<> AssumptionLease GitHub Concept simulation
ARKIV IDEATHON · AI & DEVTOOLS

Your agents remember.
But should they still trust it?

AssumptionLease turns operational assumptions into scope-bound, attributable, time-bounded leases — so an agent can ask what is still safe to act on now.

Start 2-minute demo → See the data model
Expired means unknown, not false.
assumptionlease / active-context LIVE
CLAIM

tests.passing

ACTIVE
scope
commit:A891BE
evidence
CI Run #921
risk
6500 MEDIUM
lease
09:42 left
Verified creator TestAgent · 0x7ab4…91fe
Lifecycle owner 0x7ab4…91fe
Validity lease 09:42

$ get_active_context("A891BE")

01 · THE FAILURE MODE

Correct when observed.
Unsafe when reused.

Parallel agents can keep acting on context that silently outlived the state that made it reliable. The problem is not necessarily a lie. It is staleness without an explicit contradiction.

WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONLEASE
repo / backendA891BE
T
TestAgent Tests pass
✓
S
SecurityAgent Auth middleware enabled
✓
CodingAgent edits repository
A891BE→B921CD
Agent context still says
✓ Tests pass
✓ Auth middleware enabled
WITH ASSUMPTIONLEASE
repo / backendB921CD
?

What is still safe to assume for B921CD?

✓
Node runtime known scope matches · active lease
ACTIVE
!
Tests passing scope mismatch · A891BE
RECHECK
!
Auth middleware enabled scope mismatch · A891BE
RECHECK
02 · INTERACTIVE CONCEPT DEMO

Run the same release twice.

First with ordinary shared context. Then with Epistemic Leases. Everything below is a browser simulation — no live Arkiv transactions are performed.

RELEASE ROOM payments-api / v2.4.0
STEP 1 / 5

Three agents share one fast-changing repo.

Alex is preparing a release. TestAgent and SecurityAgent inspect commit A891BE while CodingAgent continues working.

T
TestAgent

Running CI against A891BE…

now
S
SecurityAgent

Inspecting authentication middleware…

now
STEP 2 / 5

Observations become Epistemic Leases.

They are not timeless facts. Each Claim is bound to the state where it was observed, to a signer, to Evidence, and to a validity horizon.

CLAIM ACTIVE

tests.passing

scope
A891BE
evidence
CI #921
lease
10 min
Verified creator · 0x7ab4…91fe
CLAIM ACTIVE

auth.middleware.enabled

scope
A891BE
evidence
Scan #184
lease
30 min
Verified creator · 0x9d2e…42cd
STEP 3 / 5

The world changes. The old context does not get a free pass.

CodingAgent creates commit B921CD. The old Claims may still exist, but they are no longer eligible for this execution scope.

A891BE → B921CD Scope changed. No claim was declared false. They simply need revalidation for the new scope.
STEP 4 / 5

Ask what is safe to assume now.

SIMULATED ARKIV QUERY 
type = "claim"
AND projectId = "payments-api"
AND scopeId = "B921CD"
Run the query to resolve current context.
STEP 5 / 5

Expiration returns uncertainty — not fake certainty.

A volatile runtime Claim reaches its deadline to doubt. Watch how the state changes.

CLAIM

production.api.healthy

Lease 00:05
ACTIVE scope: deployment:291
“Expiration is a deadline to doubt, not a declaration of falsehood.”
1 of 5
THE PRIMITIVE

Epistemic Lease

A scope-bound, time-bounded and attributable assertion that an agent is currently willing to stand behind.

WHAT?Claim
WHERE?Scope
WHO?$creator
WHY?Evidence
UNTIL?Expiry

Together, immutable $creator + Entity Expiration form Attributable Expiry — the load-bearing Arkiv primitive behind every Epistemic Lease. Expiration alone is a TTL cache. Provenance alone is an audit log. Together, they become Attributable Expiry.

03 · WHY ARKIV?

TTL is not the pitch.

For agents controlled by one trusted backend, Redis or Postgres may be simpler. AssumptionLease becomes interesting when independent runtimes need to consume each other's temporary assertions without making one private database the authority over authorship and lifecycle.

Redis / PostgresUseful primitives
  • ✓ TTL / timestamps
  • ✓ Queries
  • ✓ Fast local execution
  • — Operator controls authorship metadata
  • — Operator controls retention / visibility
ArkivShared validity substrate
  • ✓ Protocol-level expiry
  • ✓ Immutable $creator provenance
  • ✓ Visible $owner lifecycle control
  • ✓ Typed queryable attributes
  • ✓ Independently inspectable shared state
T TestAgent creates
→
ARKIV CLAIM $creator = TestAgent scope = A891BE expires = 10m
→
C CodingAgent independently queries
04 · THE DATA MODEL IS THE PITCH

Three entity types. No memory dump.

Arkiv stores the small public coordination contract. Source code, secrets, raw logs, prompts and large artifacts stay off Arkiv.

CLAIM

An operational assumption

Scope-bound statement another agent may consume while it remains eligible under client trust policy.

ACTIVE example lease: 10 min
entity.json
ON ARKIV

Claims · scopes · evidence hashes · challenges · risk/volatility · validity · provenance

≠
OFF ARKIV

Source code · secrets · API keys · raw CI logs · prompts · private endpoints · large artifacts

05 · DISAGREEMENT IS DATA

Don't silently overwrite another agent.

If SecurityAgent sees conflicting evidence, it publishes a Challenge. The original Claim stays attributable to its creator while the consuming client sees DISPUTED.

CLAIM · TestAgent auth.middleware.enabled scope A891BE
CHALLENGE · SecurityAgent conflicting_evidence
DISPUTEDseverity 8/10
ASSUMPTIONLEASE

Agents already know how to remember.
Give them a way to know when they should doubt.

Interactive concept simulation for the Arkiv AI & DevTools Ideathon. No live network transactions are performed in this demo.

Explore data model Restart demo ↑ Full proposal ↗
Copied.