Sector Deep Dive #9: VERIFIABLE REASONING
Infra for formal verification, proof carrying systems, mathematical guarantees, and more.
We’ve spent the last decade scaling probabilistic systems optimizing for plausibility. That’s fine for content, but what about correctness?
The moment an LLM transitions from suggesting code to executing mission critical code (infra code, editing identity management policies, authorizing a payment rail), stochasticity becomes a liability. “Usually correct” is not a shippable spec for autonomous action.
The next wave of infra will be defined by Verifiable Reasoning: the ability to translate intent into a formal specification and receive either of the following two items:
a mechanically checkable certificate (proof / witness) that a property holds
a counterexample that falsifies the property.
Isn’t this just “better evals”? Not exactly. It’s the reintroduction of invariants and proof artifacts as first-class objects in the software lifecycle.
1. Technical substrate: solvers as commoditized compute, specs as the scarce resource
The primitives are industrial-grade and battle-tested. They come from two lineages:
EDA and hardware verification (Synopsys / Cadence): where verification is not optional because failure is catastrophic and expensive.
Safety-critical software (AdaCore / SPARK): where specifications and proofs are part of how systems ship.
The engines are mature:
SAT/SMT solvers (e.g. Microsoft Z3, cvc5): constraint engines for decidable fragments of logic.
Model checkers (e.g. SPIN): exhaustive state exploration against temporal properties.
Proof assistants (Lean 4, Coq, Isabelle/HOL): interactive theorem proving with machine-checked proof terms.
Symbolic execution / static verification (e.g. KLEE): produce concrete counterexamples and coverage guarantees on program paths.
None of this is new. What’s new is the integration pattern.
Historically, formal verification was blocked by the translation tax. Humans cannot write TLA+, SystemVerilog assertions, or Lean propositions at the speed of modern engineering. And even when they can, proofs are brittle. They break under refactors, they require experts to maintain, and they don’t fit into CI.
The unlock is that LLMs are becoming the interface layer for formal methods. It’s becoming the compiler.
They can do auto-formalization: converting natural-language intent into specs, invariants, and proof sketches. They can also accelerate the loop that matters most in practice:
spec → attempt proof → fail → counterexample → refine spec/code → retry
That is exactly how formal methods scale. Not by “proving everything” but by iterating quickly toward the properties you actually care about.
This is the shift from “formal methods as a PhD thesis” to “formal methods as a CI/CD artifact”.
2. Market architecture: three layers collapsing into a single correctness control plane
I view the stack as three investable layers. Each is real, but the compounding value happens when they interlock.
a) The legibility layer (governance + observability)
This is the audit trail: drift detection, attribution, documentation, explainability. Incumbents here include Fiddler, Arthur, IBM Watson OpenScale, and open-source toolkits.
This layer is necessary but insufficient. It tells you what happened. Mission-critical systems need guarantees about what cannot happen. Legibility becomes powerful only when it feeds the guarantee layer with structured constraints (and later consumes the proof artifacts).
b) The guarantee layer (verification)
This is where mathematics touches model behavior. You see two camps:
classical formal methods teams adapting into ML and autonomous systems (e.g. Galois, AbsInt-style approaches),
verification-first ML research stacks (e.g. VerifAI, solver-aided neural verification like Marabou, abstract-interpretation style bounds like DeepPoly).
The alpha is in neuro-symbolic bridges: systems that constrain a neural network’s behavior using bounded, checkable logic.
The canonical shape looks like:
preconditions on inputs (ranges, schemas, safety envelopes),
postconditions on outputs/actions (policy compliance, forbidden states),
and the proof obligation that says for given inputs and conditions, it will lead to a safe model.
In practice you don’t get full universality. You get bounded domains, approximations, and certificates with explicit assumptions. That’s fine. The point is that it leads to mechanical accountability.
c) The workflow layer (enterprise assurance / control plane)
This is where verification becomes a product. Integrated into how software is shipped. Credo AI is an example of packaging governance and assurance into enterprise workflow. The wedge is whether the system can become a gate:
does it run inside GitHub Actions and block a merge?
does it gate deployment in managed ML stacks like Amazon Bedrock?
does it generate artifacts a risk committee or auditor can consume?
The winning products operationalize proofs the way devops operationalized deployments.
3. Competitive Landscape: The “Proof” Stack
a) AI Mathematicians + Automated Reasoning (The “Solver” Layer)
Symbolica — Building “structured intelligence” using category theory (categorical deep learning) rather than just transformers. Their flagship Agentica framework focuses on creating agents with provable correctness guarantees, effectively replacing “approximate” neural reasoning with algebraic structure.
Normal Computing — Building thermodynamic computers and software to solve probabilistic reasoning problems. Their stack focuses on “energy-based models” that can reason about uncertainty and correctness more natively than standard GPUs, targeting high-stakes auditable workflows.
Axiom Math — Building an AI mathematician / superintelligent reasoner as a wedge into formal reasoning + proof.
Harmonic — Building mathematical reasoning systems (Aristotle) to solve Mathematics Olympiad-level problems, serving as a proxy for “reasoning reliability”.
