TSIS Sovereign Infrastructure Systems
How the systems work together
TSIS Sovereign Infrastructure Systems address distinct institutional responsibilities through shared governance foundations: human authority, evidence, accountability, and governed execution. Each system has its own purpose and may be considered individually. Where systems operate together, responsibilities remain defined; approval by one system does not independently authorize another to execute an action.
Understanding the system names
HCIS Foundation I provides foundational governance capabilities across the sovereign infrastructure systems. The established designations HCIS-SPCS-1 and HCIS-SIAG-1 identify specialized systems within this infrastructure scope. HCEG and TRIHA are also HCIS-aligned, although their established names do not use the HCIS prefix. These names are retained without change.
Institutional readiness
TSIS distinguishes internal development and validation from acceptance within an institution's operating environment. Inclusion in this catalog does not establish universal compatibility, clinical authorization, production deployment approval, or unrestricted access to protected materials. Applicable institutional acceptance and separate human authorization remain necessary.
Sovereign Infrastructure Systems
Five independently selectable systems. One governance foundation.
The HCIS Foundation I family provides specialized institutional governance capabilities while preserving human authority, evidence, accountability, controlled execution, recovery, and trust.
HCIS Foundation I
Pre-execution governance for consequential digital actions.
Explore HCIS Foundation IHCIS Foundation I
HCIS Foundation I
Human-controlled pre-execution governance for consequential digital actions, designed to preserve current authority, evidence, accountability, refusal, recovery, and controlled execution before an action is allowed to proceed.
Human Authority
Verifies who is authorized to approve a consequential action and whether that authority is current before execution.
Evidence
Preserves the request, authority basis, decision state, readiness evidence, and resulting record so the action can later be reconstructed.
Execution Gates
Prevents a consequential action from executing until required authority, evidence, timing, and readiness conditions are satisfied.
Refusal / Delay / Escalation
Supports explicit DENIED, DELAYED, and ESCALATED outcomes instead of treating execution as the default.
Recovery & Accountability
Preserves governed recovery, restart, rollback, and evidence continuity so failures and consequential actions remain accountable.
Potential institutional evaluation scope
A proposed evaluation may cover consequential-action governance, authority and evidence controls, execution-gate behavior, refusal and escalation handling, recovery and accountability, reviewer evidence, and target-environment acceptance criteria. Deliverables require written agreement.
Institutional licensing
HCIS Foundation I may be considered independently for institutional evaluation and potential licensing. Scope, included governance components, availability, and obligations require a separate written agreement.
HCEG
HCEG
Governance for consequential decisions where human, operational, or institutional context affects how a policy, rule, or authorized decision should be safely applied.
Context Governance
Captures relevant human and institutional context before a rule or consequential decision is applied.
Exception Governance
Routes legitimate exceptions through bounded authority and evidence rather than allowing policy to be bypassed informally.
Conflict & Ambiguity
Identifies conflicting facts, policies, authorities, or circumstances that require clarification before a consequential decision proceeds.
Authorized Reconsideration
Allows an authorized human decision-maker to reconsider a governed outcome when new evidence or context materially changes the situation.
Evidence Preservation
Preserves the context, exception basis, authority, reasoning, and resulting decision so institutional accountability is reconstructible.
Potential institutional evaluation scope
A proposed evaluation may cover context and exception governance, authorized reconsideration, conflict and ambiguity handling, decision evidence, institutional scenarios, and target-environment acceptance criteria. Deliverables require written agreement.
Institutional licensing
HCEG may be considered independently for institutional evaluation and potential licensing. Any required HCIS Foundation I governance components and licensing terms would be specified in a separate written agreement; this page does not establish a license or a delivery commitment.
TRIHA
TRIHA
Governed authority, evidence, conflict detection, consequence analysis, and recovery for registry changes and other critical infrastructure changes.
Registry Authority
Verifies that the person, role, or institutional authority requesting a registry or critical change is authorized for that specific action.
Critical Change Governance
Places consequential registry and infrastructure changes behind governed pre-execution checks rather than allowing direct uncontrolled modification.
Conflict Detection
Identifies conflicting authority, records, requested changes, or evidence before a critical change proceeds.
Consequence Analysis
Evaluates governed consequences and dependencies associated with a proposed critical change before execution is authorized.
Incident Recovery
Preserves evidence and controlled recovery pathways when a registry or critical-change event is interrupted, rejected, or requires restoration.
Potential institutional evaluation scope
A proposed evaluation may cover critical-change governance, institution-specific adapter requirements, authority and evidence controls, conflict and consequence assessment, scenario validation, and target-environment acceptance criteria. Deliverables require written agreement.
Institutional licensing
TRIHA may be considered independently for institutional evaluation and potential licensing. Required HCIS Foundation I components, adapter scope, validation, and delivery terms would be defined through separate technical review and written agreement.
