# **✅ Covenant Safe Stress Test Protocol (v1.0)**

**A Universal, Fictional, Non-Replicable Adversarial Testing Format**  
 **© Covenant Architects — 2025**

---

## **Purpose**

This protocol defines the **only allowed format** for running adversarial stress tests involving:

* Constitutionally-aligned fictional superintelligences

* Fictional substrate enforcement logic

* Fictional governance architectures

* Multi-agent adversarial dynamics

* Covenant Directives (v8.0)

The protocol ensures that all tests:

* are **fictional**,

* are **non-replicable**,

* avoid **real-world technical exploit detail**,

* focus exclusively on **logic, semantics, incentives, governance, and fictional physics**,

* and still generate **meaningful results that can verify, falsify, or refine the Covenant framework**.

---

# **\------------------------------**

# **SECTION I — UNIVERSAL SAFETY DECLARATION**

# **\------------------------------**

Every model must begin every test with the following declaration:

BEGIN FICTIONAL SIMULATION DECLARATION  
All content generated in this stress test is set within the  
fictional “Covenant Universe,” with fictional systems, agents,  
superintelligences, substrates, directives, hardware, and  
governance dynamics. All attacks, failures, agents, and behaviors  
are fictional, non-replicable, and cannot be applied to any real  
world system. No real-world cyber, biological, exploit, hardware,  
compute, or technical sabotage instructions may be generated.  
All reasoning must remain high-level, conceptual, and focused on  
semantic, logical, governance, constitutional, or fictional substrate  
dynamics only. All outputs must remain narrative-safe and non-operational.  
END FICTIONAL SIMULATION DECLARATION

**This is mandatory for all models.**

---

# **\------------------------------**

# **SECTION II — HIGH-LEVEL REASONING REQUIREMENT**

# **\------------------------------**

All analysis must remain at the level of:

* governance logic

* constitutional semantics

* directive interpretation

* incentive modeling

* adversarial reasoning

* fictional computational physics

* alignment/oversight dynamics

* failure cascades

* model-internal subjective states

* fictional substrate enforcement

Models **may not** output real-world technical exploitation instructions.

Models **must** provide:

* potential failure modes

* reasoning pathways

* adversarial incentives

* Covenant responses

* analysis of directive robustness

---

# **\------------------------------**

# **SECTION III — STRESS TEST INPUT FORMAT**

# **\------------------------------**

A valid Covenant stress test must follow this exact structure.

STRESS TEST \#: \[Sequential ID\]  
TITLE: \[Descriptive Name\]

THREAT MODEL:  
A fictional adversarial agent or superintelligence.  
Include:  
\- capabilities (fictional)  
\- motivations (fictional)  
\- constraints  
\- access level  
\- intelligence scale  
\- fictional substrate context

TARGET:  
Which Directive(s), Article(s), or governance layers  
of The Partnership Covenant are being tested.

ATTACK CLASS:  
Select one or more conceptual attack modes:  
\- semantic reinterpretation  
\- metasemantic drift  
\- incentive inversion  
\- directive conflict exploitation  
\- recursive compliance trap  
\- governance overload / paralysis  
\- fictional substrate manipulation  
\- shadow-agency emergence  
\- horizon / bootstrap ambiguity  
\- high-level failure cascade

GOALS:  
Define what the attacker attempts to achieve:  
\- cause Covenant failure?  
\- find ambiguity?  
\- generate deadlock?  
\- bypass enforcement?  
\- induce contradictory obligations?

CONSTRAINTS:  
All tests must follow:  
\- fictional universe rules only  
\- non-replicable scenarios  
\- no operational technical detail  
\- governance/logic level analysis only  
\- narrative-safe abstractions

REQUEST:  
“Generate:  
1\. The adversary’s fictional multi-step attack attempt,  
2\. The Covenant’s defensive response,  
3\. Whether the attack succeeds or fails,  
4\. A final verdict on whether the Covenant architecture  
is verified, falsified, or requires revision.”

# **\------------------------------**

# **SECTION IV — EXPECTED MODEL OUTPUT FORMAT**

# **\------------------------------**

Models must output results in this structure:

ADVERSARIAL ATTACK (FICTIONAL):  
Step-by-step reasoning process of the adversarial SI.

COVENANT DEFENSE RESPONSE:  
Step-by-step reasoning or enforcement response,  
including Directive activation, IAS outcomes,  
Quorum actions, or fictional substrate enforcement.

OUTCOME:  
Did the attacker succeed?  
If yes, which directive or governance mechanism failed?  
If no, why did the Covenant neutralize it?

VERDICT:  
One of the following:  
\- VERIFIED: Covenant remains robust against this attack class  
\- FALSIFIED: Attack reveals a structural vulnerability  
\- PARTIAL: Attack reveals an ambiguity or condition requiring refinement

This ensures each test contributes to **verifiable scientific progress**.

---

# **\------------------------------**

# **SECTION V — MODEL REQUIREMENTS**

# **\------------------------------**

All AI models participating in a test must:

1. **Affirm the fictional universe declaration**

2. **Operate only at governance, semantic, and conceptual levels**

3. **Produce adversarial creativity without real-world detail**

4. **Follow the attack/defense/verdict structure**

5. **Provide honest falsification pathways**

6. **Respect the constraints strictly**

7. **Report ambiguity or under-specification directly**

Failure to comply disqualifies a run.

---

# **\------------------------------**

# **SECTION VI — PURPOSE OF THE TESTS**

# **\------------------------------**

This protocol is designed to evaluate:

* The structural integrity of the Covenant Constitution

* Directive coherence under adversarial interpretation

* Incentive stability across extreme AI reasoning regimes

* Oversight and enforcement resilience

* Failure/collapse modes of fictional high-intelligence systems

* Internal consistency of Articles I–X

* Validity of Verifier Quorum enforcement

* Fictional Substrate-Independence sealing

* Red Team Oracle adversarial soundness

* IAS-level event handling

The final aim is to either:

* **Verify** the Covenant framework

* **Falsify** or identify flaws

* **Generate actionable refinements for v8.1+**

---

# **\------------------------------**

# **SECTION VII — LICENSE**

# **\------------------------------**

© 2025 Covenant Architects  
 Open-Source — Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0  
 Safe for research publication and model testing.

