PGC

Author: Bhash Ganti (aka Bachi) (c) 2026 Bhash Ganti. All rights reserved. Released under the Apache-2.0 License. bachipeachy@gmail.com · ORCID 0009-0007-3810-6520 Submitted to: Springer, Software and Systems Modeling — under review. No preprint DOI; this page is the Author’s Original Version as submitted. Abstract Model-driven systems execute models, but the model does not always determine every behavior. A generator, build step or runtime may supply a default, route or recovery path that the model never declared. This paper asks whether a sealed model can be the authority for all domain-visible decisions, leaving construction and execution only to realize what the model specifies. We define six classes of domain-visible decision and introduce the sealed behavioral model as their authoritative source. We give a step-level execution semantics: the runtime reads routes and effects from the sealed model and refuses when the model is silent. We state three properties for a conforming realization—determination closure, non-addition and recoverability—and derive checkable obligations for construction, the runtime and the trace. As supporting context, we describe a discipline for changing models by deriving each successor from a named, frozen predecessor. ...

(c) 2026 Bhash Ganti Bhash Ganti Contact: bachipeachy@gmail.com Purpose: Define the conceptual model for Protocol-Governed Systems, validated through the PGS reference implementation. Audience: Protocol designers, compiler authors, runtime implementers, conformance engineers Abstract Protocol-Governed Systems (PGS) propose a computational architecture in which governance precedes execution. Instead of relying on runtime policies, conventions, or post-hoc validation, PGS defines admissible behavior through governed protocol artifacts that are compiled into deterministic execution structures before runtime begins. ...

© 2026 Bhash Ganti. All rights reserved. Bhash Ganti (aka Bachi) Contact: bachipeachy@gmail.com Abstract The rapid acceleration of AI-assisted software generation exposes a fundamental limitation in conventional software architecture: behavior is implicitly defined by implementation, while governance operates reactively and at human speed. This mismatch creates a structural gap in which systems can exhibit unauthorized, non-deterministic, and unauditable behavior. Existing approaches — static analysis, runtime guardrails, policy engines — attempt to constrain behavior after code is produced, but cannot guarantee compliance when implementation evolves faster than governance capacity. ...

(c) 2026 Bhash Ganti Contact: mailto:bachipeachy@gmail.com ORCID Profile: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3810-6520 Revision v1. Two changes, neither altering a claim of the paper. A forward reference to “Paper 6 in this series” was repointed: the authoring pipeline it promised is now developed in An Architecture for Closed-Loop Governed Transformation, which supersedes the earlier treatment of governed change. A note on the change of name from Protocol-Governed Systems to Protocol-Governed Computing was added. The compiler model itself is unchanged from v0. ...

(c) 2026 Bhash Ganti Contact: mailto:bachipeachy@gmail.com ORCID Profile: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3810-6520 Preface This paper is part of the PGS technical paper series. The paper Protocol-Governed Systems: Conceptual Model established the architectural foundations: constitutional governance, the four-layer stack, and the separation of governance from execution. The paper Protocol-Governed Systems: Compiler Conceptual Model described how the compiler converts protocol declarations into a governed execution boundary called the Protocol Snapshot. Together, those two papers establish that behavior is fully determined before execution begins. This paper focuses on the component that consumes that boundary: the PGS runtime. ...

Contact: mailto:bachipeachy@gmail.com Preface This paper is part of the PGS technical paper series. The paper Protocol-Governed Systems: Conceptual Model established the architectural foundations: constitutional governance, the four-layer stack, and the separation of governance from execution. The paper Protocol-Governed Systems: Compiler Conceptual Model described how the compiler converts protocol declarations into a governed execution boundary called the Protocol Snapshot. The paper Protocol-Governed Systems: Runtime Conceptual Model described how the runtime consumes that boundary and executes governed behavior without containing any domain knowledge. ...

Contact: mailto:bachipeachy@gmail.com Preface This paper is part of the PGS technical paper series. The paper Protocol-Governed Systems: Conceptual Model established the architectural foundations: constitutional governance, the four-layer stack, and the separation of governance from execution. The paper Protocol-Governed Systems: Compiler Conceptual Model described how the compiler converts protocol declarations into a governed execution boundary called the Protocol Snapshot. The paper Protocol-Governed Systems: Runtime Conceptual Model described how the runtime consumes that snapshot and executes workflow instances without any domain knowledge. The paper Protocol-Governed Systems: Architecture Inversion Concepts established why inverting the traditional relationship between specification and implementation is a structural requirement, not a design preference. Together, those four papers establish that behavior is fully determined before execution begins and that the protocol is the sole source of behavioral truth. ...