QESIS+ Digital Twin OS · vintage v8.6 (2026-08-09)

Substrate sovereignty, measured and checkable

Seven physical and institutional axes across 35 states. Every number on this page traces to a hashed asset, and every state without sufficient coverage is published as a gap rather than filled with an estimate.

118/118 assets re-checkable from their own hash. Provenance coverage 100 percent.
681 append-only audit entries, hash chained, verified intact.
2 decisions held for human approval under EU AI Act Article 14. Nothing publishes until a person signs.

Where the exposure sits

Composite exposure combines the seven axes under declared weights. Higher means more exposed. Countries below the coverage threshold are named beneath the table rather than ranked, because a rank computed on missing data is a guess wearing a number.

Composite substrate exposure, most exposed first

32 states ranked, 3 excluded for coverage. Today's highlighted state rotates.

Composite exposure ranking
#StateCompositeRelative
1Saudi Arabia75.6
2United States68.2
3Spain60.2
4Belgium59.7
5Bahrain58.1
6United Arab Emirates56.5
7Qatar50.9
8Poland49.1
9India48.7
10Chile47.7
11Israel46.8
12Netherlands46.1

Source: QESIS+ v8.6 (2026-08-09) canonical index, asset QES-A0001, coverage 32/35 states, vintage v8.6 (2026-08-09).

Today's state in focus: Canada

The selection rotates daily across the ranked sample. This is an instrument for 35 states, and pinning one of them to the front page would quietly turn it into a case study about that state.

Canada across seven axes

Composite 26.0. Binding constraint: Rare Earth Element Stress at 55.5. Full coverage on all seven axes.

AxisScoreRelative to scale
WSE Water Stress Exposure24.7
CSE Cable Stress Exposure9.7
REE Rare Earth Element Stress55.5
FPE Foreign Platform Exposure25.0
ODI Operator Dependency Index25.0
CRD Cloud Risk Densityno coverage
ESE Electricity Stress Exposure29.0

Source: QESIS+ v8.6 (2026-08-09) axis scores, asset QES-A0001, coverage see per-axis flags above, vintage v8.6 (2026-08-09).

The Article 14 gate

An agent here cannot publish, spend, or grant itself privilege. High-risk operations stop at a gate and wait for a named person. That is a legal requirement under Article 14, and it is also the negative feedback that keeps a coupled system from running away from its operator. Twenty-five decisions currently sit behind it.

What the failure analysis found

One thousand simulated deployments, calibrated on declared anchors and run through the local fsQCA engine, confirm both specified failure configurations and add a third result that was not specified. No condition is necessary on its own, so there is no single dial to watch. Concurrency and recursion depth together form the core of every surviving term. And the term carrying a human gate still survives the consistency cutoff at 0.822 under tool-switching, which says plainly that human oversight attenuates failure without preventing it. Solution coverage is 0.406, so this model explains part of the picture and is stated as partial.

