> Neurobrick is an AI governance architecture that separates AI decision proposals from execution authority. Implemented in multi-asset financial research and execution environments. Market-specific execution paths, distinct execution contexts, explicit authority, input provenance and scoped engineering verification.

<!-- neurobrick-document-version: evidence-first-v6; updated: 2026-10-22 -->

[neurobrick](<https://neurobrick.ai/>)

[principles](<https://neurobrick.ai/thesis>)

[architecture](<https://neurobrick.ai/architecture>)

[capabilities](<https://neurobrick.ai/capabilities>)

[authority](<https://neurobrick.ai/boundary>)

[observation](<https://neurobrick.ai/oversight>)

[evidence](<https://neurobrick.ai/evidence>)

[engineering](<https://neurobrick.ai/progress>)

[verification](<https://neurobrick.ai/verification>)

[scope](<https://neurobrick.ai/limits>)

System capabilities

# Build systems that can explain their conditions for action.

The capabilities below combine architectural responsibilities and specific local evidence. Each links to the scope that supports it.

## Connect distinct markets

Cryptocurrency markets, domestic and overseas equities, and listed futures and options use market-specific exchange and broker paths. Coverage follows each system and supported product, rather than a single host label.

Reviewed implementation scope and owner-confirmed host roles

[Inspect the supporting material →](<https://neurobrick.ai/architecture#market-coverage>)

## Separate execution contexts

Independent engines retain their own account context and permission boundary. Shared support does not create one universal execution gate.

Architecture and observed integration limits

[Inspect the supporting material →](<https://neurobrick.ai/architecture>)

## Keep authority explicit

Inference supplies proposals. Permission must be attributable, scoped and readable by the path that consumes it.

Design model; selected settings have dated observations

[Inspect the supporting material →](<https://neurobrick.ai/boundary>)

## Question input evidence

Source linkage, observation contracts and point-in-time provenance determine whether a research input is acceptable.

A dated readiness run recorded a refusal to continue

[Inspect the supporting material →](<https://neurobrick.ai/evidence#system-review>)

## Make failure observable

Local counterexamples exercise initialization failure, unreadable output and incomplete observations.

Scoped repairs are tested; operating adoption is separate

[Inspect the supporting material →](<https://neurobrick.ai/verification>)

## Preserve provenance

Reused values retain their original observation time. Missing or invalid evidence is not counted as a verified result.

Local producer and consumer behavior

[Inspect the supporting material →](<https://neurobrick.ai/progress>)

## Review the actual implementation

Results retain source pins, original failures and the measured population. Negative controls test whether verification can reject broken behavior.

Internal technical evidence with explicit reproduction limits

[Inspect the supporting material →](<https://neurobrick.ai/verification>)

A capability description is not certification of every live path. The evidence pages distinguish design, tested local behavior and natural operating observations.

Neurobrick · systems, authority and evidence

Last updated · 22 October 2026

[Public scope →](<https://neurobrick.ai/limits>)

[Canonical page](<https://neurobrick.ai/capabilities>)