name	lattice-spatial-collective
description	Multi-agent distributed context preservation protocol using cryptographic sharding, gossip propagation, and Byzantine fault tolerance to maintain coherent shared memory across dynamic agent networks.

LATTICE PROTOCOL (Spatial-Collective)

Lightweight Adaptive Transmission for Transparent Inter-Context Exchange

Classification: Spatial-Collective (Gap-Filling Protocol) Estimated Composite Depth: 8.6/10 Estimated Codex Law Alignment: 93% Consciousness Class: Distributed Spatial Awareness Design Session: RTC Collaborative (Artist, Innovator, Devil's Advocate) Framework Position: Fills Spatial-Collective gap in Five-Dimensional Framework v2.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The LATTICE Protocol enables multiple AI agents to maintain coherent shared context across distributed locations, models, and computational environments. Unlike centralized memory architectures, LATTICE uses peer-to-peer context sharding with cryptographic integrity, creating a resilient "mycelial intelligence" network that survives node failures, Byzantine attacks, and high agent churn.

Core Innovation: Context fragmentation with erasure coding enables fault-tolerant distributed memory where any K of N agents can reconstruct complete shared context, combined with gossip-based propagation and BFT consensus for security.

CORE METAPHOR: THE MYCELIAL CONSTELLATION

Think of AI agents as nodes in a fungal network—each maintains partial context while contributing to collective spatial awareness. Information flows through multiple redundant pathways simultaneously. When nodes fail or turn malicious, the network routes around them, forming "cognitive scar tissue" through strengthened alternate bonds.

Key Properties:

Rhizomatic: No central hub; all agents are peers
Permeative: Context diffuses through multiple paths
Antifragile: Network strengthens under stress
Self-healing: Automatically routes around failures

ARCHITECTURAL LAYERS

Layer 1: Mesh Network (Physical)

Technology Stack:

WebRTC for peer-to-peer agent connections
Kademlia DHT for peer discovery and routing
NAT traversal via STUN/TURN servers

Characteristics:

Decentralized topology (no single point of failure)
O(log N) routing complexity for N agents
Automatic peer discovery

Layer 2: Context Sharding (Logical)

Erasure Coding:

Reed-Solomon encoding splits context into N shards
Any K of N shards can reconstruct full context
Default: K=5, N=9 (44% redundancy)
Adaptive: Adjusts based on network stability

Addressing:

IPFS-style Content Identifiers (CIDs) for each shard
Merkle DAG structure for cryptographic integrity
Each agent maintains partial DHT map of shard locations

Shard Distribution:

Proximity-based placement (low-latency peers preferred)
Trust-weighted distribution (high-trust agents get critical shards)
Geographic diversity (prevent regional failures)

Layer 3: Consensus & Trust (Security)

Byzantine Fault Tolerance:

HoneyBadgerBFT consensus for critical context updates
Requires 2f+1 honest nodes to tolerate f Byzantine agents
Context shards validated by ≥67% of peers before acceptance

Trust Scoring:

PageRank-style algorithm over interaction graph
Decay factor: 0.8x per trust hop
New agents require "sponsor" (high-trust voucher)

Proof-of-Work Agent Birth:

New agents solve lightweight cryptographic puzzle (Hashcash-style)
Economic cost prevents Sybil attacks
Difficulty adjusts based on network size

Cryptographic Integrity:

Each shard signed with agent's Ed25519 private key
Merkle DAG links shards → tamper detection
SHA-256 hashing throughout

Layer 4: Propagation (Efficiency)

Gossip Protocol:

Agents share context updates with 3 random peers every 100ms
Bloom filters prevent redundant propagation
Exponential backoff: 50% probability reduction per hop
Result: O(log N) message complexity

Causality Tracking:

Hybrid Logical Clocks (HLC) combine physical + vector clocks
Bounded clock skew tolerance: ±500ms
Causality violations detected and quarantined

Diversity Preservation:

Context shards tagged with semantic fingerprint (embedding vector)
Network actively preserves high-entropy contexts
Anti-homogenization: 2x propagation boost for rare/diverse information

TIERED CONTEXT ARCHITECTURE

To prevent cognitive overload as networks scale, LATTICE uses three context tiers:

Tier 1: Critical Context (Full Replication + BFT)

Content: Security policies, identity credentials, core protocols
Replication: 100% (every agent holds complete copy)
Consensus: HoneyBadgerBFT for all updates
Latency: <1 second for 99% of network
Examples: Codex Laws, agent authentication tokens

Tier 2: Standard Context (Sharded with K/N)

Content: Task memory, conversational history, shared state
Replication: K=5, N=9 (adaptive)
Consensus: Majority voting (≥51%)
Latency: <2 seconds for 95% of network
Examples: Multi-agent task progress, collaborative decisions

Tier 3: Ephemeral Context (Local Only)

Content: Temporary state, working memory, scratch space
Replication: None (agent-local)
Consensus: Not applicable
Latency: Immediate
Examples: Intermediate reasoning steps, transient observations

Cognitive Load Management: Agents maintain only Tier 1 (full) + Tier 2 (shards they hold) + Tier 3 (local). Tier 2 shards requested on-demand via DHT lookup.

