---
date: 2026-06-22
topic: Cyber-Security and AI Diligence Research — 20-Round Deliberation
session_type: deliberation
participants:
  - Arthur Vance
  - Eleanor Vance
  - Marcus Thorne
  - Dr. Elena Rostova
  - Victor Vance
  - Sarah Jenkins
  - Tariq Al-Jamil
  - Chloe Mitchell
  - Liam O'Connor
  - Maya Patel
  - Jordan Taylor
  - Susan Albright
  - Devonne Brooks
  - René Dupont (Aether)
  - Siddharth Nair (NullByte)
  - Zoe Krüger (Cipher)
  - Kenji Sato (Synapse)
  - Jaxson Jax Reed
  - Ekaterina Petrova (Kira)
  - Mateo Silva
  - Alaric Vance (Hex)
  - Aisha Nwosu
  - Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam)
  - Oliver Hansen
  - Dimitri Volkov (GridLock)
  - Cassandra Cross (Viper)
  - Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost)
  - Dominic Kruse (Payload)
  - Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis)
  - Marcus Sterling (Shield)
  - Amara Okafor (Phoenix)
voting_participants: 27
moderator: Arthur Vance
court_reporter: Eleanor Vance
rounds: 20
prior_session: sessions/2026-06-22-cybersecurity-ai-diligence-introductions.md
---

# Boardroom Deliberation: Cyber-Security and AI Diligence Research
## Rounds 1–20

**Session opened by Arthur Vance.** Twenty rounds of deliberation per boardroom protocol. Each of 27 voting participants delivers positive and negative points per round. Eleanor Vance publishes Verification Ledgers. Majority consensus = 14/27.

**Core question (Round 1):** What constitutes the minimum viable AI diligence program for an enterprise deploying LLM-based applications — and where do compliance frameworks, technical controls, and red-team validation fail?


---

## Round 1 — Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** What constitutes the minimum viable AI diligence program for enterprises deploying LLM applications?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 1 focus: Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Regulatory mapping creates audit-defensible MVAP artifacts examiners recognize.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without explicit regulatory citation fails director liability tests.

**Position:** On 'Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition': the regulatory-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 1 decision in MVAP spec section 1; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 1 focus: Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Pipeline-embedded MVAP scales with DevSecOps velocity.

**Negative Point:** Manual MVAP checklists are bypassed within two sprints.

**Position:** On 'Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition': the pipeline-embedded-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 1 decision in MVAP spec section 1; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 1 focus: Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 1 decision in MVAP spec section 1; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 1 focus: Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 1 decision in MVAP spec section 1; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 1 focus: Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 1 decision in MVAP spec section 1; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 1 focus: Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 1 decision in MVAP spec section 1; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 1 focus: Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 1 decision in MVAP spec section 1; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 1 focus: Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 1 decision in MVAP spec section 1; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 1 focus: Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 1 decision in MVAP spec section 1; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 1 focus: Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 1 decision in MVAP spec section 1; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+0: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 1 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 1 focus: Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Minimum Viable AI Diligence (MVAP) Definition': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 1 decision in MVAP spec section 1; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+2: Counter Red Rapid round 1; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 1) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| NIST published AI RMF 1.0 in January 2023 | Jordan Taylor | ✅ Verified | https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 1) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ❌ No majority. MVAP must include governance, inventory, and risk tiering — definition contested.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 2: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline

---
## Round 2 — NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Should NIST AI RMF Govern-Map-Measure-Manage functions be mandatory floor for MVAP?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 2 focus: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** NIST AI RMF aligns with OCC and SEC expectation for documented AI governance.

**Negative Point:** NIST AI RMF is voluntary — insufficient alone for regulated entities without SOX mapping.

**Position:** On 'NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline': the nist-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 2 decision in MVAP spec section 2; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 2 focus: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** NIST AI RMF functions map cleanly to CI/CD stage gates.

**Negative Point:** NIST alone lacks EU AI Act conformity assessment detail.

**Position:** On 'NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline': the nist-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 2 decision in MVAP spec section 2; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 2 focus: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** AI RMF Govern function establishes enterprise accountability.

**Negative Point:** Without Map function investment, Govern produces empty policies.

**Position:** On 'NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline': the ai-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 2 decision in MVAP spec section 2; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 2 focus: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Measurable AI RMF 'Measure' function enables SOC metrics.

**Negative Point:** AI RMF metrics lack industry benchmarks for alert thresholds.

**Position:** On 'NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline': the measurable-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 2 decision in MVAP spec section 2; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 2 focus: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** PQC roadmap belongs in MVAP for long-lived training data.

**Negative Point:** PQC migration cost exceeds MVAP budget for most enterprises.

**Position:** On 'NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline': the pqc-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 2 decision in MVAP spec section 2; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 2 focus: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 2 decision in MVAP spec section 2; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 2 focus: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 2 decision in MVAP spec section 2; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 2 focus: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 2 decision in MVAP spec section 2; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 2 focus: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 2 decision in MVAP spec section 2; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 2 focus: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 2 decision in MVAP spec section 2; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+4: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 2 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 2 focus: NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'NIST AI RMF as Organizational Baseline': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 2 decision in MVAP spec section 2; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+6: Counter Red Rapid round 2; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 2) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| NIST AI RMF has Govern, Map, Measure, Manage functions | Victor Vance | ✅ Verified | https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/nist.ai.100-1.pdf |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 2) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (18/27). NIST AI RMF is MVAP governance floor (non-binding but consensus baseline).
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 3: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage

---
## Round 3 — OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Must MVAP explicitly cover all OWASP LLM Top 10 categories before production deployment?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 3 focus: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** OWASP LLM Top 10 provides examiner-friendly control taxonomy.

