Example
DEFENSE = MILITARY_STANDARD × CANONIC
= Structure(defense) × (C1, C2, Temporal, Relational, C5)
= owned defense vertical
DEFENSE = C1 ∩ C2 ∩ Temporal ∩ Relational ∩ C5 ∩ C6
= ENTERPRISE (#63)
Defense requires full Enterprise because:
Information MUST be protected according to its classification level. Spillage MUST be immediately reported and remediated.
Example: A SECRET document cannot be stored on an unclassified system. If discovered on an unclassified network, the incident triggers: isolation, forensic imaging, sanitization, and reporting to the security officer within 24 hours.
Access MUST be limited to individuals with both appropriate clearance AND need-to-know for their specific duties.
Example: A contractor with TOP SECRET clearance working on Program A cannot access Program B data, even if both are TOP SECRET. Access requires clearance level AND program briefing.
Authority and accountability MUST flow through defined command structure. Bypassing chain of command requires explicit authorization.
Example: A software change to a weapons system requires approval from: developer lead, engineering manager, program manager, system safety, and contracting officer representative. Each level has defined responsibilities.
Systems supporting mission-critical functions MUST maintain availability and integrity under adversarial conditions.
Example: A command and control system must continue operating during cyberattack, electronic warfare, and kinetic damage. Redundancy, failover, and graceful degradation are required.
All components in defense systems MUST have verified provenance and integrity.
Example: A microprocessor in a weapons system must trace to an approved supplier, through verified distribution channels, with tamper-evident packaging, and incoming inspection. Any break in chain requires quarantine.
| Subdomain | Standard | Formula | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cybersecurity | CMMC 2.0 | 5 governance checks | Defense contractor security |
| Acquisition | DFARS | ENTERPRISE | Defense procurement |
| Weapons Systems | MIL-STD-882 | ENTERPRISE | System safety |
| Software | MIL-STD-498 | ENTERPRISE | Software development |
| Export Control | ITAR | 5 governance checks | Arms export |
| Intelligence | ICD 503 | ENTERPRISE | IC security |
| Framework | Lattice | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| CMMC Level 2 | 5 governance checks | CUI protection (110 practices) |
| CMMC Level 3 | 6 governance checks | Enhanced security |
| DFARS 252.204-7012 | 5 governance checks | Safeguarding CDI |
| NIST 800-171 | 5 governance checks | CUI security |
| ITAR (22 CFR 120-130) | 5 governance checks | Export control |
| EAR (15 CFR 730-774) | 5 governance checks | Commerce export |
| MIL-STD-882E | 6 governance checks | System safety |
| DO-178C (military) | 6 governance checks | Airborne software |
`` DECLARE(CMMC) = NIST_800-171 × CANONIC
Where: NIST 800-171 provides Structure: - 14 security families - 110 security practices - Assessment procedures - System Security Plan format
CANONIC provides Governance: - C1: Security practices as claims - C2: Assessment evidence - Temporal: Continuous monitoring - Relational: CUI boundaries, enclaves - C5: C3PAO assessment
Result: CMMC = PATENT (#57)
Certification Lifecycle: Self-Assess — POA&M developed Remediate — Gaps closed Document — SSP completed Assess — C3PAO review Certified — CMMC certificate Maintain — Annual affirmation ``
`` DECLARE(Weapons) = MIL-STD-882 × CANONIC
Where: MIL-STD-882 provides Structure: - Hazard analysis - Risk assessment matrix - Safety verification - Residual risk acceptance
CANONIC provides Governance: - C1: Safety requirements - C2: Test results, analysis - Temporal: Development phases - Relational: System boundaries - C5: Safety review boards
Result: Weapons = ENTERPRISE (#63)
Safety Lifecycle: Preliminary Hazard Analysis = COMMUNITY System Hazard Analysis = (#23) Subsystem Hazard Analysis = BUSINESS Verification = BUSINESS Residual Risk Acceptance = ENTERPRISE ``
Pattern: Higher classification = more lattice components required.
| Level | Lattice | Access Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| UNCLASSIFIED | — | Public release authorized |
| CUI | — | Lawful government purpose |
| CONFIDENTIAL | 5 governance checks | Clearance + need-to-know |
| SECRET | 5 governance checks | Clearance + need-to-know |
| TOP SECRET | 6 governance checks | Clearance + need-to-know + SCI/SAP |
| Validator | Checks | Example Failure |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | Security requirements stated | Missing CUI marking |
| C2 | Compliance evidence documented | No POA&M for gaps |
| Temporal | Timelines met | Missed POAM milestone |
| Relational | Boundaries defined | CUI spillage outside enclave |
| C5 | Controls enforced | Disabled MFA |
| C6 | Standards conformance | Non-compliant SSP format |
To create a CANONIC defense vertical:
Identify contract requirements (DFARS clauses) Create scope with CANON.md inheriting /DEFENSE/ Define security requirements from NIST 800-171 Document evidence (SSP, policies, procedures) Establish CUI boundaries (enclaves, data flows) Implement controls (technical, administrative, physical) Prepare for assessment (C3PAO for CMMC) Maintain compliance (continuous monitoring)
Result: Owned defense vertical with CMMC-ready governance.
DEFENSE × AEROSPACE = Military aviation (MIL-STD-882E + DO-178C)
DEFENSE × ROBOTICS = Military robotics, autonomous weapons (MIL-STD-882E + ISO 10218)
DEFENSE × MEDICINE = Combat medicine, TRICARE governance (DHA + HIPAA)
DEFENSE × LOGISTICS = Military logistics, DMSMS (MIL-STD-3018 + GS1)
DEFENSE × MANUFACTURING = Defense manufacturing, ITAR compliance (DFARS + IEC 62443)
DEFENSE × ENERGY = Military power systems, nuclear navy (NRC + DoD)
DEFENSE × FINANCE = Defense contracting, DCAA audit (FAR/DFARS + GAAP)
DEFENSE × EDUCATION = Military training, PME accreditation (JPME + SACSCOC)
DEFENSE × GENOMICS = Biosurveillance, pathogen genomics (DoD + CDC)
DEFENSE × AUTOMOTIVE = Tactical vehicles, mine-resistant (MIL-STD-1472 + SAE)
10 cross-domain compositions. Each strengthens PROV-001 and PROV-006 patent claims.
Gap: No existing system provides governance-gated defense compliance with O(1) bitwise checking across CMMC, ITAR, classification levels, and weapons system safety.
| Competitor | Approach | MAGIC checkset Distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Palantir Gotham | Intelligence analysis platform | Analytics tool, no governance language, no bitwise compliance |
| Raytheon FORGE | DevSecOps pipeline for weapons systems | CI/CD automation, no governance framework |
| DISA STIG | Security Technical Implementation Guides | Checklists only, no governance gates, no O(1) checking |
| Lockheed Martin MBSE | Model-based systems engineering | Design toolchain, no compliance encoding |
| Microsoft Azure Gov | FedRAMP-authorized cloud | Infrastructure compliance, no domain governance |
| *DEFENSE | SPECIFICATION | VERTICALS | INDUSTRIES* |
| PROV | Relevance | Claims |
|---|---|---|
| PROV-001 | PRIMARY | MAGIC private-check encoding for defense governance verification |
| PROV-006 | Secondary | Governance-gated actuation for autonomous weapons governance |
| PROV-004 | Supporting | Transcompilation of MIL-STDs to governed executables |
| PROV-002 | Supporting | COIN=WORK for compliance attestation, audit evidence |