[motohagiography]

Thank you. The challenge here is how to trust it. I think leading with stating that this is a paradigm shift is key, and then it's important to show how it pivots from first principles. Right now, the description has what appear to be proprietary product terms (fabric, ineffable, etc) where ordinarily there would be some more familiar terms of art from cryptography.

How much of this is net new, and are we asking people to suspend their disbelief?

[SaltNHash]

Not sure how to quantify "how much is new" as like all other breakthroughs are "built on the shoulders of giants". I'd find it almost impossible to answer that same question accurately if it was asked about something like Kyber (Post quantum cryptography) - which would probably be newer than Tide. A proper answer would require quite a lengthy seminar, I'm guessing. Your last question is a fascinating one and the answer is: no. We're not asking people to suspend their disbelief. On the extreme contrary: we'd encourage them to challenge it as much as they should challenge their current beliefs. Today's automated belief in all existing Zero-Trust vendors may be misplaced/misguided. The blind beliefs in all IAM vendors should be re-examined. We ask for people to question their automated belief in the integrity of processes such as: "JWT introspection" where the same entity that generated an attestation is now requested to validate it, or if an OIDC connection is "secured" by a shared "client secret", there's no need to verify the JWT signature, or it's safe to send passwords over HTTPS because it's secure by SSL, or it's safe to store passwords on a server because it's hashed and salted, or passkey is foolproof because it's stored in the TPM, etc... How many of these beliefs are verifiable to the end-user???