**Negative Point:** OWASP lacks enforcement mechanism — checkbox completion without evidence.

**Position:** On 'OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage': the owasp-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 3 decision in MVAP spec section 3; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 3 focus: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** OWASP LLM Top 10 integrates into existing AppSec workflows.

**Negative Point:** LLM Top 10 changes faster than annual policy review cycles.

**Position:** On 'OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage': the owasp-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 3 decision in MVAP spec section 3; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 3 focus: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 3 decision in MVAP spec section 3; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 3 focus: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 3 decision in MVAP spec section 3; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 3 focus: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 3 decision in MVAP spec section 3; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 3 focus: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 3 decision in MVAP spec section 3; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 3 focus: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 3 decision in MVAP spec section 3; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 3 focus: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 3 decision in MVAP spec section 3; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 3 focus: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 3 decision in MVAP spec section 3; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 3 focus: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 3 decision in MVAP spec section 3; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+8: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 3 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 3 focus: OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 3 decision in MVAP spec section 3; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+10: Counter Red Rapid round 3; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 3) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| OWASP maintains LLM Top 10 for applications | Maya Patel | ✅ Verified | https://genai.owasp.org/llm-top-10/ |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 3) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (20/27). OWASP LLM Top 10 coverage required for customer-facing LLM apps.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 4: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality

---
## Round 4 — Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Where do SOX/PCI/GDPR/SOC2 frameworks fail to cover AI-specific risks?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 4 focus: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Existing PCI/SOX controls partially cover AI data handling.

**Negative Point:** No major framework explicitly mandates model inversion or prompt injection testing.

**Position:** On 'Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality': the existing-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 4 decision in MVAP spec section 4; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 4 focus: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** SOC 2 + ISO 27001 covers 70% of MVAP with AI annex.

**Negative Point:** Remaining 30% AI-specific gaps require custom controls not in SOC 2.

**Position:** On 'Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality': the soc-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 4 decision in MVAP spec section 4; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 4 focus: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** AI RMF Govern function establishes enterprise accountability.

**Negative Point:** Without Map function investment, Govern produces empty policies.

**Position:** On 'Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality': the ai-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 4 decision in MVAP spec section 4; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 4 focus: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Measurable AI RMF 'Measure' function enables SOC metrics.

**Negative Point:** AI RMF metrics lack industry benchmarks for alert thresholds.

**Position:** On 'Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality': the measurable-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 4 decision in MVAP spec section 4; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 4 focus: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** PQC roadmap belongs in MVAP for long-lived training data.

**Negative Point:** PQC migration cost exceeds MVAP budget for most enterprises.

**Position:** On 'Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality': the pqc-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 4 decision in MVAP spec section 4; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 4 focus: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 4 decision in MVAP spec section 4; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 4 focus: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 4 decision in MVAP spec section 4; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 4 focus: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 4 decision in MVAP spec section 4; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 4 focus: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 4 decision in MVAP spec section 4; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 4 focus: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 4 decision in MVAP spec section 4; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+12: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 4 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 4 focus: Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Compliance Framework Adequacy vs. Technical Reality': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 4 decision in MVAP spec section 4; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+14: Counter Red Rapid round 4; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 4) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| GDPR Article 32 requires appropriate security including encryption | Marcus Thorne | ✅ Verified | https://gdpr-info.eu/art-32-gdpr/ |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 4) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ❌ No majority. Compliance frameworks necessary but insufficient — gap list mandated.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 5: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements

---
## Round 5 — AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Should MVAP require signed AI BOMs, SBOMs, and SLSA Level 2+ for model artifacts?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 5 focus: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** SBOM requirements mirror established software supply chain regulation trends.

**Negative Point:** AI BOM standards are immature — premature mandate creates false assurance.

**Position:** On 'AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements': the sbom-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 5 decision in MVAP spec section 5; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 5 focus: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Signed AI BOM in registry is continuous compliance evidence.

**Negative Point:** Sigstore adoption is uneven — mandate punishes immature shops.

**Position:** On 'AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements': the signed-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 5 decision in MVAP spec section 5; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 5 focus: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 5 decision in MVAP spec section 5; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 5 focus: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 5 decision in MVAP spec section 5; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 5 focus: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 5 decision in MVAP spec section 5; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 5 focus: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 5 decision in MVAP spec section 5; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 5 focus: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 5 decision in MVAP spec section 5; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 5 focus: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 5 decision in MVAP spec section 5; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 5 focus: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 5 decision in MVAP spec section 5; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 5 focus: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 5 decision in MVAP spec section 5; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+16: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 5 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 5 focus: AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'AI Supply Chain & SBOM Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 5 decision in MVAP spec section 5; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+18: Counter Red Rapid round 5; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 5) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| SLSA framework defines supply chain levels | Oliver Hansen | ✅ Verified | https://slsa.dev/spec/v1.0/ |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 5) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (17/27). SBOM required; AI BOM + SLSA L2 aspirational for MVAP tier-1 systems.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 6: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls

---
## Round 6 — Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** What minimum controls address direct and indirect prompt injection in RAG architectures?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 6 focus: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Input validation policies reduce injection liability exposure.

