Source-backed map of what is implemented today.
Website statements are tied to repository evidence in runtime, license factory, and packager projects.
Inputs used for website alignment
Gap analysis summary
This audit drives the current website structure and message boundaries.
Cross-links for deployment, operations, trust, and capacity
Dedicated server, DNS/FQDN, reverse proxy, TLS, variants.
Demo, single server, standard, hardened, air-gapped, AI-enabled.
Minimum/recommended/optimal, with and without local AI.
Measured signals, validation scenarios, capacity planning philosophy.
Verify-only runtime, signed licenses, signed bundles/manifests, support conditions.
Deploy, backup, restore, upgrade, rollback, observability, exploitation.
Role, installation, first-line support, trust-chain continuity.
Repository references used by this website
Confirmed in code and docs
Intentionally non-final topics
Major topics status map
Each topic below distinguishes what is already implemented, what is partial, and what is planned.
Frequent questions
No. Runtime verification is local and file-based with public keys and signed artifacts.
Compose, Kubernetes manifests, and Helm are documented with unified install commands.
Integrators define DNS, FQDN, static IP strategy, and reverse proxy policy for each client environment while keeping NOXA trust controls intact.
No. Sizing values are planning baselines for architecture workshops and must be validated in customer pre-production tests.
Access checks require both runtime image edition and license entitlement alignment.
Signed manifests, signed archive, checksums, installation assets, and deployment-context support metadata.
Legacy token and compatibility paths remain for migration, while signed file artifacts stay the production target (reevaluation before 2026-12-31).
As of 2026-04-04, repositories expose metrics and E2E trust-chain tests but do not publish a public throughput/latency benchmark report.