Comprehensive comparison of SpeckDL against:
- TLA+/PlusCal (model checking vs. runtime compilation)
- Alloy (structural vs. behavioral modeling)
- Coq/Rocq (static proofs vs. dynamic enforcement)
- Dafny (verified code vs. spec-as-code)
- Event-B, UML/SysML, P (Microsoft), OpenAPI/gRPC
- SBOM tools: Syft/Grype, SLSA, in-toto
Includes positioning table across 7 tools on 6 dimensions.
Defines niche: specification language with compiler-level provenance,
designed for teams that need evidence of correctness more than proof.
Covers: regulatory landscape (EO 14028, CRA, DORA, FedRAMP), NIST SA-11 control
mapping (sub-controls 2/4/6/7), the evidence problem, compliance automation workflow,
judgement transport model, 4 real-world use cases (FDA, CISA, DORA, SLSA), clear
boundaries on what Speckl does not do, and cost equation with before/after comparison.
Completes the bridge between provenance (S4) and practical regulatory value.
Rewrites the whitepaper from the old 'Dark Provenance' concept to reflect
what Speckl actually is now: specifications that compile to software.
Section 1 covers:
- The Archaeology Problem (specs that rot in docs)
- The Formal Methods Gap (verified spec ≠ running system)
- The SpeckDL Approach (compile spec directly to code + provenance)
- Concrete ToggleSwitch example (14 lines → 5 artifacts)
Whitepaper outline restructured around current compiler capabilities
(TypeScript, WASM, PROV-O, CycloneDX, SPDX generators).