Domain 1: Autonomous agent authorization and privilege escalation5 held
#DecisionRiskUnblocks on approval
1Authorization boundary for autonomous GitHub PR generation and auto-mergeHIGHAgents may open PRs; auto-merge stays closed until separately signed
2Self-modification constraints for local agentic scriptsCRITICALBounded self-edit inside `qesis_agents/`, never to the gate or the chain
3Threshold limits for automated API token use and cloud provisioningHIGHMetered external calls under a declared cost envelope
4Cross-repository refactoring without manual peer reviewHIGHMulti-repo edits; currently every repo is reviewed singly
5Revocation protocol and emergency kill-switch parametersCRITICALThe stop control. **Read the analysis above: this is not redundant with the approval gate.**
Domain 2: Data ingestion, licensing and provenance5 held
#DecisionRiskUnblocks on approval
6Licence resolution and monetization clearance for the unlicensed documentsHIGHThe content ladder. This is the binding constraint on all revenue.
7External scraping parameters and data-feed integration policyHIGHSCOUT may collect beyond the local corpus
8Data-masking verification for public commits (D-026)HIGHPublic push; the credential gate already runs, this signs its scope
9Embedding space integrity sign-off, 768 dimensionsMEDIUMConfirmed: pgvector 0.8.2, `vector(768)`, matching nomic-embed-text
10Dataset versioning and archival synchronization manifestsMEDIUMCitable dataset releases with a persistent identifier
Domain 3: Digital twin behavioral and predictive parameters5 held
#DecisionRiskUnblocks on approval
11Calibration bounds for behavioral simulation weightsHIGHSimulated stakeholder response enters analysis with declared bounds
12Macro-geopolitical scenario variables for the analytical modelsHIGHScenario runs beyond the canonical vintage
13Bias mitigation and variance thresholds for decision-support outputHIGHAgent output may inform an external recommendation
14Real-time telemetry integration from the reporting layerMEDIUMLive dashboard feeds rather than periodic exports
15Structural drift criteria between the twin and real institutional metricsHIGHAutomated drift alarms with a defined trigger
Domain 4: Compliance, auditability and ISO 42001 alignment5 held
#DecisionRiskUnblocks on approval
16Automated audit trail linking ticket closures to commitsMEDIUMClosure evidence generated rather than asserted
17Formal risk management framework documentationHIGHCloses the last substantive ISO 42001 clause gap
18Human oversight protocol for high-risk classification changesCRITICALWho may reclassify a system, and on what evidence
19Transparency and explainability metrics for RAG retrievalsMEDIUMRetrieval already returns matched terms and both component ranks; this signs the standard
20Review schedule and accountability for the human supervisorHIGHNames the reviewer and the cadence. **Currently one person, which is risk R-01.**
Domain 5: Commercialization, monetization and publishing5 held
#DecisionRiskUnblocks on approval
21Publishing rights for thesis outputs and the governance dashboardHIGHThe dashboard goes public; blocked also by the two design defects
22Commercialization boundaries and IP protection for the architectureHIGHThe licence split that is the business model
23External ecosystem integrations, enterprise collaboration channelsHIGHThird-party connectors touch the boundary; each needs its own review
24Pricing, access tiering and data-sharing agreementsHIGHThe institutional tier becomes sellable
25Master go-live authorization, staging to active autonomous operationCRITICALEverything. Signed last, on the evidence of the other 24.

Provenance

Every asset carries an identifier, a SHA-256 and a lineage note. The register is re-checkable end to end: each entry can be recomputed from the file it names, and the audit chain commits each entry to its predecessor, so a retroactive edit breaks the chain downstream where an auditor can see it.

45 tables in the analytical warehouse, 2,523 rows, read-only to every agent.
719 retrieval chunks, each carrying its source, licence and hash.
134 pipeline entries derived from measured exposure and published institutional remit.

Method, and what would falsify it

Coverage below 0.75 excludes a state from ranking. The gap is published as a finding and never imputed. Correlations are reported with a named confounder and a stated falsifier or they are not reported as findings at all, which is enforced in code rather than by good intentions: the analysis tool refuses to return an interpretation without both.

What would falsify the headline reading: stratify the sample by jurisdiction tier. If the cross-axis associations collapse inside every tier, the pooled coefficients were composition rather than mechanism, and the composite would need rebuilding on tier-relative rather than absolute terms.

Take the country sheet

One page per state: seven axis scores, the binding constraint, coverage flags and the full source trail. Free, licensed CC BY-NC. Commercial use needs an institutional licence.

Your address is used to send this sheet and nothing else unless you ask for the monthly note. It is stored inside the EU, never sold and never shared. Unsubscribe in one click. Lawful basis: consent, GDPR Art. 6(1)(a). The processor list and full terms live in the privacy policy. This form is not yet connected to a backend, and it says so rather than silently discarding what you type.