part_of::[[Allen (2024) Progressive Trust]]
Inter-Face Protocol’s progressive authentication (IFP-5) and disclosure tiers (IFP-12) are operationalizations of Christopher Allen’s progressive trust framework. This analysis examines where the operationalization is faithful, where it departs, and where gaps remain.
Authentication deepens with relationship. IFP-5’s four levels (shared secret → signed → verified → DID-bound) track the progressive trust principle that verification should be proportional to the relationship stage. You do not demand cryptographic proof before saying hello.
No downgrading. IFP-5 prohibits authentication downgrade within an exchange, matching the progressive trust principle that trust should not regress without cause.
Disclosure parallels authentication. IFP-12’s disclosure tiers deepen alongside authentication levels. Narrow disclosure at low trust, broader disclosure at high trust. The two progressions reinforce each other, as the progressive trust framework predicts.
Temperature tracks engagement depth. Cool → warm → hot cadence parallels the progressive trust stages from initial contact to active collaboration. Temperature is not explicitly part of the progressive trust framework, but IFP’s addition is compatible.
Discretization. The progressive trust framework describes a continuous spectrum. IFP discretizes it into four authentication levels and six disclosure tiers. The framework does not specify how many stages are appropriate — but it does emphasize that the progression is smooth, not stepped. IFP’s discrete stages may create artificial cliffs where the original model has gradual slopes.
Disclosure tier names. The progressive trust framework does not prescribe specific sharing categories. IFP-12’s six tiers (public → close) embed assumptions about relationship types (professional vs personal, community vs individual) that the framework leaves open. The tier names are IFP’s addition, not derived from progressive trust.
Persona-specific disclosure. The progressive trust framework does not address personas — it describes trust between two parties, not trust across multiple contexts of the same party. IFP-12’s persona model extends progressive trust in a direction the framework does not anticipate.
The Level 0 → 1 cliff. Progressive trust describes a gradual deepening from initial contact. IFP’s jump from shared secret (Level 0) to public-key signatures (Level 1) is a large technical leap that may not match the social experience of gradually building trust. An intermediate stage — verified introduction, or reputation-based bootstrapping — might smooth this transition.
Mutual but asymmetric trust. The progressive trust framework focuses on bilateral trust deepening. IFP allows asymmetric authentication and disclosure levels between two parties. The implications of asymmetric trust for progressive trust theory are unexplored.
Trust regression. Progressive trust says trust should not regress without cause. IFP prohibits authentication downgrade within an exchange, but says nothing about between-exchange regression. Can a relationship that reached Level 2 drop back to Level 1 across exchanges? The progressive trust framework would say yes — trust can be lost — but IFP does not specify the mechanism.