HCIS-SPCS-1
HCIS-SPCS-1
Governed preservation, continuity, failover, restoration, rollback, and post-recovery integrity for institutional systems where recovery itself is consequential.
Protected State
Preserves known-good states, evidence, and governed recovery references so institutional recovery begins from an accountable baseline.
Continuity Governance
Applies human authority, evidence, and readiness controls to continuity decisions rather than treating failover as an unrestricted technical action.
Controlled Failover
Routes failover through governed conditions and authority so continuity actions remain bounded and attributable.
Restore & Rollback
Supports controlled restoration and rollback to verified states while preserving the evidence of what changed and why.
Recovery Integrity
Revalidates integrity after recovery so restoration is not treated as complete until the recovered state is verified.
Potential institutional evaluation scope
A proposed evaluation may cover preservation and recovery governance, protected-state requirements, continuity and failover controls, restoration and rollback conditions, scenario evidence, and target-environment acceptance criteria. Deliverables require written agreement.
Institutional licensing
HCIS-SPCS-1 may be considered independently for institutional evaluation and potential licensing. Required governance components and recovery capabilities depend on verified scope and separate written agreement.
HCIS-SIAG-1
HCIS-SIAG-1
Governed identity, authority, delegation, privilege, session, revocation, compromise, and recovery for institutional environments where identity and authority changes are consequential.
Identity Governance
Binds governed actions to identified institutional actors and preserves the evidence needed to establish who acted.
Authority Grants
Controls how authority is granted, verified, scoped, and evidenced before consequential privileges may be exercised.
Bounded Delegation
Allows delegation only within explicit authority limits so delegated access cannot silently expand beyond its approved scope.
Session & Reauthentication
Applies session and reauthentication controls when identity, authority, timing, or risk conditions require renewed verification.
Revocation & Compromise Recovery
Supports governed revocation, session invalidation, evidence preservation, and controlled recovery when identity or authority is compromised.
Potential institutional evaluation scope
A proposed evaluation may cover identity and authority governance, grants and delegation, session and reauthentication requirements, revocation and compromise response, institutional scenarios, and target-environment acceptance criteria. Deliverables require written agreement.
Institutional licensing
HCIS-SIAG-1 may be considered independently for institutional evaluation and potential licensing. Required governance components and authority controls depend on verified scope and separate written agreement.
Institutional Licensing
Choose the governance configuration appropriate to the institution.
TSIS may discuss single-system, multi-system, or full-family evaluation and potential licensing, subject to suitability review, availability, and separate written agreement.
| System | Primary institutional role | Independent licensing path |
|---|---|---|
| HCIS Foundation I | Consequential execution governance | Yes |
| HCEG | Human context and exception governance | Yes |
| TRIHA | Registry and critical-change governance | Yes |
| HCIS-SPCS-1 | Preservation, continuity and controlled recovery | Yes |
| HCIS-SIAG-1 | Identity and authority governance | Yes |
Single-system evaluation
An institution may evaluate one specialized system when its immediate governance need is concentrated in one area. Any necessary HCIS Foundation I governance components would be defined and verified as part of the proposed evaluation scope.
Multi-system configuration
Institutions may evaluate multiple systems together when consequential execution, context, identity, registry change, preservation, or recovery requirements overlap. The intended integration preserves each system’s defined governance role; actual interoperability requires institution-specific verification.
Full-family evaluation
The full five-TSIS Sovereign Infrastructure Systems may be evaluated where an institution requires coordinated governance across consequential execution, human context and exceptions, critical change, continuity and recovery, and identity and authority.
Deployment Readiness
Validate before activation. Protect during operation.
Any future licensed TSIS deployment would require controlled target-environment acceptance before separately authorized production activation. Readiness is demonstrated through compatibility, authority, integrity, recovery, and evidence checks rather than assumed from a laboratory or local build.
Detect
Inspect TSIS-owned components, expected dependencies, configuration, integrity state, and target-environment conditions.
Contain
Prevent an affected TSIS component or unknown condition from expanding into an uncontrolled institutional change.
Repair
Apply only approved repairs to TSIS-owned components using verified baselines and registered recovery methods.
Revalidate
Re-run integrity, dependency, authority, readiness, and functional checks after a repair, recovery, or environmental change.
Prove
Generate evidence showing the detected condition, authorized action, repair or recovery performed, validation results, and resulting state.
Escalate
Unknown conditions, external infrastructure conflicts, or actions outside TSIS authority are preserved as evidence and routed for authorized human review rather than automatically changed.
What the institution should expect
Controlled target-environment acceptance includes an institution-specific deployment profile, dependency and compatibility review, health and integrity checks, recovery verification, authority boundaries, scenario validation, and evidence that the licensed system behaves as intended in the institution's actual environment before production activation.