL add states, remove states, merge states, or reorder states relative to the canonical definition below.

StateMachine = (S, T, s0, F)

where:
  S  := {S1, S2, S3, S4a, S4b, S5}
  T  := set of allowed transitions defined in Table 3
  s0 := S1 (initial state)
  F  := {S5} (terminal state)

#Deterministic Decision Function

Decision = f(Request, ConsentState, PolicySet)

where:
  Request      := { Subject, Purpose, Scope, DataCategory, Timestamp }
  ConsentState := { Valid | Absent | Expired | Revoked | Invalid }
  PolicySet    := { P₁, P₂, ..., Pₙ } (immutable snapshot at evaluation time)
  Decision     := { Allow | Deny }

#Execution Flow Constraints

The following constraints govern the execution flow of the enforcement layer. Each constraint is absolute and admits no exception.

This section defines execution constraints in a strictly formal manner. Implementation strategies may vary, provided that all constraints, invariants, and state transition rules remain fully preserved without deviation.

#Formal Enforcement Invariants

The following invariants are absolute. Each invariant SHALL hold under all conditions, for all requests, across all deployment configurations. No invariant admits an exception, a grace period, or a configuration-dependent override.

#Invalid Execution States

The following execution conditions are classified as non-compliant. Any system that enters or permits any of the following states is non-compliant with this specification. Non-compliant systems SHALL NOT be certified under the QODIQA Certification Framework.

#Non-Compliance Conditions

The following conditions constitute explicit non-compliance with this specification. The enumeration below is exhaustive within the scope defined in Section 1. Each condition is independent; satisfaction of all conditions except one does not constitute partial compliance.

#Cross-Document Traceability

Each major rule and invariant defined in this document is traceable to one or more normative sources within the QODIQA corpus. The following table establishes the primary traceability mappings. Implementors and auditors SHALL use these mappings to verify consistency between this document and the broader corpus.

Where a corpus document has been amended subsequent to the publication date of this specification, the traceability mappings in Table 6 SHALL be reviewed against the amended version. In the event of traceability gaps introduced by amendment, the QODIQA Governance Authority SHALL be notified in accordance with the Change Log and Version Control Protocol (QODIQA-CL-2026-001).

#Enforcement Implications

The following enforcement implications are derived directly from the constraints and invariants defined in this document. Each implication is stated as a binding requirement.

This section does not introduce new architectural components. Its purpose is to state the operational consequences of the invariants and constraints defined in preceding sections. These implications are derived, not additive.

#Conclusion

This document has specified the canonical state machine, deterministic decision function, execution flow constraints, enforcement invariants, invalid execution states, non-compliance conditions, cross-document traceability, and enforcement implications of the runtime consent enforcement layer.

This document does not modify, override, or reinterpret any existing QODIQA specification. It provides formalization, constraint definition, and deterministic execution semantics only.

All implementations claiming conformance with the QODIQA Core Standard SHALL satisfy the constraints and invariants defined herein. Conformance verification SHALL be performed in accordance with the QODIQA Conformance Test Suite (QODIQA-CTSS-2026-001).

#Document Status and Identity