1. Page Purpose
The TRUST SDK is the reusable institution integration boundary of the demonstrator. It is the software contract through which a bank, mobile-money operator or FinTech submits a transaction context for assessment and receives a governed response.
The SDK is deliberately separated from the AI model. Its responsibility is integration, validation, compatibility, routing and response assembly. Model inference, explanation and policy interpretation are downstream capabilities.
2. Why This Capability Exists
A Pan-African solution must support institutions with different technology stacks without forcing each institution to integrate directly with internal model components.
The SDK provides a stable contract while allowing the internal model, explanation and policy capabilities to evolve under governance and version control. This reduces integration coupling and supports reuse across Bank A, Mobile Money B and FinTech C.
3. Where This Page Fits
The page sits within the end-to-end TRUST SDK assessment lifecycle. Upstream components provide controlled transaction context and downstream components consume the resulting evidence. The exact stage differs by page, but the architectural rule remains constant: data and responsibility move forward through explicit boundaries rather than through hidden coupling.
The final operational decision remains outside the TRUST analytical chain. TRUST can advise, explain and record evidence, but the participating institution retains final authority over its transaction.
4. Functional Responsibilities
- Present the evaluator-facing capability represented by TRUST SDK Integration Layer in a form that can be inspected and understood.
- Expose the relevant operational, technical or evidential information without mixing unrelated component responsibilities.
- Preserve linkage to upstream and downstream stages so an evaluator can follow the complete chain.
- Retain version, provenance and decision-boundary information wherever the capability influences trust, risk or policy interpretation.
- Fail safely when source evidence is missing, invalid or unsupported instead of inventing a result.
5. Inputs
- Validated demonstrator evidence appropriate to the capability.
- Page-specific runtime, integration, model, policy, telemetry or audit context.
- Versioned implementation metadata needed for reproducibility.
- Transaction, assessment or correlation identifiers where relevant.
- Explicit missing-value or unsupported-data indicators where evidence is incomplete.
6. Processing Logic
- Load only the controlled evidence required by the capability.
- Validate that the required source evidence is present and structurally usable.
- Transform the evidence into human-readable and machine-consistent outputs.
- Preserve identifiers, version information and provenance across the transformation.
- Expose failure or insufficiency explicitly rather than fabricating missing evidence.
- Hand the resulting output to the next governed stage.
7. Outputs
- Evaluator-facing interpretation of the capability.
- Status, metrics, evidence, explanations, reports or controls appropriate to the page.
- Version/provenance information where applicable.
- Contextual links into related TRUST SDK capabilities.
- A result that remains inside the defined institutional decision boundary.
8. Data & Evidence Interpretation
The evaluator should distinguish between displayed data, derived metrics and governance statements. Displayed data originates from controlled source evidence. Derived metrics are calculated from that evidence. Governance statements explain how the system is allowed to use the resulting information.
A green operational indicator should be interpreted as evidence that a demonstrator capability is available, not as proof that the capability is production-certified. Likewise, a risk or recommendation displayed by the demonstrator is a controlled assessment output, not an autonomous transaction decision.
9. Technical Notes
- A production SDK would normally expose versioned request/response schemas, client libraries or API bindings, compatibility rules, structured errors and correlation identifiers.
- The demonstrator proves the integration pattern and processing boundary using controlled synthetic transactions. It does not claim that the participating institutions shown in the demo are already production-connected.
10. Failure Modes & Safe Failure
- Malformed request: reject before canonical processing.
- Unsupported SDK version: return explicit compatibility failure.
- Missing institution identifier: reject or route to controlled review.
- Incomplete authentication/channel context: preserve missingness and allow downstream confidence handling.
- Downstream service unavailable: return controlled service error without fabricating a trust score.
11. Evaluator Verification Checklist
| Evaluator question | Expected evidence |
|---|
| Is the capability clearly bounded? | The page and manual should state what the component does and what it explicitly does not do. |
| Is source evidence visible? | The capability should identify or link to the evidence used to produce the displayed result. |
| Is version information available? | Model, SDK, policy, adapter or implementation version should be available where relevant. |
| Can the result be reconstructed? | Identifiers and upstream/downstream evidence should make replay or reconstruction possible. |
| Does the component fail safely? | Missing or unsupported evidence must not be converted into invented facts. |
| Is institutional authority preserved? | TRUST may advise, but final transaction authority remains with the institution. |
12. Evidence Sources
- Page-visible runtime or assessment evidence.
- Related technical and evidence-chain pages.
- Model / policy / SDK registry information where applicable.
- Audit references or telemetry where applicable.
- Web/PDF reporting artifacts generated from the same controlled evidence.
13. Governance & Decision Boundary
TRUST is an advisory assessment capability. It does not independently authorize, settle or block a payment.
The participating institution retains final transaction authority and remains responsible for institution-specific compliance, operational policy and production controls.
The demonstrator uses synthetic or controlled evidence and should not be described as production certification.
14. Example Evaluator Walkthrough
- Start from the page's principal status or result.
- Identify the transaction, assessment, component or evidence source behind that result.
- Follow the related contextual page to inspect the upstream evidence.
- Verify the component/version that generated the output.
- Follow the downstream path to explanation, policy, audit or report evidence as applicable.
- Confirm that the displayed recommendation remains advisory and that the institution remains the final decision maker.
15. Acceptance / Readiness Criteria
- The page loads successfully and exposes the intended capability.
- Displayed values reconcile with controlled evidence.
- Relevant version/provenance information is inspectable.
- Contextual navigation reaches upstream/downstream stages.
- Failure states are explicit and non-fabricating.
- Institutional decision authority is clearly preserved.
16. Related Page Sections / Continue Reading
- Bank A
- Mobile Money B
- FinTech C
- SDK Processing Path
- Human-Readable SDK Request / Response
- SDK Request
- SDK Response
- SDK Governance
- SDK Integration Architecture
- Page purpose
- What this page contains
- How to use this page
- Key points to understand
- Evaluator interpretation
- Governance note
