One startup model
Cold start runs through attestation, verification, config retrieval, secure installation, and activation.
Whitepaper
This page condenses the Project Digitalis RFC suite into one readable architecture summary. It explains what the system does, where trust lives, and how the SDK behaves when startup conditions are good, degraded, or unsafe.
Project Digitalis is designed as a trust bootstrap runtime for mobile applications. Its role is to keep protected capabilities off until the app has collected attestation evidence, submitted it to a backend, received a policy decision, fetched approved protected configuration, installed that material into secure storage, and reached a trusted active state.
The RFCs are aligned around one core principle: the backend is the source of truth. The client gathers signals and enforces outcomes, but it does not make final trust decisions on its own. That design supports both Digitalis-operated and customer-managed backends without changing the security model exposed to the SDK.
Cold start runs through attestation, verification, config retrieval, secure installation, and activation.
Policy, TTL, degradation rules, and config authorization live with the backend rather than the device.
Success and failure map into a small set of deterministic startup outcomes that can be tested and audited.
The normalization plan describes the suite as a layered control system. The host app invokes the SDK. The SDK orchestrates provider-specific attestation, talks to a backend control plane, receives policy and protected configuration, installs approved material locally, and then enforces startup outcomes.
This matters because local secure storage is not treated as the root of trust. It becomes useful only after backend verification and authorization have completed successfully.
The six current RFCs define the v1 trust bootstrap architecture from startup sequencing through policy enforcement.
Establishes the normative startup flow: attest, verify, fetch configuration, install securely, then activate. Sensitive features must fail closed when required steps fail.
Defines the backend as the control plane and requires custom backends to preserve equivalent trust decisions, contract versioning, and capability semantics.
Creates one orchestration interface for Apple and Google while preserving raw evidence, provider capabilities, and deterministic error classes for backend policy.
Treats configuration as a security-governed asset with integrity validation, secure storage, versioning, rotation, revocation, and anti-rollback controls.
Allows obfuscated native code as defense in depth, but rejects it as a trust anchor. Native helpers may raise reverse-engineering cost without becoming the policy authority.
Defines the canonical outcome model that keeps protected features off by default and makes retries, blocking states, and hard exits explicit and policy-driven.
The client may sanity-check data and enforce outcomes, but the backend remains authoritative for allow, deny, degrade, and TTL decisions.
Capability negotiation and fallback behavior must remain explicit. Unsupported environments should not quietly weaken the trust posture.
Protected config is tied to policy and integrity state. It is not generic app settings delivered without trust context.
RFC-0006 reduces all startup results into six outcome classes so the SDK can be implemented consistently across platforms.
Trust bootstrap succeeded, protected config is valid, and protected features may be enabled.
Only explicitly approved non-sensitive behavior may continue while protected features remain disabled.
Temporary conditions such as timeout or backend interruption justify controlled retry logic.
The backend rejected the presented environment or rule profile and the app remains contained.
Integrity, signature, rollback, or revocation failures make trusted operation unsafe.
The required provider, contract, or secure storage capability is not available for policy-compliant startup.
Taken together, the RFCs are not just describing an SDK wrapper around Apple App Attest and Google Play Integrity. They describe a mobile trust system with explicit trust boundaries, a backend control plane, governed config delivery, and deterministic behavior under failure.
That makes the proposal more operationally demanding, but it also makes it more suitable for real protected features, customer-managed deployments, and formal conformance testing.
Conclusion
The Project Digitalis RFC suite defines a mobile SDK shaped like a control system rather than a helper library. Trust decisions stay backend-authoritative, protected features stay off by default, and protected configuration only activates after a full verified flow.
That is the central idea running through the full RFC set, and it is the basis for the landing page, product positioning, and future implementation work.