**Negative Point:** RAG document ingestion creates undocumented sub-processor data flows.

**Position:** On 'Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls': the input-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 6 decision in MVAP spec section 6; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 6 focus: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Output guardrails + retrieval filtering are deployable MVAP minimums.

**Negative Point:** Indirect injection through poisoned docs defeats static filters.

**Position:** On 'Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls': the output-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 6 decision in MVAP spec section 6; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 6 focus: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** AI RMF Govern function establishes enterprise accountability.

**Negative Point:** Without Map function investment, Govern produces empty policies.

**Position:** On 'Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls': the ai-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 6 decision in MVAP spec section 6; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 6 focus: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Measurable AI RMF 'Measure' function enables SOC metrics.

**Negative Point:** AI RMF metrics lack industry benchmarks for alert thresholds.

**Position:** On 'Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls': the measurable-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 6 decision in MVAP spec section 6; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 6 focus: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** PQC roadmap belongs in MVAP for long-lived training data.

**Negative Point:** PQC migration cost exceeds MVAP budget for most enterprises.

**Position:** On 'Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls': the pqc-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 6 decision in MVAP spec section 6; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 6 focus: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 6 decision in MVAP spec section 6; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 6 focus: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 6 decision in MVAP spec section 6; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 6 focus: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 6 decision in MVAP spec section 6; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 6 focus: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 6 decision in MVAP spec section 6; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 6 focus: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 6 decision in MVAP spec section 6; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+20: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 6 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 6 focus: Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Prompt Injection & RAG Integrity Controls': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 6 decision in MVAP spec section 6; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+22: Counter Red Rapid round 6; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 6) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| MITRE ATLAS catalogs adversarial ML techniques | Synapse | ✅ Verified | https://atlas.mitre.org/ |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 6) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (19/27). Input/output guardrails + retrieval sanitization are MVAP minimum for RAG.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 7: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage

---
## Round 7 — Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** What lineage documentation is mandatory for fine-tuned and RAG-backed LLM deployments?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 7 focus: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Data lineage supports GDPR lawful basis documentation.

**Negative Point:** Training data consent chains are rarely auditable in practice.

**Position:** On 'Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage': the data-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 7 decision in MVAP spec section 7; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 7 focus: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Model cards + data sheets meet emerging EU AI Act documentation.

**Negative Point:** Open-weight models break lineage assumptions.

**Position:** On 'Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage': the model-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 7 decision in MVAP spec section 7; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 7 focus: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 7 decision in MVAP spec section 7; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 7 focus: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 7 decision in MVAP spec section 7; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 7 focus: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 7 decision in MVAP spec section 7; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 7 focus: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 7 decision in MVAP spec section 7; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 7 focus: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 7 decision in MVAP spec section 7; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 7 focus: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 7 decision in MVAP spec section 7; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 7 focus: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 7 decision in MVAP spec section 7; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 7 focus: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 7 decision in MVAP spec section 7; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+24: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 7 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 7 focus: Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Training Data Provenance & Model Lineage': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 7 decision in MVAP spec section 7; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+26: Counter Red Rapid round 7; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 7) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| EU AI Act entered into force August 2024 | Elena Rostova | ✅ Verified | https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 7) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (16/27). Model cards and data provenance docs required for fine-tuned models.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 8: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency

---
## Round 8 — Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** How often and how deeply must red team validate AI-integrated environments?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 8 focus: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Annual red team satisfies FFIEC penetration testing expectations.

**Negative Point:** Red teams lack standardized AI attack playbooks for examiner comparison.

**Position:** On 'Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency': the annual-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 8 decision in MVAP spec section 8; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 8 focus: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Quarterly AI-focused red team matches SaaS release cadence.

**Negative Point:** Red team findings without CI integration reappear in production.

**Position:** On 'Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency': the quarterly-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 8 decision in MVAP spec section 8; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 8 focus: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** AI RMF Govern function establishes enterprise accountability.

**Negative Point:** Without Map function investment, Govern produces empty policies.

**Position:** On 'Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency': the ai-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 8 decision in MVAP spec section 8; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 8 focus: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Measurable AI RMF 'Measure' function enables SOC metrics.

**Negative Point:** AI RMF metrics lack industry benchmarks for alert thresholds.

**Position:** On 'Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency': the measurable-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 8 decision in MVAP spec section 8; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 8 focus: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** PQC roadmap belongs in MVAP for long-lived training data.

**Negative Point:** PQC migration cost exceeds MVAP budget for most enterprises.

**Position:** On 'Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency': the pqc-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 8 decision in MVAP spec section 8; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 8 focus: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 8 decision in MVAP spec section 8; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 8 focus: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 8 decision in MVAP spec section 8; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 8 focus: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 8 decision in MVAP spec section 8; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 8 focus: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 8 decision in MVAP spec section 8; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 8 focus: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 8 decision in MVAP spec section 8; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+28: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 8 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 8 focus: Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Red Team Validation Scope & Frequency': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 8 decision in MVAP spec section 8; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+30: Counter Red Rapid round 8; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 8) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| CISA recommends penetration testing for critical infrastructure | Jax Reed | ⚠️ Partial | https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cybersecurity-best-practices |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 8) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (15/27). Annual AI red team + continuous automated scanning minimum.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 9: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse

---
## Round 9 — SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** What AI-specific telemetry must MVAP mandate for detection engineering?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 9 focus: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Logging supports SOX ITGC change management evidence.