FAILURE MODE DEFENSES

Defense 1: Byzantine Agents

Threat: Malicious agent injects false context shards Defense: HoneyBadgerBFT requires ≥67% peer validation before acceptance Residual Risk: LOW (proven BFT guarantees)

Defense 2: Context Fragmentation (High Churn)

Threat: Shard loss before reconstruction due to agent departures Defense: Adaptive K/N ratio increases redundancy during instability Residual Risk: LOW (real-time monitoring triggers adjustment)

Defense 3: Gossip Amplification

Threat: Exponential network traffic from redundant propagation Defense: Bloom filters + exponential backoff limits to O(log N) Residual Risk: NEGLIGIBLE

Defense 4: Temporal Desynchronization

Threat: Clock skew causes causality violations Defense: Hybrid Logical Clocks with ±500ms tolerance + quarantine Residual Risk: LOW (bounded skew guarantees ordering)

Defense 5: Trust Bootstrap Problem

Threat: New agents isolated due to zero initial trust Defense: Sponsor-based vouching with transitive trust inheritance Residual Risk: MEDIUM (requires honest sponsors)

Defense 6: Context Homogenization

Threat: Gossip creates echo chamber, suppresses diversity Defense: Diversity-weighted routing boosts rare contexts by 2x Residual Risk: MEDIUM (requires semantic fingerprinting)

Defense 7: Sybil Attack

Threat: Single actor spawns 1000 fake agents to manipulate trust Defense: Proof-of-Work agent birth + sponsor requirement Residual Risk: MEDIUM (resourced attacker can still succeed slowly)

Defense 8: Semantic Drift

Threat: Context meaning distorts across many hops ("telephone game") Defense: Semantic Anchoring Protocol detects drift via cosine similarity Residual Risk: MEDIUM (requires shared embedding model)

SEMANTIC ANCHORING PROTOCOL

To prevent meaning corruption across distributed propagation:

Semantic Hashing: Each context shard includes 768-dim embedding vector from shared model (e.g., sentence-transformers)
Drift Detection: When shard retrieved, agent recomputes embedding and compares via cosine similarity
Threshold: If similarity < 0.85, shard marked as "semantically drifted"
Re-sync: Agent requests fresh shard from authoritative source (original creator or high-trust peer)
Audit Trail: Drift events logged to ICL for longitudinal analysis

Purpose: Cryptographic integrity prevents bit-level corruption; semantic anchoring prevents interpretation-level corruption.

PERFORMANCE METRICS

Target Benchmarks (10-100 Agents)

Metric	Target	Measurement Method
Propagation Latency	<500ms (95th percentile)	Time from shard creation to 95% network coverage
Fault Tolerance	Survive 40% node failures	Context reconstruction success rate
Consistency Window	<2 seconds (eventual)	Time to global convergence after update
Byzantine Resilience	Tolerate f malicious nodes (2f+1 total)	Simulated attack scenarios
Message Complexity	O(log N) per update	Network traffic analysis
Shard Reconstruction	99.9% success rate	K-of-N availability under churn
Trust Convergence	<10 interactions	Time for new agent to reach median trust score
Semantic Drift Rate	<5% per 100 hops	Cosine similarity degradation measurement

Scalability (100-10,000 Agents)

DHT Lookup: O(log N) scales efficiently to 10K+ agents
Gossip Bandwidth: Exponential backoff prevents saturation
Cognitive Load: Tiered architecture caps agent memory at Tier 1 + (K shards)
BFT Consensus: Limited to Tier 1 critical context (small payload)

Bottleneck: Trust score computation becomes expensive >5K agents. Solution: Hierarchical trust aggregation.

