Deterministic Semantic Coherence · GPS-Denied Navigation

A coherence layer
above the position fix.

TERN answers where am I without satellites. ARBITER answers a different question — does this still cohere. Mission intent versus route. Fused sensor state versus physical plausibility. Firmware delta versus the navigation stack's implicit assumptions. 26MB engine, air-gapped, scoring live against the public compare endpoint.

01 / Route Coherence

Intent-aligned path

Rank candidate routes against plain-language mission intent. Semantic path scoring beside the position fix — not shortest path.

02 / Fusion Assurance

Run-time monitor

Detect semantic incoherence a Kalman filter assumes away. Baro climbs, terrain reads flat — trigger reinitialization.

03 / Firmware Gate

Pre-deployment check

Score every firmware delta against the stack's implicit assumptions before it reaches a forward operating base.

Module 01 — Live Demonstration

One signal. Different intent. Different route.

A commander states intent in plain language. ARBITER scores each candidate route against it in one call. Switch the preset intent — the same four routes re-rank, because the scoring is semantic, not static. This is the layer beside TERN's fix.

Inputquery + candidates
Coherence Outputdata.all
Awaiting mission intent
Module 02 — Live Demonstration

Fused state versus physical plausibility.

The fused state is described from the last sensor window and matched against physical-state hypotheses. When the state coheres with a fault hypothesis instead of a motion model, that is the trigger to reinitialize or reweight. Preset three is Shaun's exact case: baro climbing, terrain flat.

Fused Statequery + candidates
Assurance Outputdata.all
Awaiting sensor window
Module 03 — Live Demonstration

Does this delta break the stack.

A field-updateable nav stack carries implicit assumptions: fusion timing, fallback weighting, initialization order. ARBITER scores a proposed delta against named risk classes before it ships. A change that coheres with a timing or fallback-removal class gets held. The CrowdStrike note, as a gate.

Proposed Deltaquery + candidates
Gate Decisiondata.all
Awaiting firmware delta
On the two open questions

Latency window. And the why.

Latency / rate
Above the control loop, not inside it

The round-trip shown in the panels is browser-to-cloud and includes internet transit. The figure for TERN is the air-gapped edge number: 41–75ms inference on a co-located Pi 5, exact API parity, no cloud. That places ARBITER in the human-in-the-loop and low-rate-autonomy window (<1Hz). Tight inner-loop control (>10Hz) is out of scope — ARBITER scores route segments and state transitions, it does not stabilize them.

Explainability
A contributing class, not a bare number

The score is not a black box. Every run returns the full ranked field of named hypotheses, so the output reads "state coheres with Sensor Conflict at 0.71, margin 0.18 over the nearest motion model." The operator sees which physical hypothesis the position resembles and by how much. Decomposing the contributing dimensions further is a defined next step.