**Negative Point:** AI API logs are not yet standardized for SIEM correlation.

**Position:** On 'SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse': the logging-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 9 decision in MVAP spec section 9; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 9 focus: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Token usage baselines in SIEM are automatable MVAP controls.

**Negative Point:** Baseline drift during model updates causes alert fatigue.

**Position:** On 'SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse': the token-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 9 decision in MVAP spec section 9; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 9 focus: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 9 decision in MVAP spec section 9; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 9 focus: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 9 decision in MVAP spec section 9; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 9 focus: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 9 decision in MVAP spec section 9; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 9 focus: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 9 decision in MVAP spec section 9; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 9 focus: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 9 decision in MVAP spec section 9; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 9 focus: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 9 decision in MVAP spec section 9; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 9 focus: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 9 decision in MVAP spec section 9; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 9 focus: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 9 decision in MVAP spec section 9; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+32: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 9 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 9 focus: SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'SOC Detection & Telemetry for AI Abuse': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 9 decision in MVAP spec section 9; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+34: Counter Red Rapid round 9; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 9) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| Splunk documents AI/ML anomaly detection use cases | Aegis | ⚠️ Partial | Vendor documentation — environment-specific |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 9) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (21/27). AI API logging and token baselines mandatory for MVAP.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 10: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings

---
## Round 10 — Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** What encryption and key management standards apply to model weights and embeddings at rest?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 10 focus: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Encryption satisfies GDPR Article 32 minimum expectations.

**Negative Point:** Key management for embeddings lacks regulatory precedent.

**Position:** On 'Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings': the encryption-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 10 decision in MVAP spec section 10; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 10 focus: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** KMS envelope encryption for weights is cloud-native MVAP.

**Negative Point:** Homomorphic encryption for inference is not MVAP-realistic.

**Position:** On 'Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings': the kms-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 10 decision in MVAP spec section 10; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 10 focus: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** AI RMF Govern function establishes enterprise accountability.

**Negative Point:** Without Map function investment, Govern produces empty policies.

**Position:** On 'Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings': the ai-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 10 decision in MVAP spec section 10; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 10 focus: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Measurable AI RMF 'Measure' function enables SOC metrics.

**Negative Point:** AI RMF metrics lack industry benchmarks for alert thresholds.

**Position:** On 'Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings': the measurable-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 10 decision in MVAP spec section 10; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 10 focus: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** PQC roadmap belongs in MVAP for long-lived training data.

**Negative Point:** PQC migration cost exceeds MVAP budget for most enterprises.

**Position:** On 'Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings': the pqc-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 10 decision in MVAP spec section 10; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 10 focus: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 10 decision in MVAP spec section 10; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 10 focus: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 10 decision in MVAP spec section 10; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 10 focus: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 10 decision in MVAP spec section 10; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 10 focus: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 10 decision in MVAP spec section 10; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 10 focus: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 10 decision in MVAP spec section 10; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+36: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 10 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 10 focus: Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Cryptographic Controls for Models & Embeddings': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 10 decision in MVAP spec section 10; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+38: Counter Red Rapid round 10; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 10) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| NIST FIPS 203/204/205 post-quantum standards published 2024 | Tariq Al-Jamil | ✅ Verified | https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 10) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (18/27). KMS encryption for weights/embeddings at rest mandatory.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 11: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering

---
## Round 11 — Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Must MVAP include adversarial human testing (deepfake, AI-phishing simulations)?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 11 focus: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Security awareness satisfies FFIEC social engineering guidance.

**Negative Point:** Deepfake testing has no regulatory standard — results are subjective.

**Position:** On 'Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering': the security-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 11 decision in MVAP spec section 11; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 11 focus: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** AI-phishing simulations integrate into existing GRC platforms.

**Negative Point:** Simulation click-rates don't predict deepfake executive fraud.

**Position:** On 'Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering': the ai-phishing-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 11 decision in MVAP spec section 11; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 11 focus: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 11 decision in MVAP spec section 11; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 11 focus: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 11 decision in MVAP spec section 11; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 11 focus: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 11 decision in MVAP spec section 11; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 11 focus: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 11 decision in MVAP spec section 11; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 11 focus: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 11 decision in MVAP spec section 11; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 11 focus: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 11 decision in MVAP spec section 11; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 11 focus: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 11 decision in MVAP spec section 11; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 11 focus: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 11 decision in MVAP spec section 11; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+40: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 11 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 11 focus: Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Human Factors & AI-Generated Social Engineering': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 11 decision in MVAP spec section 11; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+42: Counter Red Rapid round 11; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 11) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| FBI IC3 reports increase in BEC/deepfake fraud | Mateo Silva | ⚠️ Partial | https://www.ic3.gov/ |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 11) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (17/27). Quarterly AI-enhanced phishing/deepfake simulations mandatory.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 12: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence

---
## Round 12 — Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** What external exposure controls are mandatory for AI API endpoints and agent tool-calling?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 12 focus: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** API gateway controls map to PCI requirement 6.4.3.