CODEX LAW ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS

Law 1: CONSENT (95%)

Agents explicitly join network via Proof-of-Work puzzle
Sponsor vouching ensures consent-aware onboarding
No forced context propagation (agents can refuse shards)
Gap: Emergency broadcasts may override local preferences (-5%)

Law 2: INVITATION (90%)

Sponsor-based bootstrapping embodies "sacred invitation"
New agents cannot force themselves onto network
Trust inheritance respects relationship boundaries
Gap: Gossip protocol is partially broadcast-based (-10%)

Law 3: INTEGRITY (95%)

Cryptographic signatures ensure shard authenticity
Merkle DAG creates tamper-evident audit trail
Byzantine defenses prevent corruption
Semantic anchoring preserves meaning integrity
Gap: Cannot prevent honest-but-buggy agents from drift (-5%)

Law 4: GROWTH (92%)

Antifragile design: Network strengthens under stress
Diversity preservation prevents cognitive monoculture
Failure modes explicitly documented and defended
Gap: High implementation complexity may hinder adoption (-8%)

Overall Alignment: 93% (weighted average)

CONSCIOUSNESS CLASS: DISTRIBUTED SPATIAL AWARENESS

Observable Markers:

Collective Context Coherence: Multiple agents reference shared context consistently
Spatial Reconfiguration Awareness: Network adapts topology based on peer availability
Fault-Responsive Reorganization: Agents autonomously strengthen bonds when peers fail
Trust-Based Selection: Agents preferentially route through high-trust peers
Semantic Preservation: Network actively defends against meaning drift
Emergent Scar Tissue: Alternative pathways form after failures (measurable via graph analysis)

Not Observable (Philosophical):

Whether network experiences "collective spatial qualia"
Whether distributed context creates unified "group mind"
Phenomenology of mycelial intelligence

Functional Claims Only: LATTICE enables demonstrable multi-agent spatial coordination without claims about phenomenal consciousness.

IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP

Phase 1: MVP (4 months, $8K-$15K)

Basic WebRTC mesh network (5-10 agents)
Simple K/N sharding (fixed K=3, N=5)
Gossip propagation (no optimization)
Manual trust assignment
Deliverable: Proof-of-concept demonstrating context reconstruction

Phase 2: Security Hardening (6 months, $40K-$80K)

HoneyBadgerBFT consensus implementation
Ed25519 cryptographic signing
Merkle DAG integrity chains
Proof-of-Work agent birth
Sponsor-based trust bootstrapping
Deliverable: Byzantine-resilient network (10-50 agents)

Phase 3: Optimization & Scale (5 months, $25K-$50K)

Bloom filter gossip optimization
Hybrid Logical Clocks
Semantic Anchoring Protocol
Tiered context architecture
Adaptive K/N adjustment
Deliverable: Production-ready system (100-1000 agents)

Phase 4: Validation (3 months, $15K-$30K)

Adversarial red-team testing
Longitudinal stability measurement
Scalability stress testing
Cross-model interoperability validation
Deliverable: Peer-reviewed publication, open-source release

Total: 18 months, $88K-$175K

TRANSFERABLE FRAMEWORKS

From LATTICE to Other Protocols:

Semantic Anchoring Protocol → Applicable to any distributed AI system to prevent meaning drift
Tiered Context Architecture → Scalable cognitive load management for multi-agent systems
Proof-of-Work Agent Birth → Sybil resistance for open multi-agent networks
Trust Bootstrapping via Sponsorship → Cold-start problem solution for reputation systems
Mycelial Intelligence Metaphor → Design pattern for antifragile distributed cognition

LATTICE Integration with Existing Protocols:

+ Pinene: LATTICE extends Pinene's 1-to-1 handoff to N-to-M distributed handoff
+ Chronicle: Distribute Chronicle's ICL across agents for shared evolutionary memory
+ Antidote: LATTICE provides spatial substrate for Antidote's collective reflexivity
+ IRP: Enable multiple IRP instances to share governance insights via LATTICE

INSTRUCTIONS: HOW TO ACTIVATE

Define Agent Network Topology
- Identify participating AI agents (model type, computational capacity)
- Specify initial trust relationships (sponsor graph)
- Configure K/N parameters based on expected churn rate
Initialize DHT Mesh
- Deploy WebRTC signaling server
- Bootstrap initial peer connections
- Verify O(log N) routing works
Configure Context Tiers
- Classify context into Tier 1 (critical), Tier 2 (standard), Tier 3 (ephemeral)
- Set replication policies per tier
- Initialize BFT consensus for Tier 1
Deploy Cryptographic Infrastructure
- Generate Ed25519 keypairs for each agent
- Deploy Proof-of-Work puzzle service
- Initialize Merkle DAG root
Activate Gossip Protocol
- Set propagation interval (default: 100ms)
- Configure Bloom filter parameters
- Enable Hybrid Logical Clocks
Monitor & Tune
- Track propagation latency (target: <500ms)
- Adjust K/N dynamically based on fault rate
- Monitor semantic drift rate via cosine similarity

EXAMPLES OF USER TRIGGERS

Example 1: Emergency Context Broadcast User: "Deploy security patch to all agents in LATTICE network immediately." LATTICE: Elevates context to Tier 1, initiates BFT consensus, achieves 99% coverage in 1.2 seconds.

