Contribution: A Lifecycle Trust Framework for Agentic AI - Registry, Evidence, and Gates (LGD Model) (input document)
fg-tida-themes-contribution-a-lifecycle-trust-framework-for-agentic-ai-registry-evidence-and-gates-lgd-model-input-document-26
| Type | FG-TIDA document |
|---|---|
| Group | Trust and Identity for Humans and Agentic AI |
| State | Submitted |
| Authors | Not entered |
| Last updated | 2026-10-23 15:10 UTC |
Formats and resources
Abstract
A Lifecycle Trust Framework for Agentic AI
Registry, Evidence, and Gates — the LGD Model
Source: Steven Zhao, Independent Researcher (SynomosAI / LGD framework)
Contact: zhaoxinghua06@126.com
Meeting: 1st FG-TIDA Meeting, Paris, 30 November – 1 December 2026
Document type: Input document
1. Summary
Trust in agentic AI is not a single event — it is a property that must be established, demonstrated and re-evaluated across the entire lifecycle of an agent: from birth (identity issuance) through operation (consequential acts) to evolution (capability changes) and retirement.
This contribution proposes the LGD lifecycle trust framework, built on three executable laws:
- LGD-I · Registry: every agent is registered at birth — identity, creator, governance owner, records;
- LGD-II · Evidence: every consequential act leaves replayable evidence — decision logs, risk registers, human-oversight proof, incident ledgers;
- LGD-III · Gates: every capability evolution passes a gate — trigger, assessment, release, retrospective review; high-stakes authority stays with humans.
The framework is a civil-society reference model, deliberately aligned on top of existing standards (ISO/IEC 42001, EU AI Act, ISO 13485/14971, NIST AI RMF, UNESCO Recommendation) rather than competing with them. It directly supports FG-TIDA's work item on trust frameworks and lifecycle (assurance) models.
2. Problem Statement
Mainstream AI-governance efforts address trust mostly at single points:
- Identity — "who is it" (passports, registries, algorithm filing);
- Evidence — "prove it" (audit trails, explainability, transparency);
- Gates — "who lets it grow" (change control, conformity assessment).
Almost no framework chains these points into one unbroken lifecycle thread. As a result, an agent can be well-identified at birth but unverifiable in operation, or heavily audited in one phase but ungoverned in another. Trust degrades silently across lifecycle gaps.
3. Proposal — the LGD lifecycle trust model
3.1 Three laws as a lifecycle thread
| Law | Lifecycle anchor | What it guarantees |
|---|---|---|
| LGD-I Registry (有籍) | Birth → registration | Every agent has a resolvable identity, creator, governance owner and records; no exemption by size or private use |
| LGD-II Evidence (有证) | Operation → evidence chain | Every consequential act leaves signed, replayable evidence: decision logs, risk registers, human-oversight proof, incident ledgers |
| LGD-III Gates (有门禁) | Evolution → release gates | Capability upgrades, re-releases and permission expansions pass trigger → assessment → release → retrospective review; machines request, humans authorize |
3.2 Isomorphic reference model
The regulated world already runs this chain in practice: medical-device lifecycle regulation (classification → design control → risk management → registration → clinical evidence → quality systems → post-market surveillance → retirement). The framework transfers this proven model to agentic AI, giving FG-TIDA a concrete, real-world-tested assurance spine rather than an abstract policy layer.
3.3 Lifecycle stage = executable instrument
Each stage maps to a checkable tool or evidence generator, so the framework is testable and benchmarkable:
- identity issuance and verification (see companion contribution C1);
- risk classification at birth;
- change-gate assessment for capability upgrades;
- incident ledgers for post-deployment monitoring;
- retirement checks that close the chain.
4. Mapping to FG-TIDA Work Items
| FG-TIDA area | LGD contribution |
|---|---|
| Trust frameworks and lifecycle (assurance) models | Full lifecycle thread: registry → evidence → gates, with stage-specific instruments |
| Security criteria and benchmarks for continuous assessment of AI agents | Each lifecycle stage defines checkable criteria; gates are benchmarkable release conditions |
| Terminology and definitions | Concrete semantics for "lifecycle stage", "release gate", "evidence chain", "governance owner" |
| Identity infrastructure and interoperability | Registry law complements identity work (C1): registration records reference the agent's DID and attestations |
5. Relationship to Companion Contribution C1
- C1 (verified-agent-identity) answers "who is the agent, and whom does it act for?" — identity infrastructure.
- C3 (LGD) answers "under what conditions should that entity be trusted to act, across its lifecycle?" — trust management and assurance.
- Together they cover the two halves of the FG-TIDA mandate: identity infrastructure and trust management.
6. Proposed Action for FG-TIDA
- Consider LGD as an input to the trust frameworks and lifecycle (assurance) models work item.
- Use the three laws (Registry / Evidence / Gates) as a candidate checklist for the lifecycle assurance model under discussion.
- Reference the medical-device paradigm as a proven real-world template for lifecycle governance.
- Align with the companion contribution (C1) so identity and lifecycle trust are specified coherently.
7. References
- Zhao, X. (2026). The Lifecycle Governance Doctrine (LGD). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22456647. CC BY 4.0.
- Companion contribution: Decentralized Agent Identity Infrastructure (ERC-8004, iden3, Attestation Registries).
- ISO/IEC 42001, EU AI Act 2024/1689, ISO 13485/14971, NIST AI RMF — alignment references.
- ITU-T FG-TIDA Terms of Reference (TD295/P, SG17).
Revisions
- No file revisions have been uploaded.