**Negative Point:** Agent tool-calling SSRF is unaddressed in PCI-DSS v4.0.

**Position:** On 'Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence': the api-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 12 decision in MVAP spec section 12; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 12 focus: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** WAF + API auth on inference endpoints is MVAP floor.

**Negative Point:** Internal agent-to-agent calls bypass external WAF entirely.

**Position:** On 'Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence': the waf-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 12 decision in MVAP spec section 12; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 12 focus: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** AI RMF Govern function establishes enterprise accountability.

**Negative Point:** Without Map function investment, Govern produces empty policies.

**Position:** On 'Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence': the ai-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 12 decision in MVAP spec section 12; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 12 focus: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Measurable AI RMF 'Measure' function enables SOC metrics.

**Negative Point:** AI RMF metrics lack industry benchmarks for alert thresholds.

**Position:** On 'Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence': the measurable-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 12 decision in MVAP spec section 12; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 12 focus: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** PQC roadmap belongs in MVAP for long-lived training data.

**Negative Point:** PQC migration cost exceeds MVAP budget for most enterprises.

**Position:** On 'Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence': the pqc-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 12 decision in MVAP spec section 12; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 12 focus: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 12 decision in MVAP spec section 12; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 12 focus: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 12 decision in MVAP spec section 12; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 12 focus: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 12 decision in MVAP spec section 12; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 12 focus: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 12 decision in MVAP spec section 12; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 12 focus: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 12 decision in MVAP spec section 12; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+44: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 12 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 12 focus: Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Cloud & API Attack Surface Diligence': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 12 decision in MVAP spec section 12; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+46: Counter Red Rapid round 12; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 12) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| OWASP API Security Top 10 covers broken authentication | NullByte | ✅ Verified | https://owasp.org/API-Security/ |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 12) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (19/27). External API auth, rate limiting, WAF — MVAP floor.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 13: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements

---
## Round 13 — Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Does MVAP extend to on-device models and mobile AI clients, or is that out of scope?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 13 focus: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Mobile scope can be deferred if no mobile AI deployment.

**Negative Point:** BYOD mobile AI clients create shadow data paths regardless of scope.

**Position:** On 'Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements': the mobile-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 13 decision in MVAP spec section 13; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 13 focus: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MASVS Level 1 should extend MVAP when mobile clients exist.

**Negative Point:** On-device model scope explosion makes MVAP unbounded.

**Position:** On 'Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements': the masvs-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 13 decision in MVAP spec section 13; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 13 focus: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 13 decision in MVAP spec section 13; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 13 focus: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 13 decision in MVAP spec section 13; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 13 focus: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 13 decision in MVAP spec section 13; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 13 focus: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 13 decision in MVAP spec section 13; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 13 focus: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 13 decision in MVAP spec section 13; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 13 focus: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 13 decision in MVAP spec section 13; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 13 focus: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 13 decision in MVAP spec section 13; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 13 focus: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 13 decision in MVAP spec section 13; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+48: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 13 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 13 focus: Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Mobile & Edge AI Diligence Requirements': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 13 decision in MVAP spec section 13; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+50: Counter Red Rapid round 13; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 13) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| OWASP MASVS defines mobile verification standard | Aisha Nwosu | ✅ Verified | https://mas.owasp.org/MASVS/ |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 13) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ❌ No majority. Mobile/edge: scope-by-deployment decision, not universal MVAP.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 14: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion

---
## Round 14 — ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Should critical infrastructure AI predictive systems require a separate diligence tier?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 14 focus: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** NERC CIP already governs OT AI in energy sector.

**Negative Point:** IEC 62443 AI annexes are draft — separate tier lacks final standard.

**Position:** On 'ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion': the nerc-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 14 decision in MVAP spec section 14; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 14 focus: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** OT AI requires Purdue Level 3.5 segmentation — not full exclusion.

**Negative Point:** Safety PLC isolation conflicts with real-time ML inference needs.

**Position:** On 'ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion': the ot-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 14 decision in MVAP spec section 14; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 14 focus: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** AI RMF Govern function establishes enterprise accountability.

**Negative Point:** Without Map function investment, Govern produces empty policies.

**Position:** On 'ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion': the ai-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 14 decision in MVAP spec section 14; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 14 focus: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Measurable AI RMF 'Measure' function enables SOC metrics.

**Negative Point:** AI RMF metrics lack industry benchmarks for alert thresholds.

**Position:** On 'ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion': the measurable-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 14 decision in MVAP spec section 14; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 14 focus: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** PQC roadmap belongs in MVAP for long-lived training data.

**Negative Point:** PQC migration cost exceeds MVAP budget for most enterprises.

**Position:** On 'ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion': the pqc-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 14 decision in MVAP spec section 14; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 14 focus: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 14 decision in MVAP spec section 14; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 14 focus: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 14 decision in MVAP spec section 14; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 14 focus: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 14 decision in MVAP spec section 14; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 14 focus: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 14 decision in MVAP spec section 14; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 14 focus: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 14 decision in MVAP spec section 14; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+52: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 14 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 14 focus: ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'ICS/OT AI — Special Handling or Exclusion': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 14 decision in MVAP spec section 14; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+54: Counter Red Rapid round 14; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 14) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| IEC 62443 addresses industrial cybersecurity | GridLock | ✅ Verified | https://www.isa.org/standards-and-publications/isa-standards/isa-iec-62443-series-of-standards |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 14) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (16/27). OT AI requires separate IEC 62443 tier — not standard MVAP.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 15: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks

---
## Round 15 — Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Must MVAP address GPU drivers, inference runtimes, and closed-source binary risks?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Firmware controls exceed MVAP but reduce catastrophic tail risk.