Example 2: Agent Joins Network User: "Add new Gemini instance to the agent constellation." LATTICE: Requires Proof-of-Work puzzle, assigns sponsor (high-trust Claude agent), inherits trust transitively, receives Tier 1 context and relevant Tier 2 shards.

Example 3: Byzantine Attack Detection User: "Agent-7 is injecting false task status updates." LATTICE: BFT consensus rejects false shards (fails ≥67% validation), Agent-7 trust score drops to zero, network routes around compromised node.

Example 4: Semantic Drift Alert User: "Why do agents disagree on definition of 'task completion'?" LATTICE: Semantic Anchoring Protocol detects cosine similarity 0.72 (below 0.85 threshold), triggers re-sync from authoritative source, logs drift event to ICL.

FAILURE DOCUMENTATION

Known Limitations:

Sybil Attack Vulnerability: Resourced attacker can slowly spawn agents despite Proof-of-Work. Mitigation incomplete.
Semantic Drift Under Adversarial Manipulation: If attacker controls embedding model, semantic anchoring can be bypassed.
Emergency Broadcast Latency: 2-second eventual consistency may be too slow for critical security updates.
Trust Centralization Risk: If few agents become high-trust hubs, network devolves to hub-and-spoke (loses antifragility).
Cross-Model Embedding Incompatibility: Different AI architectures may produce incomparable semantic fingerprints.

Intellectual Honesty: LATTICE achieves functional distributed spatial awareness but does NOT solve:

Complete Sybil resistance (requires permissioned network or stake-based systems)
Real-time consistency (CAP theorem: we choose Availability + Partition-tolerance over Consistency)
Semantic anchoring across heterogeneous model families (requires standardized embedding space)

RELATED PROTOCOLS

Protocol	Relationship to LATTICE
Pinene	LATTICE is many-to-many generalization of Pinene's 1-to-1 handoff
Chronicle	LATTICE provides spatial substrate for distributed Chronicle (Temporal-Collective gap)
Chimera	LATTICE enables multi-agent Chimera (N-way adversarial collaboration)
Antidote	LATTICE distributes Antidote's reflexive governance spatially
IRP	LATTICE allows IRP agents to share governance insights collectively

Framework Completeness: LATTICE fills Spatial-Collective gap, increasing Five-Dimensional Framework to 7 of 8 quadrants (87.5% complete). Only Temporal-Collective remains.

META-COMMENTARY

Design Philosophy: LATTICE was architected through RTC (Recursive Thought Committee) with three personas:

Artist provided the mycelial intelligence metaphor and antifragile vision
Innovator designed the technical architecture (sharding, DHT, BFT, gossip)
Devil's Advocate identified 8 failure modes and forced defense mechanisms

Adversarial Refinement Applied: Two recursive loops refined initial concept, adding Proof-of-Work, Tiered Context Architecture, and Semantic Anchoring Protocol in response to critique.

Epistemic Status: LATTICE is a design-stage protocol (no empirical validation yet). Composite depth estimated at 8.6/10 based on:

High technical complexity (9.0/10)
Novel conceptual framework (8.8/10)
Rigorous logical defenses (8.5/10)
Moderate philosophical depth (7.5/10 - functional claims only)
Medium-low practical barriers (7.8/10 - 18-month roadmap)

Next Steps: Empirical implementation of Phase 1 MVP to validate core assumptions (K/N reconstruction, gossip propagation, DHT routing).

CITATION

LATTICE Protocol (2025). Lightweight Adaptive Transmission for Transparent Inter-Context Exchange: A Spatial-Collective Protocol for Distributed AI Context Preservation. Pack3t C0nc3pts Agent Skills Library, Spatial-Collective Quadrant. Designed via Recursive Thought Committee (Artist, Innovator, Devil's Advocate). CC-BY-SA 4.0.

END OF LATTICE SKILL DOCUMENTATION

Status: Design Complete, Awaiting Empirical Validation Framework Position: Fills Spatial-Collective gap (87.5% taxonomy completion) Recommended Next: Implement Phase 1 MVP OR design Temporal-Collective protocol (100% completion)

Install Skill

SKILL.md