A Bidirectional LLM Firewall: Next Level X1 - help wanted!

Thanks for sharing this, y’all. There’s a lot here I found useful. A few things I especially appreciated: - the clear separation between research-reference architecture and deployment-constrained optimization - the honest naming of tradeoffs around latency, memory, and semantic depth - the explicit attention to escalation policy, calibration, and known limitations That kind of architectural discipline feels very relevant beyond this specific firewall context. In my own systems work, I’ve been thinking a lot about how layered systems preserve distinctions across boundaries without collapsing them, so your framing around routing, escalation, and layer-specific roles was genuinely helpful to read. One question this raises for me is: are the layers preserving not just content, but also the status of what they are handling? For example, how does the system distinguish between: - deterministic pattern hits vs probabilistic semantic suspicion - local/session-specific signals vs globally portable rules - calibrated findings vs provisional heuristics - escalated uncertainty vs actual policy-level conclusions Are those distinctions explicitly encoded at the interfaces between layers, or are some of them still mostly implicit in logs or orchestration logic? And if some of that status remains implicit, have you found that it affects calibration, replay, false-positive analysis, or subtle leakage of one layer’s assumptions into another? -Tiger