When implementing the Execution Boundary at the Kernel Level, the Architecture should satisfy a defined set of Design Requirements. These requirements do not prescribe a specific OS or implementation technology. The central principle remains consistent:

Governance decides. The Kernel enforces.

First, Governance-Only Decision Making. Decisions such as Allow, Hold, and Deny are formed through the upstream Governance Process. The Kernel does not generate Governance Decisions, preserving the separation between Decision Authority and Enforcement Responsibility.

Second, No Policy Interpretation in the Kernel. The interpretation of laws, Policies, Authority, Context, and other Governance elements occurs upstream. The Kernel receives only the established Decision and conditions required for Enforcement.

Third, Enforceable Decision States. Governance Decisions must be represented in a form that the Kernel can handle deterministically, without additional semantic interpretation or inference.

Fourth, Non-Circumventable Execution Boundary. If an Application or Agent can bypass the Boundary, Governance loses its effectiveness. Governed Execution must therefore pass through the Boundary.

Fifth, Fail-Safe Enforcement. If the required Decision or execution conditions are missing, corrupted, unverifiable, or unresolved, the Kernel must not permit Execution by filling the gap through inference.

Sixth, Verifiable Enforcement Evidence. It must be possible to determine which Decision and conditions were received, what was verified, and whether Execution was passed or Blocked. This connects upstream DSE to downstream Execution and makes the path from Decision to Execution auditable.

Seventh, Minimal Kernel State. Information retained within the Kernel should be limited to what is necessary for Enforcement, while Governance Logic, Context, and history should generally remain upstream. This reduces complexity and Attack Surface.

These requirements are not intended to turn the Kernel into a sophisticated Governance System. Rather, they deliberately constrain its role, making it a Layer that does not decide or interpret, but reliably enforces the Decision and conditions it receives.

The eBPF / LSM model referenced here is a Reference Implementation for exploring one possible technical form of this Architecture. It does not imply validation as a Production Implementation. What matters is not the specific technology, but the architectural properties that the Execution Boundary must satisfy.