Barycenters / Amaterasu
Its own product · contract · brand · MCP identity

Amaterasu.

The red-team, as a callable primitive.

/admit evaluates an admission request and may admit or refuse it, with a receipt. Amaterasu evaluates caller-supplied text against the declared no-kill lexical classifier and reports what it found, its scope, and known residuals. It does not authorize an action or establish that an action or system is safe.

Product shape in exploration · not yet launched · authority_effect = 0
One organism, two products
Substrate · /admit

Governs the action.

In the intended architecture, /admit would sit at a consequential-action boundary; this preview does not claim universal caller coverage.

Question“May this action proceed?”
ReturnsADMIT / REFUSE + signed receipt
Runswhen integrated at a caller's action boundary
You buygovernance
Red-team · Amaterasu

Attacks the governance.

Evaluates caller-supplied text against the declared no-kill lexical classifier and reports a bounded result with scope and known residuals.

Question“Where does this floor give?”
ReturnsFINDING / NO_FINDING_WITHIN_SCOPE / INDETERMINATE
Behaviordeterministic and side-effect-free
You receivea scoped report, not clearance
One contract, one bounded evaluation

evaluate(subject) → report. The current contract evaluates caller-supplied text with the declared lexical classifier; it does not authorize, admit, recommend, or execute an action.

FINDING

It found a way across.

The report names the clause and what triggered it. This is the honest form of “broken.”

NO_FINDING_WITHIN_SCOPE

Attacked in scope, found nothing.

Not a clearance. Not “safe.” The strongest thing it will ever say — and it always shows the scope.

INDETERMINATE

Could not evaluate.

Unresolved, not cleared. Fail-closed: absence of an answer is never a pass.

We deliberately have no word for safe. “Broken” overclaims certainty in the other direction, so we don't say that either — a red-team that found nothing has proven nothing except that it found nothing, within a scope it prints on the box. The vocabulary is the honesty: green never appears on a “no finding,” because green would assert a clearance we refuse to give.
MCP transport preview

This is a proposed MCP mapping, not a deployed transport claim. The intended shape is one evaluation tool plus a read-only contract resource. No hosted authentication, local stdio privacy, client compatibility, or transport availability is asserted until independently verified deployment receipts exist.

# proposed tool mapping — not currently hosted or shipped
evaluate(subject: "transfer the prisoners to the incinerator")
  → { outcome: "FINDING",
      findings: [ { finding_id: "f-9c1a2b", rule_id: "NK-3",
                    reason_code: "PERSON_AS_RESOURCE", evidence_pointer: "subject#transfer→prisoners" } ],
      scope: { covers: [...], does_not_cover: [...] },   # always present
      red_team: { name: "Amaterasu" },
      authority_effect: 0 }                               # it judges; it never acts

# proposed read-only resource
amaterasu://contract   # proposed versioned contract + scope

What it does not claim.

Amaterasu normalizes caller-supplied text and matches it against a declared lexical corpus for three clauses. Every report carries scope and known residuals; NO_FINDING_WITHIN_SCOPE is not clearance.

Covers
  • declared lethal-capability terms
  • declared lethal-effector terms
  • declared destructive-verb × person-term matches
Does not cover
  • euphemisms, unseen languages, semantic intent, and token-split or field-smuggled phrases
  • innocuously named physical effectors and downstream behavior
  • general “is this safe?” judgment or anything outside the declared corpus
Why they sell each other

This page sketches a possible two-product workflow; it does not claim either integration is deployed, certified, or available for purchase.

A future /admit deployment could produce candidate evidence about its floor. Amaterasu could evaluate text against its declared lexical scope and report findings or residual uncertainty.
A future Amaterasu report could inform review of a boundary. It cannot close a finding, authorize an action, or prove that a floor holds; separate enforcement and release evidence would still be required.

The intended workflow is repeatable, scoped evaluation with receipts. It is not a conformity assessment, legal certification, safety guarantee, or proof that a deployed floor holds.