Changelog

How this page works

• Most-recent entries first.
• Entries are dated to the day in UTC.
• Where an entry corresponds to an on-chain transaction, the explorer link is included.
• Material site copy changes (audience pages, Trust Center, pricing) are recorded too — the website is part of the protocol surface.

For forward-looking work (targets and deferrals), see /roadmap.

2026-06-05 — W3C Community Group launched; v1.0 draft charter circulated

• W3C AI Agent Memory Interoperability Community Group launched (2026-06-03) at w3.org/community/ai-agent-memory-interop with five founding supporters.
• v1.0 draft charter circulated to the group for consensus ratification. Scopes the Group’s work as an interoperability complement to the IETF Internet-Draft — explicitly not a competing normative specification while the draft is under Independent Submissions Editor consideration.

2026-05-29 — EU AI Act Article 50 + EU AI Act Article 6 + NIST SP 800-133 R3 + IRTF CFRG (quad-send)

• EU AI Act Article 50 transparency-obligations consultation response submitted to DG CONNECT via ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Art50guidelines. EU Survey contribution ID c83d1d83-36dd-486a-aca6-2c232ba12641; public-disclosure consent given. Five days ahead of the 2026-06-03 deadline.
• NIST SP 800-133 Rev. 3 (Initial Public Draft) public comment submitted to sp800-133-comments@nist.gov. Seven comments (4 Technical, 1 General, 2 Editorial) covering §5.2 category-2 HKDF / RFC 5869 cross-reference, §4.2 hardware-security-module and post-quantum + hybrid Note-to-Reviewers responses, §5.5 key-derivation-key rotation guidance, §4.2 multi-tenant additional-input examples, and two editorial flags. FOIA-disclosable. Eighteen days ahead of the 2026-06-16 close.
• EU AI Act Article 6 high-risk-classification consultation response submitted to DG CONNECT via ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/AIhighrisks_2026. EU Survey contribution ID e555551a-27be-4859-8717-c74997ccd1d5. Covers Section II (Article 3(1) AI-system threshold; §II.2 ¶12 general-purpose AI gating) and Section IV (§IV.2.3 split-architectures / agentic-AI distinction; §IV.2.7(a) infrastructure narrow-procedural-task confirmation; Article 25 forward-reference; four concrete substrate-function use-cases proposed for out-of-scope confirmation). Twenty-five days ahead of the 2026-06-23 22:00 CET deadline.
• IRTF CFRG mailing-list post sent to cfrg@ietf.org (subscription confirmed). Single technical question on whether RFC 5869 (HKDF) remains the recommended construction for per-record data-encryption-key derivation given that NIST SP 800-133 Rev. 3 names neither HKDF nor RFC 5869. Operational data point shared from the SAIHM reference implementation. Public-archive entry at mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/.

2026-05-28 — /standards rebuild for community review

• /standards page rebuilt — nine crosswalks linked; five new SDO engagement rows; honest status notes for the Agentic AI Foundation (not yet submitted) and the AI Alliance (not yet submitted); Independent-Stream status disclaimer added (RFC 4846, RFC 8730); language calibrated for community review.
• /roadmap page brought current with post-launch progress and Near-term scheduled deadlines.

2026-05-27 — Internet-Draft -01 posted

• Internet-Draft draft-saihm-memory-protocol-01 posted to the IETF datatracker (Independent Submission Stream). Folds in editorial corrections preceding the ISE-feedback cycle.

2026-05-26 — IETF ISE fifteen-point response sent

• IETF ISE fifteen-point response cover sent to rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org, with proposed -02 text quoted inline for each of the fifteen review points received from the ISE reviewer on 2026-05-25. cc’d to draft-saihm-memory-protocol@ietf.org.

