System, method, and computer-readable medium for zero-knowledge compliance verification and cross-jurisdictional token-based governance

1 . A computer-implemented compliance governance system including a hardware processor comprising: a) an artifact registry configured to store deterministic digests of digital artifacts generated by one or more artificial intelligence models; b) a compliance token associated with a digital artifact, the compliance token encoding:

i. a policy predicate set,

ii. a consent scope,

iii. a jurisdictional lineage,

iv. monetization parameters, and

v. a zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) component comprising a proof statement identifier, a cryptographic commitment, and a verification key;

c) a gateway verifier implemented as a finite-state machine comprising at least a token-intake state, a signature-verification state, a zero-knowledge proof verification state, a policy-evaluation state, and a commit state;

d) wherein, during the zero-knowledge proof verification state, the gateway verifier executes a zero-knowledge proof verification procedure to validate one or more policy predicates without accessing underlying regulated data; and

e) a ledger interface configured to generate and record a commit entry comprising an artifact identifier, a ZKP validation outcome, a policy-evaluation outcome, and a permit-or-deny decision.

2 . The system of claim 1 , further comprising a settlement engine configured to compute an adjusted royalty value

R=R 0 (1+α m ),

where R 0 and α are encoded in the compliance token and m is a validated outcome metric,

and to record a settlement receipt associated with the computed royalty value in the commit entry.

3 . The system of claim 1 , further comprising a settlement engine and a dual-ledger commit engine, wherein the compliance decision and the zero-knowledge proof validation result together form an indivisible verification record included in the commit entry, the verification record being used by both the settlement engine and the dual-ledger commit engine.

4 . The system of claim 1 , further comprising a dual-ledger commit engine configured to write the commit entry as a single atomic transaction to both:

a) a compliance ledger, and

b) a financial ledger,

and wherein the compliance token includes jurisdictional predicate sets that modify policy evaluation or settlement allocation when a requested transmission crosses a jurisdictional boundary.

5 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the compliance token further provides monetization parameters used by a settlement engine configured to:

a) extract a baseline royalty value and at least one weighting coefficient;

b) receive and validate an outcome metric using attestation data or zero-knowledge proof artifacts;

c) compute an adjusted royalty value based on the monetization parameters and the validated outcome metric; and

d) generate a settlement record for inclusion in the commit entry.

6 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the gateway verifier comprises a finite-state machine configured to execute a deterministic sequence of states, the sequence consisting of:

a) a token-intake state configured to receive and parse the compliance token;

b) a signature-verification state configured to authenticate the compliance token;

c) a zero-knowledge proof verification state configured to verify one or more policy predicates without accessing underlying regulated data;

d) a policy-evaluation state configured to evaluate the policy predicate set; and

e) a commit state configured to generate the permit-or-deny decision;

and wherein the finite-state machine further comprises an error state configured to emit a terminal reject output responsive to a failed signature verification or failed zero-knowledge proof verification, and a policy-decision output channel configured to emit the permit-or-deny decision upon completion of the policy-evaluation state.

7 . The system of claim 1 , further comprising a jurisdictional transition engine configured to:

a) detect that a transmission of the digital artifact crosses from a source jurisdiction to a destination jurisdiction;

b) retrieve jurisdiction-specific predicates associated with the destination jurisdiction;

c) generate a forked compliance token incorporating updated jurisdictional predicates and updated consent or policy predicate information; and

d) record lineage information linking the forked compliance token to the original token.

8 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the gateway verifier finite-state machine further comprises an error state configured to emit a terminal reject output in response to a failed signature verification or failed zero-knowledge proof verification, and a policy-decision output channel configured to emit the permit-or-deny decision produced in the commit state.

9 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the zero-knowledge proof component comprises a proof generated using a succinct non-interactive argument or a transparent proof system, including but not limited to zk-SNARK or zk-STARK constructions.

10 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the zero-knowledge proof validates consent predicates without revealing any patient identifiers.

11 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the zero-knowledge proof validates dataset-lineage predicates defined in a predetermined change control plan for Software as a Medical Device.

12 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the zero-knowledge proof validates export-control predicates or cross-border transmission restrictions associated with the jurisdictional lineage.

13 . The system of claim 4 , wherein crossing a jurisdictional boundary triggers generation of a token fork comprising updated jurisdictional predicates.

14 . A computer-implemented method for enforcing compliance of digital artifacts generated by an artificial intelligence model, the method comprising:

a) generating a deterministic digest of a digital artifact and storing the digest in an artifact registry;

b) generating a compliance token associated with the digital artifact, the compliance token encoding:

i. a policy predicate set,

ii. a consent scope,

iii. a jurisdictional lineage,

iv. monetization parameters, and

v. a zero-knowledge proof component comprising a proof statement identifier, a cryptographic commitment, and a verification key;

c) receiving, at a gateway verifier implemented as a finite-state machine, the compliance token and the digital artifact;

d) verifying a digital signature of the compliance token;

e) executing a zero-knowledge proof verification procedure to validate one or more policy predicates without accessing underlying regulated data;

f) evaluating the policy predicate set to generate a permit-or-deny decision; and

g) recording a commit entry to a ledger, the commit entry comprising an artifact identifier, a zero-knowledge proof validation outcome, and a permit-or-deny decision.

15 . The method of claim 14 , further comprising:

h) computing, by a settlement engine, an adjusted royalty value

R=R 0 (1+α m ),

where R 0 and α are encoded in the compliance token, and m is a validated outcome metric; and

i) recording the computed royalty value as part of the commit entry.

16 . The method of claim 14 , further comprising:

h) writing the commit entry as a single atomic transaction to both a compliance ledger and a financial ledger; and

i) applying jurisdictional predicate sets encoded in the compliance token that modify policy or settlement evaluation when the transmission crosses a jurisdictional boundary.

17 . A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to perform operations comprising:

a) storing a deterministic digest of a digital artifact in an artifact registry;

b) generating a compliance token encoding:

i. a policy predicate set,

ii. a consent scope,

iii. a jurisdictional lineage,

iv. monetization parameters, and

v. a zero-knowledge proof component comprising a proof statement identifier, a cryptographic commitment, and a verification key;

c) verifying, by a gateway verifier implemented as a finite-state machine, a digital signature of the compliance token;

d) executing a zero-knowledge proof verification procedure to validate one or more policy predicates without accessing underlying regulated data;

e) evaluating the policy predicate set; and

f) recording a commit entry to a ledger, the commit entry comprising an artifact identifier, a zero-knowledge proof validation outcome, and a permit-or-deny decision.

18 . The medium of claim 17 , wherein the instructions further cause the processors to:

g) compute an adjusted royalty value

R=R 0 (1+α m ),

where R 0 and α are encoded in the compliance token, and m is a validated outcome metric; and

h) record the computed royalty value in association with the commit entry.

19 . The medium of claim 17 , wherein the instructions further cause the processors to:

g) write the commit entry as a single atomic transaction to both a compliance ledger and a financial ledger; and

h) apply jurisdictional predicate sets encoded in the compliance token that modify policy or settlement evaluation when a transmission crosses a jurisdictional boundary.

20 . The medium of claim 17 , wherein the instructions further cause the processors to, upon detecting that a requested transmission of the digital artifact crosses a jurisdictional boundary, generate a token fork comprising updated jurisdictional predicates and apply the updated predicates during policy evaluation or settlement computation.