Trusted Defense Microelectronics & Hardware Provenance
Commercial referenceDEF-015
When contacting BivectorAI, quote DEF-015 — Trusted Defense Microelectronics & Hardware Provenance.
Who this is for
Hardware assurance leads and supply-chain security program managers tracking provenance across a lifecycle longer than the original procurement.
The problem you already have
Hardware trust outlives the procurement event that established it
Trust in a hardware component depends on design, foundry, packaging, test, configuration, substitution and repair provenance across a lifecycle that runs far longer than the original procurement decision — and provenance gaps accumulate the whole time.
Genuine hardware can still be running the wrong program
A secure module can pass every identity check — package lineage, serial number, manufacturer certificate — while the firmware or bitstream actually loaded on it doesn't match the approved mission configuration. The hardware was never counterfeit or substituted; it's simply running something it wasn't cleared to run, and identity checks alone don't catch that.
This works from provenance records, not design files or physical samples
Never requested, and structurally rejected if submitted: proprietary design files, classified foundry data, or physical hardware samples.
Real-World Operational Scenario: The Genuine FPGA Running the Wrong Program
Scenario: A secure FPGA module in a fielded system passes every identity check.
Package lineage, serial number, and manufacturer certificate all confirm it's the genuine, approved part.
WITHOUT this check: Because hardware identity checks out, the module is treated as fully authorized for its high-assurance role. Nobody separately verifies that the bitstream actually loaded on it matches the approved mission configuration — a field update could have installed a different, unapproved version without it registering as a hardware problem, since the hardware itself never changed.
WITH this check: Hardware identity and configuration are tracked as separate evidence. The FPGA is confirmed genuine, but its installed bitstream generation doesn't match the approved mission configuration — operational authority is reduced to configuration recovery or test mode until the correct bitstream is verified, even though the physical hardware was never in question.
What you provide
Redacted design, foundry, packaging, test, and configuration provenance records already logged across your hardware supply chain.
What BivectorAI Provides
Genuine Identity and Correct Configuration Are Checked Separately
A component can be authentic and still be denied a high-assurance role if its installed firmware, bitstream, or configuration doesn't match the approved generation — identity alone was never treated as sufficient.
An Evidence Gap Is Never Represented as Confirmed Counterfeit
Missing provenance reduces authority to what the evidence actually supports — it's recorded as a gap, not escalated into an unproven accusation of counterfeiting or tampering.
Rework Creates a New Generation Requiring Its Own Evidence
A depot repair or component swap puts the board into a reworked-unverified state until post-work inspection and test evidence pass — the pre-repair trust level doesn't carry over automatically.
Hash-Sealed Certificates for Post-Event Review
Every hardware-authority classification traces back to the exact design, package, test, and configuration evidence that justified it at the time.
What we will never ask you for
Never requested, and structurally rejected if submitted: proprietary design files, classified foundry data, or physical hardware samples, or your system's core design data. Every submission is checked against this rejection list before any evidence logic runs — a malformed or over-broad submission is blocked and reported back to you, not silently processed.
How it actually runs
Engagement path & current acquisition terms
DEF-015 · Tier C — Strategic Sensing / Infrastructure
Secures a defined diligence and exclusive-negotiation period. Any option credit is agreed in writing as part of the signed commercial terms.
Starting integration engineering, customer-safe adaptation, local/private deployment work, validation and acceptance evidence for the agreed environment.
Scope-dependent consideration for negotiated exclusivity in a defined field, program, platform class, territory and rights scope.
Engineering support, update access, security maintenance, evidence infrastructure and agreed sustainment services.
Applied to attributable net program revenue under the definitive agreement, subject to negotiated exclusions and accounting rules.
Commercial boundary. These are indicative starting terms, not a binding offer. Final price depends on exclusivity scope, field of use, territory, sublicensing, technical-data rights, integration obligations, export-control review, support requirements and definitive agreement.
IP boundary. Exclusive FOU does not automatically transfer ownership of BivectorAI Background IP. Worldwide/all-defense rights, sublicensing, source-level technical-data rights or assignment require separate negotiated consideration.
Scope the DEF-015 diligence and integration boundary
Request DEF-015 Acquisition Discussion →Email fallback: contact@bivectorai.com
Defense technology is integrated through qualified local/private engagement. No public Defense API and no automated Defense checkout are provided.