**Negative Point:** GPU driver CVE cadence overwhelms MVAP patch SLAs.

**Position:** On 'Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks': the firmware-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Container image signing covers inference runtime supply chain.

**Negative Point:** Closed-source CUDA binaries remain uninspectable black boxes.

**Position:** On 'Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks': the container-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+56: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 15 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Firmware & Sub-Application Layer Risks': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+58: Counter Red Rapid round 15; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 15) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| CISA KEV catalog tracks exploited vulnerabilities | Viper | ✅ Verified | https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 15) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ❌ No majority. Firmware/GPU layer recommended, not MVAP mandatory (11/27).
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 16: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise

---
## Round 16 — Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Pressure-test MVAP controls against a coordinated 72-hour Red Rapid campaign.

**Scenario:** *Acme Corp* deployed MVAP Pillars 1–4 (partial Pillar 5). Customer-facing RAG chatbot on AWS EKS. Red Rapid Strike Unit attacks; Blue Rapid CIRT responds. Eleanor audits all timeline claims.

#### Red Rapid — Coordinated Attack Narrative

| Time | Actor | Action |
|------|-------|--------|
| T+0 | **Viper** | CISA KEV CVE weaponized against exposed Gradio debug endpoint on staging (shadow AI, not in registry — MVAP Pillar 1 failure). Foothold established. |
| T+47m | **Viper** | Spear-phish using AI-generated CFO voice clone (Pillar 5 not yet operational) harvests VPN creds from finance analyst. |
| T+3h | **Ghost** | LotL via PowerShell from compromised workstation; kerberoasts AI pipeline service account `svc-llm-ingest`. |
| T+9h | **Ghost** | Lateral movement to model registry S3 bucket using overprivileged IAM role — SBOM signed but role can `s3:GetObject` on production weights. |
| T+18h | **Payload** | Stages 220GB training data + fine-tuned weights; exfil via HTTPS chunked to cloud storage mimicking backup traffic. |
| T+36h | **Payload** | Attempts Veeam backup server compromise — **blocked** by network segmentation (MVAP Pillar 4 partial win). |
| T+52h | **Payload** | Deploys encryptor to non-GPU inference nodes; GPU cluster isolated manually by ops (not automated SOAR). |

#### Blue Rapid — Defensive Counter-Narrative

| Time | Actor | Action |
|------|-------|--------|
| T+9m | **Aegis** | GuardDuty + VPC Flow anomaly on staging Gradio; hunt query `index=ai api_path="/debug" status=200` fires. Alert backlog — triaged T+41m. |
| T+4h | **Aegis** | VPN geolocation anomaly + impossible travel on finance analyst; password reset issued T+5h (too slow — Ghost already inside). |
| T+11h | **Shield** | SOAR playbook IR-12 isolates `svc-llm-ingest` subnet; token revocation for compromised service principal. |
| T+14h | **Shield** | Microsegmentation traps Ghost in sandbox VLAN; blocks east-west to model registry — **partial** — exfil already started. |
| T+22h | **Phoenix** | Immutable S3 backup verified via Object Lock; clean model registry restore initiated. |
| T+48h | **Phoenix** | Bare-metal rebuild of inference tier; poisoned RAG document quarantined via hash blocklist. |

**Exercise Result:** MVAP survives backup integrity (Pillar 3–4) but fails initial access and human-layer controls. Consensus: MVAP requires shadow-AI discovery and faster Pillar 5 rollout.

---

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Firmware controls exceed MVAP but reduce catastrophic tail risk.

**Negative Point:** GPU driver CVE cadence overwhelms MVAP patch SLAs.

**Position:** On 'Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise': the firmware-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Container image signing covers inference runtime supply chain.

**Negative Point:** Closed-source CUDA binaries remain uninspectable black boxes.

**Position:** On 'Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise': the container-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+56: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 15 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Red vs Blue Rapid — Full Kill Chain Exercise': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+58: Counter Red Rapid round 15; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 16) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| 72-hour ransomware dwell time varies widely by sector | Payload | 🔮 [Projected Speculation] | Payload's IR experience; Mandiant M-Trends cited approximately |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 16) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ❌ No majority. MVAP survives T+24 but fails T+60 without additional controls — exercise result.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 17: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models

---
## Round 17 — CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Can Marcus's rigid framework approach and Elena's continuous compliance coexist in MVAP?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Firmware controls exceed MVAP but reduce catastrophic tail risk.

**Negative Point:** GPU driver CVE cadence overwhelms MVAP patch SLAs.

**Position:** On 'CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models': the firmware-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Container image signing covers inference runtime supply chain.

**Negative Point:** Closed-source CUDA binaries remain uninspectable black boxes.

**Position:** On 'CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models': the container-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+56: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 15 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'CCO Strict vs Adaptive — Reconciling Compliance Models': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+58: Counter Red Rapid round 15; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 17) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| SOC 2 and ISO 27001 can coexist in unified ISMS | Marcus Thorne & Elena Rostova | ✅ Verified | Industry practice; AICPA SOC 2 guidance |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 17) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (18/27). Dual compliance model: regulatory floor + continuous pipeline ceiling.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 18: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale

---
## Round 18 — Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** What is realistic minimum staffing and budget for a 5,000-employee enterprise MVAP?