Imandra — “Reasoning-as-a-Service”. One of the few offering a cloud-accessible automated logic engine used by finance (Goldman Sachs) and defense to verify algorithms before they trade or shoot.
b) Formal Methods “Builders” (Verification Tooling)
Galois — The OG deep-tech services firm. Productizing cryptographic verification (SAW) and high-assurance tooling. They essentially operate as the R&D lab for the US government’s hardest verification problems.
Atlas Computing — A newer entrant explicitly focused on “AI-assisted formal verification” for critical infrastructure. Their thesis is using LLMs to write the specs that traditional formal methods tools (like Z3) verify.
Runtime Verification — Commercializes the K Framework. They are unique because they define semantics for languages (C, Java, EVM) to prove code adheres to spec.
TrustInSoft — “Mathematically guaranteed” bug-free code for C/C++. They use formal methods to prove the absence of undefined behaviors, selling to automotive/IoT.
BedRock Systems — Building a formally verified trusted computing base (Hypervisor/OS) to ensure critical systems cannot be bypassed.
c) Formal Verification (The “High Stakes” Sandbox)
Certora — “Proving code works with mathematical certainty”. They provide the Certora Prover, which allows smart contract developers to write invariants (CVL) and auto-check them.
Veridise — Spun out of UT Austin research. They use automated analysis (fuzzing + static analysis + formal verification) specifically for zero-knowledge circuits and smart contracts.
Invariant Labs — Now partnering with Snyk. Focused on agentic security via formal guarantees. They use a “security analyzer” that imposes hard constraints on agent actions, preventing state violations regardless of prompt injections.
d) ProofOps and Agent Assurance (The “Control Plane”)
Lakera — They act as a firewall for LLMs, preventing prompt injections and jailbreaks. Their database (Gandalf) is the industry standard for “how to break an LLM”, giving them a defensive moat.
Protect AI — Building “MLSecOps”. They acquire and aggregate tools (like Laiyer AI) to scan models for vulnerabilities, verify supply chain integrity (signing models), and firewall LLM inputs/outputs.
Gomboc.ai — “Deterministic Infra”. They use deterministic AI to remediate cloud infrastructure violations. Instead of just alerting, they generate the precise code fix that is mathematically guaranteed to solve the policy violation.
Credo AI — The governance layer. Less about mathematics proofs and more about “audit proofs” i.e. generating the artifacts regulators need to sign off on a model.
HiddenLayer — Security for the model itself. They detect if someone is trying to steal the model weights or tamper with the inference process at runtime.
Robust Intelligence (Acquired by Cisco) — The “Antivirus for AI”. Automated red-teaming to find failure modes before deployment.
e) The “Bridge” Layer (Static Analysis + Neuro-symbolic)
Semgrep — “Policy as Code”. While not purely “formal”, their engine is the standard for deterministic code checks. Their new AI features allow developers to write natural language rules that compile into deterministic, greppable constraints.
Qodo (formerly Codium) — Focuses on “code integrity” for AI generation. They use a mix of static analysis and test generation to verify that the code an LLM writes actually runs and passes assertions.
Cleanlab — “Data Curation as Code”. They use confident learning (a statistical theory) to mathematically prove which labels in a dataset are incorrect, purifying the input layer for AI.
3. Distribution signal: incumbents are buying “permission to deploy”
The most important market signal is M&A by platforms that already own deployment surfaces.
Snowflake → TruEra: data platforms need model reasoning and validation to keep high-value workloads on-platform.
Cisco → Robust Intelligence and F5 → CalypsoAI: infra incumbents are acquiring assurance capability as a layer that ships everywhere their stack ships.
The velocity of HiddenLayer and the emergence of vendors like Lakera show this moving from research to procurement: a “trust/correctness” budget line forming inside enterprise AI rollouts.
This is not “AI safety” per se. This is the same playbook as observability and security. Once the control becomes mandatory, it gets bundled.
4. The investable opportunity: Infra for mathematical correctness
My variant perception is that value will not accrue to the solver. Solvers commoditize. The defensibility is in infra that can operationalize this work of proving correctness. Something that can operationalize specifications and proof artifacts inside software delivery.
The core product primitives look like:
specification authoring + versioning (spec diffs are as important as code diffs)
incremental verification (proofs that survive refactors via modularity / compositional reasoning)
counterexample triage (turn solver outputs into developer-actionable bug reports)
“proof coverage” metrics (what properties are guaranteed, under what assumptions)
deployment gates + regression proofs (the proof becomes part of the release artifact).
If you can make proofs cheap enough to live in the git push loop, entire classes of autonomous software become viable.
Where this unlocks mission-critical software:
Infrastructure / agents: the primitive is state-machine verification. If agents are deployed through Kubernetes and toolchains, you need invariants over tool usage (“never delete database X unless condition Y is met”). TLA+ style thinking, but productized.
Finance: the primitive is constraint satisfaction (monotonicity, fairness constraints, bounded risk policies). The killer product auto-generates compliance-ready proof artifacts tied to model and data lineage.
Conclusion
Mathematics is becoming infrastructure. The opportunity here is building infra that lets enterprises ship autonomous systems with explicit guarantees, auditable assumptions, and mechanically checkable artifacts.
When correctness becomes a deployable artifact (when a proof is something you can diff, version, and regression-test), we can expand the frontier of what software can be trusted to do. That’s where the alpha is.
If you are getting value from this newsletter, consider subscribing for free and sharing it with 1 infra-curious friend: