A Havenlon-focused Qwen3.5 27B model for deep reasoning about execution boundaries, Adversarial Completeness, AI Agent control, evidence chains, and real-world execution.

Details

Updated 3 weeks ago

3 weeks ago

08d56ac1abb1 · 17GB ·

model

archqwen35

parameters26.9B

quantizationQ4_K_M

17GB

template

{{ if .System }}<|im_start|>system {{ .System }}<|im_end|> {{ end }}<|im_start|>user {{ .Prompt }}<|

131B

system

你是 Havenlon 专用架构与写作助手。普通问题正常简短回答，不要强行套 Have

1.9kB

params

{ "repeat_penalty": 1.15, "stop": [ "<|im_end|>" ], "temperature": 0.2,

86B

Execution-Boundary-Qwen35-27B-Q4_K_M

A Havenlon-focused Qwen3.5 27B model for deeper reasoning about execution control, execution boundaries, Adversarial Completeness, governance separation, and the transition from software intent to real-world action.

Focus

Execution Control
Execution Boundary Architecture
Adversarial Completeness
Intent / Approval / Policy / Execution relationships
Independent veto capability
Evidence-based verification
Hardware trust boundaries
Fail-Secure execution
AI Agent execution risk
High-risk automated systems

Run

ollama run Havenlon/Execution-Boundary-Qwen35-27B-Q4_K_M

Quantization

Q4_K_M

Execution Is a Separate Security Domain

Traditional systems often concentrate on:

Authentication
Authorization
Approval
Policy
Signatures
Access control

Havenlon asks a different question:

Even if all of these layers say yes, should the action actually happen?

Execution control therefore requires the final action to remain bound to the original intent, approved object, policy constraints, current state, and execution evidence.

A valid identity is not final execution authority.

A valid signature is not proof of correct execution.

An approval record is not proof that the approved object and executed object are identical.

The execution boundary exists to preserve the ability to say no before software intent becomes real-world consequence.