Architecture Proof · Claim #4 · Regulatory Constraint Enforcement
Thirteen formal constraints — from EPA UIC Class VI, ISO 27914, ISO 25624-1, OGMP 2.0 and EU 2024/1787 — defined in the dVeracity SysML v2 model and enforced as certification gates on a live OSDU platform: a failing constraint withholds or revokes certification, and anomalies cascade automatically.
The claim, and what proved it
The architecture claims that regulatory requirements can be enforced as formal constraints, not documented as prose. Two independent lifecycles proved it: a CO₂ storage evidence pack could only reach certified because seven Class VI constraints held — and was suspended the moment one failed; a methane Monitoring Plan could only reach verified because six ISO 25624-1 constraints held — and was suspended and restated when reconciliation failed. In both, the gate decision drove an immutable OSDU state transition.
Mechanism
The same pipeline in both domains — the constraint is a first-class artifact from spec to platform, and the platform's own versioning is the enforcement record.
1 · Specify
SysML v2 constraint def with a boolean expression and typed inputs
2 · Evaluate
Gate evaluates each constraint against live evidence records on OSDU
3 · Gate
Transition to certified / verified is issued only if all constraints hold
4 · Record
Each transition is an immutable OSDU record version — the audit trail
5 · Cascade
A later failing constraint suspends, adjusts claims, and flips the attestation
The two gates
Gate A · CCUS / SCEP · EPA UIC Class VI
Decatur storage complex. Certified 7/7; the plume breach failed one constraint and suspended the pack.
columns: at certification · on plume breach
Gate B · Methane MRV · ISO 25624-1 / OGMP 2.0 / EU 2024/1787
Site MRV-01. Verified 6/6; the unlit flare failed reconciliation and forced a restatement.
columns: at verification · on super-emitter
Frameworks
| Framework | Requirement | Constraint(s) | Enforced on |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPA UIC Class VI | injection < 90% fracture pressure; Area of Review; well integrity; pre-injection baseline | InjectionPressureLimit · PlumeMigrationBoundary · WellIntegrityThreshold | SCEP certification |
| ISO 27914 | storage permanence, max 0.01%/yr leakage | CO2StoragePermanence | SCEP certification |
| ISO 25624-1:2026 | source/site reconciliation (Cl.11); materiality (Cl.8); uncertainty (Cl.9); restatement (12.3) | SiteLevelReconciliation · MaterialityRigor · EmissionRateAccuracy | Monitoring Plan verification |
| OGMP 2.0 | Gold Standard: ≥ 95% at Level 4/5 | GoldStandardCoverage | Monitoring Plan verification |
| EU Reg 2024/1787 | quarterly LDAR | ReportingFrequency | Monitoring Plan verification |
| EPA OOOOb | super-emitter response (≥ 100 kg/h) | MethaneAlertEvent trigger | anomaly cascade |
The decisive property
The proof of enforcement is not that constraints were evaluated — it is that a failure had consequences on the platform. In Gate A, one constraint (Area of Review) failing suspended the SCEP, cut the carbon claim by 35,000 t and suspended the attestation. In Gate B, one constraint (reconciliation) failing suspended the plan, forced a materiality-driven restatement of +42,336 kg CH₄ and re-issued the attestation on a new hash. Both cascades are recorded as immutable OSDU versions.