A dependency-free native binary (`src/bin/veil.rs`) — the in-repo counterpart to
the npm metaharness — that drives the same crate API the tests use:
- Interactive ANSI dashboard (TUI): live status, re-ID off/on vs chance,
throughput, compliance (energy 1.000× / not jamming), a block-sparkline
collapse curve, config, and PASS/OUT-OF-SPEC verdict. Command-driven redraw
loop (std-only, no crossterm/ratatui): on/off, passes/bits/n/snr,
metric euclid|cosine, preset scif|board|ward|hotel, optimize, proof.
- Scriptable subcommands: report, sweep, optimize, adaptive <N>, proof, doctor
(exit 0 = healthy). Auto-picks TUI on a terminal, one-shot report when piped;
honors NO_COLOR.
Std-only, so it builds with no extra deps and runs in any pipe/CI. The wasm leaf
story is unchanged (validated with `--lib`; the bin is native-only). All
readouts are SYNTHETIC/L0 and never relabeled.
Validated: 38 tests + doctest pass, clippy --all-targets -D warnings clean,
rustfmt clean, wasm --lib builds; all subcommands + a scripted TUI session
exercised. Documented in the crate README and ADR-288.
Co-Authored-By: claude-flow <ruv@ruv.net>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WEXNqzs7UsfNFBcP5yW21p
Adds an `optimize` module that replaces the hand-picked shield config with a
derived, robustness-verified optimum, and hardens the experiment so the
collapse is proven to be signal-level, not classifier-level.
Model changes:
- throughput.rs: add a feedback-airtime term (cost rises with feedback bits)
alongside the falling quantization residual, giving a genuine interior
throughput optimum in feedback resolution.
- attacker.rs: add a selectable distance metric (Euclidean + Cosine) so the
optimizer can require the collapse to hold under multiple classifiers.
- experiment.rs: thread the attacker metric through; build the channel once.
optimize.rs:
- optimal_feedback_bits / spec_optimal_feedback_bits: throughput-best resolution
(3 bits unconstrained, matching DySPAN-2026; 5 bits within the 802.11 {5,7,9}
set).
- min_givens_passes: smallest mixing budget that collapses re-ID robustly across
both metrics AND N in {16,32}.
- pareto_frontier and hyper_optimize.
Findings and adopted defaults:
- Proven-minimum robust passes = 48; the hand-picked 112 was 2.3x over-
provisioned. Rotation mixing is keyed (never signaled), so extra passes are
throughput-free -> ship 96 (2x margin).
- Feedback resolution 5 bits (spec-optimal), down from 7.
- ShieldConfig::default() now equals hyper_optimize()'s output; a test guards
against drift.
Net vs. the original: strictly better on BOTH privacy and throughput.
Reference (SYNTHETIC/L0, N=16): re-ID 100% shield-off -> 4.7% shield-on
(chance 6.25%, below chance), throughput 97.6%, energy ratio 1.000000. 35 tests
+ doctest pass; clippy -D warnings clean; builds for wasm32.
Docs: new docs/research/privacy-shield/08-optimization.md; updated bundle
README/03/05/07 and ADR-288 with the derived operating point.
Co-Authored-By: claude-flow <ruv@ruv.net>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WEXNqzs7UsfNFBcP5yW21p
VEIL (Verifiable Emission-shaping for Identity-Leakage prevention) is the
countermeasure counterpart to BFLD (ADR-118/121): where BFLD detects when
beamforming feedback becomes identifying, VEIL shapes a node's own outgoing
feedback so an unauthorized passive sniffer cannot re-identify people, while
a legitimate receiver that shares the per-session key sees an unchanged link.
Mechanism: identity leaks through the fine cross-subcarrier phase structure of
a compressed beamforming report; throughput rides the dominant beam direction.
These are (mostly) separable subspaces. VEIL composes extra keyed Givens
rotations (the report's native primitive) over the fine subspace only. The
rotation is orthogonal (energy-preserving -> not jamming), keyed per session
(the AP inverts it -> throughput preserved), and fresh each session (a sniffer
cannot average it back -> re-identification collapses to chance).
Contents:
- v2/crates/wifi-densepose-privshield: deterministic, dependency-free,
WASM-ready pure-compute leaf implementing the attacker-vs-protector
experiment, the four compliant controls, a throughput model, a
machine-checkable "not jamming" compliance audit, and a pinned witness.
29 tests + doctest pass; clippy -D warnings clean; builds for
wasm32-unknown-unknown.
- docs/research/privacy-shield: 8-file research bundle (SOTA, threat model,
design, compliance/regulatory, experiment protocol, market, roadmap).
- docs/adr/ADR-288: formal decision record.
Reference results (SYNTHETIC / L0, N=16 identities): passive re-ID accuracy
100% shield-off -> 7.8% shield-on (chance 6.25%); modeled throughput ratio
98.0%; emission energy ratio 1.000000 (compliant). All defense numbers are
SYNTHETIC until a two-node hardware capture with a witness exists.
Compliant waveform controls only; never jamming (47 U.S.C. 333/302a analysis
in the bundle).
Co-Authored-By: claude-flow <ruv@ruv.net>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WEXNqzs7UsfNFBcP5yW21p
Claude