Akasha-Q · Part 26 §26.5 · reference implementation

AQ-DEMO-UI-001 — Demonstration Control Room

All twelve panels, driven by a simulated AQ-NODE-01. Inject the Scenario 2 degradations and watch confidence fall, the trust state degrade, and a valid authorised command receive safe-hold rather than execution. Every domain status, gate result and decision is derived from the inputs in P2 by the thresholds listed in P6 — change an input and the conclusion changes. The inputs themselves are synthetic constants tagged SIM-OBS; nothing here is measured.

What to try. Send the signed command while nominal — Q1–Q4 all pass and it executes. Now inject Stale timing and send again: holdover becomes 671 s, which the timing rule scores against its 900 s bound, so confidence falls and the state degrades — identity, key and authority still pass, but Q4 gates it and the result is SAFE-HOLD. Then send the forged command: Q2 fails and the result is DENY. Those are not the same outcome and the model does not treat them as one. Inject Contradiction to see the physical domain go UNDETERMINED: temp-A and temp-B differ by more than the 1.5 C tolerance, so the model reports that it has no answer rather than choosing one.

Honesty boundary. A simulation of the specification, not instrumented hardware. It exercises the decision logic and interface contract of Part 26 §26.5. Every figure in P2 is a synthetic constant chosen to be plausible — 0.9987 H/bit, 36.9 C, −21.4 dBm are not readings, and SIM-OBS means simulated observation, never measured. The thresholds in P6 are stipulated for this demonstration, not characterised against hardware. Q2 compares a key identifier against a roster entry; no signature is verified and no key material exists here. The node, config, build and policy identifiers are simulation constants declared in this file, not deployment provenance. Nothing shown here constitutes evidence at any level.