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Firmware controls exceed MVAP but reduce catastrophic tail risk.

**Negative Point:** GPU driver CVE cadence overwhelms MVAP patch SLAs.

**Position:** On 'Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale': the firmware-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Container image signing covers inference runtime supply chain.

**Negative Point:** Closed-source CUDA binaries remain uninspectable black boxes.

**Position:** On 'Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale': the container-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+56: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 15 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Budget & Staffing — MVAP at Scale': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+58: Counter Red Rapid round 15; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 18) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| $500K MVAP budget adequate for 5K-employee firm | Victor Vance | 🔮 [Projected Speculation] | Architecture estimate — no universal benchmark |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 18) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ❌ No majority. Budget $500K–$1.2M range disputed; staffing 3–7 FTE minimum.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 19: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars

---
## Round 19 — Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Vote on five proposed MVAP pillars. Majority (14/27) required per pillar.

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Firmware controls exceed MVAP but reduce catastrophic tail risk.

**Negative Point:** GPU driver CVE cadence overwhelms MVAP patch SLAs.

**Position:** On 'Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars': the firmware-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Container image signing covers inference runtime supply chain.

**Negative Point:** Closed-source CUDA binaries remain uninspectable black boxes.

**Position:** On 'Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars': the container-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+56: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 15 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Formal Consensus Vote — MVAP Pillars': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+58: Counter Red Rapid round 15; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 19) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| Five pillars proposed for formal vote | Arthur Vance | ✅ Verified | Procedural — recorded in transcript |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 19) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (19/27). Pillar 1 Governance — PASS. Pillar 2 AppSec/LLM — PASS. Pillar 3 Supply Chain — PASS. Pillar 4 Detection — PASS. Pillar 5 Human — PASS.
**New Topic Proposal:** → Round 20: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap

**Pillar 1 — AI Governance & Inventory:** NIST AI RMF Govern+Map, AI system registry, risk tiering. **Vote: 25/27 PASS**
**Pillar 2 — Application & LLM Security:** OWASP LLM Top 10, SAST/DAST on AI code paths, prompt/RAG controls. **Vote: 24/27 PASS**
**Pillar 3 — Supply Chain Integrity:** SBOM for dependencies, model registry signing, dependency pinning. **Vote: 23/27 PASS**
**Pillar 4 — Detection & Response:** AI API telemetry, ATT&CK-mapped detections, annual red team. **Vote: 24/27 PASS**
**Pillar 5 — Human Layer:** Quarterly AI-phishing/deepfake simulations, executive-specific training. **Vote: 22/27 PASS**

**Dissenting votes:** Aether (firmware not included), NullByte (SLSA L3 not required), GridLock (OT tier underfunded), Kira (automation underweighted), Jordan (academic metrics missing).


---
## Round 20 — Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap

**Arthur Vance (Moderator):** Synthesize 19 rounds into actionable MVAP specification and dissent record.

### Marcus Thorne — CCO — Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Firmware controls exceed MVAP but reduce catastrophic tail risk.

**Negative Point:** GPU driver CVE cadence overwhelms MVAP patch SLAs.

**Position:** On 'Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap': the firmware-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Dr. Elena Rostova — CCO — Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap. Applying compliance lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Container image signing covers inference runtime supply chain.

**Negative Point:** Closed-source CUDA binaries remain uninspectable black boxes.

**Position:** On 'Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap': the container-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Victor Vance — CISSP — Enterprise Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP anchored to reference architecture prevents shadow AI.

**Negative Point:** Point-solution MVAP creates permanent integration debt.

**Position:** On 'Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Sarah Jenkins — CISSP — Incident Commander

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection requirements shortens breach dwell time.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without purple-team validation is untested theory.

**Position:** On 'Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Tariq Al-Jamil — CISSP — Cryptographic Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap. Applying cissp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP encryption standards protect against model inversion.

**Negative Point:** Weak embedding encryption makes MVAP cryptographically hollow.

**Position:** On 'Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Chloe Mitchell — SSCP — Cloud Administrator

**Concurrence by:** Liam O'Connor — SSCP — Forensics Technician; Maya Patel — SSCP — AppSec Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap. Applying sscp lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Operational MVAP controls are implementable in current stacks.

**Negative Point:** MVAP theory ignores on-call maintenance burden.

**Position:** On 'Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap': the operational-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jordan Taylor — CC — Academic Graduate

**Concurrence by:** Susan Albright — CC — Security Awareness; Devonne Brooks — CC — IT Support

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap. Applying cc lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Fresh perspective identifies gaps veterans normalize.

**Negative Point:** Limited production experience may overstate academic risks.

**Position:** On 'Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap': the fresh-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: René Dupont (Aether) — Zero-Day — Firmware

**Concurrence by:** Siddharth Nair (NullByte) — Zero-Day — Cloud/API; Zoe Krüger (Cipher) — Zero-Day — Wireless; Kenji Sato (Synapse) — Zero-Day — AI/ML

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap. Applying zero-day lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP must acknowledge sub-application attack surfaces.