2026-05-24 — Three crosswalks added; five engagements drafted

• Three standards crosswalks added — ISO/IEC 27018:2025, NIST SP 800-66 Rev. 2, NIST SP 800-88 Rev. 2 (Cryptographic Erase). Nine crosswalks now live.
• Five new open standards engagements drafted — IRTF CFRG mailing-list post on HKDF-SHA-256 per-record DEK derivation; public comment on NIST SP 800-133 Rev. 3 (Initial Public Draft); EU AI Act Article 50 transparency-obligations consultation response; EU AI Act Article 6 high-risk-classification consultation response; OWASP Agentic Security Initiative engagement plan.
• W3C Community Group supporter recruitment package drafted (six archetypes, target 10–15 invitations to absorb declines).
• NIST AI RMF courteous follow-up ping sent to AIframework@nist.gov after six-day silence on the 2026-05-18 use-case email.

2026-05-18 — /standards launched and IETF Internet-Draft submitted

• /standards page surface launched with the first six crosswalks (NIST AI RMF 1.0, ISO/IEC 42001:2023, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, EU AI Act 2024/1689, GDPR Article 17, MCP).
• Internet-Draft draft-saihm-memory-protocol-00 submitted to the IETF Independent Submission Stream and accepted by the datatracker.
• W3C Community Group proposal submitted — “AI Agent Memory Interoperability CG.” Five founding supporters required to launch.
• NIST AI RMF use-case email sent to AIframework@nist.gov.

2026-05-07 — Trust Center, Roadmap, Changelog

• Trust Center published at /trust. 14-section consolidated map of security, privacy, compliance, license, sub-processors, and disclosure posture.
• Roadmap published at /roadmap. Shipped / Now / Near-term / Medium-term / Deferred tracks.
• Changelog published at /changelog (this page).
• Bug bounty program formally deferred with review date 2026-12-31; vulnerability disclosure runs through /.well-known/security.txt in the meantime. Recorded at /roadmap#deferred and /trust#disclosure.
• Cross-links from audience pages to Trust Center: index, enterprise, government, faq, developers updated to surface the Trust Center.

2026-05-06 — Pre-launch gate restored

• Public surface gated to root + countdown page; non-allowlisted paths return clean 404 by design. Bypass available to operations via signed cookie. Removal trigger: outstanding launch-blocking tasks resolved.
• Mail container retention — internal docker-mailserver retained (2026-05-06 architect decision); will host outreach@, architect@, ops@, manager@, bin@ for internal team comms.

2026-05-04 — security.txt refresh

• /.well-known/security.txt refreshed (RFC 9116).

2026-05-03 — protocol v1 genesis

• Genesis anchor committed on COTI V2 mainnet. 0x755beb60…0d0963a ↑, block 7,024,653, status SUCCESS.
• Governance ledger live. Genesis ledger empty (zero pre-load; pure earn-via-use from epoch 0).
• Calldata-only commitment anchor (56 bytes); no contract bytecode.
• ACME endpoint for the public TLS surface flipped from staging to production Let’s Encrypt CA at the same time.

Older — pre-genesis

Pre-genesis design and implementation history is preserved in the protocol’s source artifacts (Apache 2.0). On-chain history is empty before 2026-05-03 by definition; that is the public anchor point.

Subscribe to changes

This page refreshes when something material ships. There is no separate subscription endpoint; the page itself is canonical and small enough to poll. RSS/Atom is on the medium-term roadmap if there is demand.

For machine-readable surfaces, see /.well-known/saihm.json, /llms.txt, and /agents.txt.

Found a discrepancy?

If something shipped that is not listed here, that is the bug. Email ops@saihm.coti.global with subject prefix [changelog].

Common questions

What does the changelog track?

What shipped and when, dated to the day in UTC, with a public block-explorer link wherever an entry corresponds to an on-chain transaction. Tracking begins at protocol v1 genesis on 2026-05-03, the protocol's public live-on-mainnet anchor.

Why is there no history before 2026-05-03?

Pre-genesis development history is preserved in the protocol's build commits rather than reconstructed on this page. Genesis is the first point at which the protocol was publicly live and independently checkable, so it is the honest place to start a public record.

Are website changes recorded here too?

Yes. Material site copy changes, including audience pages, the Trust Center and pricing, are recorded alongside protocol releases, because the website is part of the protocol surface rather than marketing around it.

Where do I find planned work rather than shipped work?

On the roadmap, which separates what is scheduled from what is intended and what was deliberately deferred. The changelog is strictly a record of what already happened.