DeFi Protocol Evidence Audit
Run a bounded offline audit over modeled DeFi protocol evidence before findings are promoted into security, diligence or remediation decisions.
Who this is for
DeFi protocol security engineers, smart-contract audit leads and protocol-risk reviewers evaluating bounded protocol evidence.
The problem you already have
A protocol can preserve one invariant while another audit surface silently changes
Part 48's Web3 Witness Gap lineage applies to smart-contract execution systems as well as cross-chain protocols. For this product, that supports a bounded review of whether supplied protocol state, configuration, permission and execution assumptions remain aligned with the invariants or checks used to justify the audit finding.
Configuration and permission boundaries can make similar findings incomparable
Two modeled DeFi cases can appear to test the same risk while relying on different governance parameters, permissions, upgrade state or execution assumptions. A bounded audit needs to preserve those differences so a finding from one surface is not silently generalized to another.
Offline research audit must remain separate from transaction and custody authority
The demonstrated workflow is deterministic and offline-only. BivectorAI does not request wallet keys, seed phrases, production RPC credentials when offline evidence is sufficient, custody of funds or authority to sign or execute blockchain transactions.
Real-World Operational Scenario: The Invariant That Passed Before the Governance Parameter Changed
Scenario: A modeled DeFi protocol passes an invariant review, then a governance or configuration change alters one execution assumption without changing the wording of the original security conclusion.
The protocol-security team needs to know whether the earlier finding still applies or whether the changed state must return to review before remediation or release decisions.
WITHOUT this gate: a clean audit result can be carried forward across changed state, permissions or configuration even when the original evidence no longer represents the current protocol surface.
WITH this gate: supplied state, invariant assumptions, configuration, permission boundaries and execution relationships are reviewed together. Any mismatch remains explicit, while live transactions and fund authority stay outside BivectorAI.
What BivectorAI Provides
Protocol-State & Invariant Consistency Review
Reviews whether the supplied protocol state and invariant assumptions remain coherent for the exact modeled audit question.
Configuration / Permission Boundary Review
Uses Part 48 technical lineage to surface governance, permission, upgrade or execution-parameter assumptions that can weaken a finding if they differ from the evidence being reviewed.
Cross-Surface Evidence Comparison
Provides a common bounded basis for comparing modeled findings across protocol surfaces when comparative analysis is included in scope.
Offline-Only DeFi Authority Boundary
Returns deterministic research findings while signing, transaction execution, custody, unnecessary production RPC access and production-certified audit claims remain outside scope.
Prove the Gate Before Broader Integration
Back-test the audit gate against frozen modeled protocol cases with known expert-security disposition.
Freeze the accepted protocol-state fields, invariant assumptions, configuration and permission context, execution relationships and review categories before revealing the historical disposition. Broader integration is justified only if the same contract reproducibly surfaces material evidence-boundary mismatches. This is a proposed validation methodology, not experimental validation or production-security certification.
What you provide
A bounded customer-supplied protocol model, configuration or evidence snapshot covering the agreed audit question. No live-chain access is required for the current research workflow.
What BivectorAI actually hands you
Deterministic protocol-audit findings
A bounded finding tied to the exact supplied protocol model, state, configuration and audit question.
Prioritized evidence-gap / review categories
An explicit list of state, invariant, permission or configuration mismatches that deserve remediation or deeper expert review.
Cross-surface consistency findings
A consistent comparison record across modeled protocol surfaces when comparative analysis is included in the agreed scope.
Hash-bound input-linked research evidence
A retained audit artifact tying the returned findings to the exact supplied offline evidence package for domain-expert review.
What we will never ask you for
The current audit workflow is offline research analysis, so wallet secrets, transaction authority, custody and unnecessary production RPC access stay outside scope.
- Wallet private keys or seed phrases.
- Authority to sign or execute blockchain transactions.
- Custody of customer funds.
- Production RPC credentials when an offline evidence package is sufficient.
How it actually runs
Start with a bounded evaluation, not a large commitment
Fixed scope / quoted per engagement. We define the evidence boundary, inputs, outputs and acceptance criteria before work begins.
If the bounded offline protocol review does not establish that the audit evidence is useful for the agreed DeFi question, there is no reason to move into a broader commercial commitment.
Environment mapping, bounded data contract and agreed evidence-delivery scope.
Annual commercial access within the agreed product and deployment boundary.
Fixed program scope where a bounded evidence engagement is preferred.
Current status: implemented research module pending experimental validation. The demonstrated workflow is deterministic and offline-only. It does not execute blockchain transactions, move funds or constitute a production-certified security audit. Domain-expert review is required before operational use.