Purpose of the event model
The Event Model defines what constitutes an event within Trust State Protocol and how events serve as the sole drivers of trust state evolution. The model establishes a strict boundary between observable outcomes and subjective interpretation, ensuring that trust changes only in response to resolved and verifiable occurrences rather than inferred intent, reputation, or expectation.
Within TSP, events function as the atomic inputs to trust evolution. They are the only mechanism through which new information enters the protocol. This design choice ensures that trust remains grounded in externally observable behavior rather than internal judgments or continuous monitoring.
Definition of an event
An event is a discrete, observable outcome arising from an interaction within a single, explicitly defined context. An event represents the resolution of that interaction and is defined in terms of what occurred, not why it occurred or how it was perceived by participants.
Events are inherently factual. They do not encode satisfaction, sentiment, or interpretation. An interaction that has not reached resolution does not produce an event and therefore has no effect on trust state. This requirement prevents speculative or anticipatory trust updates and ensures that trust evolves only from completed processes.
Events as outcomes, not actions
A central principle of the Event Model is that events correspond to outcomes rather than actions or intentions. The protocol does not respond to attempted behavior, intermediate steps, or declared commitments. Only final outcomes that meet the criteria for resolution are eligible to influence trust.
This distinction is critical for maintaining determinism and neutrality. Actions may be ambiguous, partial, or context dependent, whereas outcomes can be classified consistently within a declared interaction domain. By restricting events to outcomes, the protocol avoids encoding assumptions about motivation or effort.
Event classification and polarity
Each event is classified according to its effect on trust state within the relevant context. Classification reflects whether the resolved outcome contributes positively, negatively, or neutrally to confidence in future interactions of the same type.
Positive events indicate outcomes that reinforce reliability within the context. Negative events indicate outcomes that reduce confidence. Neutral events represent outcomes that are informationally insufficient to justify a directional change in trust. Classification is context specific and must be declared by the system defining that context.
The protocol does not impose a global taxonomy of events. It requires only that event classification be deterministic and consistently applied within a context.
Verification context
Every event is evaluated within a verification context that reflects how the system confirms that the outcome occurred as recorded. Verification context does not determine whether an event exists, but it influences how strongly that event should affect trust state evolution.
Verification mechanisms are external to Trust State Protocol and may include cryptographic confirmation, bilateral acknowledgment, third party attestation, or system level guarantees. TSP does not validate evidence or arbitrate disputes. It records that verification has occurred under declared conditions.
Verification context modulates event impact but does not eliminate uncertainty. Even highly verified events remain subject to time based decay and bounded influence.
Event finality and immutability
Events within TSP are final with respect to trust evolution. Once an event is recorded as verified, it is not revised or reinterpreted within the protocol. Subsequent corrections or reversals must be expressed as new events rather than modifications of prior ones.
This immutability preserves auditability and ensures that trust evolution is traceable and reproducible. The protocol therefore models trust as a function of event history rather than mutable judgments.
Temporal anchoring of events
Each event is temporally anchored at the point of verification rather than at the initiation of the interaction. This anchoring ensures that trust updates reflect when information becomes reliable rather than when an interaction begins.
Temporal anchoring is essential for consistent decay behavior and for preventing manipulation through delayed or retroactive reporting. Events that are verified later influence trust later, regardless of when the underlying interaction occurred.
Contextual isolation of events
Events are strictly bound to the context in which they are defined. An event generated in one context has no effect on trust states in other contexts. There is no implicit aggregation or propagation of event influence across domains.
This isolation ensures that outcomes relevant to one interaction type do not distort trust assessment in another. It also allows contexts with differing verification assumptions and risk profiles to coexist without interference.
Independence from identity and policy
The Event Model does not assume persistent identity. Events may be associated with pseudonymous or system defined entities without requiring real world identification. Identity resolution, where required, remains external to the protocol.
Similarly, the Event Model does not encode policy decisions or enforcement outcomes. Whether an event triggers access restriction, escalation, or incentive adjustment is determined entirely by the implementing system. The protocol records the event and its classification, not its consequences.
Relationship to trust state evolution
Events do not directly determine trust state values. They provide inputs to the state transition process defined elsewhere in the protocol. The magnitude and direction of trust change resulting from an event are determined by state transition rules, weighting parameters, and decay functions.
By separating event definition from trust update mechanics, TSP maintains modularity and allows trust evolution to be reasoned about formally without entangling event semantics with policy interpretation.