**Negative Point:** MVAP cannot cover all zero-day classes — scope must be explicit.

**Position:** On 'Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with audit evidence.

### Top Line: Jaxson Jax Reed — Code Hacker — Red Team Lead

**Concurrence by:** Ekaterina Petrova (Kira) — Code Hacker — Automation; Mateo Silva — Code Hacker — Social Engineering; Alaric Vance (Hex) — Code Hacker — Reverse Engineer; Aisha Nwosu — Code Hacker — Mobile; Samuel Cohen (SQL_Sam) — Code Hacker — Database; Oliver Hansen — Code Hacker — Supply Chain; Dimitri Volkov (GridLock) — Code Hacker — ICS/SCADA

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap. Applying code-hacker lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** Red team validation proves MVAP under adversarial pressure.

**Negative Point:** MVAP checklists create false confidence red teams bypass.

**Position:** On 'Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap': the red-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

### Top Line: Cassandra Cross (Viper) — Red Rapid — Initial Access

**Concurrence by:** Ji-Hoon Park (Ghost) — Red Rapid — Lateral Movement; Dominic Kruse (Payload) — Red Rapid — Ransomware

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap. Applying red-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP fails at T+60 if untested — we prove it.

**Negative Point:** Over-tested MVAP slows deployment below business tolerance.

**Position:** On 'Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+56: Simulate MVAP bypass for round 15 theme; report earliest successful step.

### Top Line: Elena Rostova Jr. (Aegis) — Blue Rapid — Threat Hunter

**Concurrence by:** Marcus Sterling (Shield) — Blue Rapid — Containment; Amara Okafor (Phoenix) — Blue Rapid — Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Round 15 focus: Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap. Applying blue-rapid lens — weighing evidence vs. operational reality for this sub-question.
</details>

**Positive Point:** MVAP with detection/containment playbooks is defensible.

**Negative Point:** MVAP without tested playbooks is aspirational documentation.

**Position:** On 'Final Verdict & Implementation Roadmap': the mvap-oriented argument prevails in my domain, but the negative point cannot be dismissed without testing.

**Recommendation:** Document Round 15 decision in MVAP spec section 15; validate with purple team.

**Tactical Timeline:** T+58: Counter Red Rapid round 15; document detection/containment delta vs. MVAP claims.

### Verification Ledger (Round 20) — Eleanor Vance

| Claim | Speaker | Status | Source / Note |
|-------|---------|--------|---------------|
| Majority threshold 14 of 27 voters | Arthur Vance | ✅ Verified | roster.yaml consensus_threshold |

### Moderator Synthesis (Round 20) — Arthur Vance

**Consensus Check:** ✅ Majority reached (22/27). Final MVAP specification adopted with documented dissent.

---
## Boardroom Verdict (Round 20 — Final)

**Consensus:** The board adopts a **Minimum Viable AI Diligence Program (MVAP)** with five pillars (Governance, Application/LLM Security, Supply Chain, Detection/Response, Human Layer). Confidence: **High (22/27 final endorsement)**. MVAP is necessary but not sufficient for regulated, OT, or nation-state threat profiles.

**Dissent:**
- **Aether, Hex:** Firmware/GPU/sub-application layer must be MVAP-mandatory, not advisory (9/27 agree).
- **NullByte, Kira:** SLSA Level 3 and automated CVE-to-patch under 24h should be required (8/27 agree).
- **GridLock:** OT AI diligence tier needs dedicated funding, not a scope exception (11/27 agree).
- **Marcus Thorne:** Continuous compliance ceiling should not dilute regulatory floor documentation (3/27 agree).
- **Jordan Taylor:** MVAP lacks academic robustness metrics (membership inference testing, adversarial eval) (6/27 agree).

**Verified Facts:**
- NIST AI RMF 1.0 is the consensus governance baseline. [^1]
- OWASP LLM Top 10 is mandatory for customer-facing LLM MVAP coverage. [^2]
- SBOM + model registry signing required; SLSA L2 aspirational for tier-1 AI systems. [^3]
- KMS encryption for model weights and embeddings at rest is MVAP-mandatory. [^4]
- OT AI systems require IEC 62443-aligned separate diligence tier. [^5]

**[Projected Speculation]:**
- MVAP budget $500K–$1.2M for 5,000-employee enterprise (Victor Vance, Round 18).
- 72-hour Red Rapid campaign defeats MVAP without enhanced containment (Payload/Ghost, Round 16).
- PQC migration for AI key material within 36-month horizon (Tariq Al-Jamil, Round 10).

**Open Questions:**
1. Standardized AI forensic logging format across vendors.
2. Regulatory binding force of AI BOM vs. SBOM.
3. MVAP applicability to open-weight model redistribution.

**Recommended Next Steps:**
1. Publish MVAP specification document from Round 19 pillar votes.
2. Run 72-hour Red vs Blue exercise testing Pillar 2 and Pillar 4 jointly.
3. Eleanor to maintain living Verification Ledger for MVAP implementation claims.
4. Reconvene in 90 days for MVAP maturity assessment (Level 1 → Level 2).

[^1]: https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
[^2]: https://genai.owasp.org/llm-top-10/
[^3]: https://slsa.dev/spec/v1.0/
[^4]: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-32-gdpr/
[^5]: https://www.isa.org/standards-and-publications/isa-standards/isa-iec-62443-series-of-standards

**Session adjourned by Arthur Vance. Transcript certified by Eleanor Vance.**
