docs: add multi-operator governance section

ARCHITECTURE.md

@@ -42,7 +42,49 @@ There is no bootstrap mechanism for SDK clients. They must be explicitly approve
 
 ---
 
-## 3. Server Identity
+## 3. Multi-Operator Governance
+
+When more than one User Agent is registered, the vault is treated as having multiple operators. In that mode, sensitive actions are governed by voting rather than by a single operator decision.
+
+### 3.1 Voting Rules
+
+Voting is based on the total number of registered operators:
+
+- **1 operator:** no vote is needed; the single operator decides directly.
+- **2 operators:** full consensus is required; both operators must approve.
+- **3 or more operators:** quorum is `floor(N / 2) + 1`.
+
+Examples:
+
+- **3 operators:** 2 approvals required
+- **4 operators:** 3 approvals required
+
+### 3.2 Actions Requiring a Vote
+
+In multi-operator mode, a successful vote is required for:
+
+- approving new SDK clients
+- granting an SDK client visibility to a wallet
+- approving a one-off transaction
+- approving creation of a persistent grant
+- approving server updates
+- updating Shamir secret-sharing parameters
+
+### 3.3 Special Rule for Key Rotation
+
+Key rotation always requires full quorum, regardless of the normal voting threshold.
+
+This is stricter than ordinary governance actions because rotating the root key requires every operator to participate in coordinated share refresh/update steps. The root key itself is not redistributed directly, but each operator's share material must be changed consistently.
+
+### 3.4 Root Key Custody
+
+When the vault has multiple operators, the vault root key is protected using Shamir secret sharing.
+
+This ensures that root-key recovery and governance-sensitive changes are aligned with the multi-operator model rather than delegated to a single operator-held secret.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Server Identity
 
 The server proves its identity using TLS with a self-signed certificate. The TLS private key is generated on first run and is long-term; no rotation mechanism exists yet due to the complexity of multi-peer coordination.
 
@@ -55,9 +97,9 @@ Peers verify the server by its **public key fingerprint**:
 
 ---
 
-## 4. Key Management
+## 5. Key Management
 
-### 4.1 Key Hierarchy
+### 5.1 Key Hierarchy
 
 There are three layers of keys:
 
@@ -72,19 +114,19 @@ This layered design enables:
 - **Password rotation** without re-encrypting every wallet key (only the root key is re-encrypted).
 - **Root key rotation** without requiring the user to change their password.
 
-### 4.2 Encryption at Rest
+### 5.2 Encryption at Rest
 
 The database stores everything in encrypted form using symmetric AEAD. The encryption scheme is versioned to support transparent migration — when the vault unseals, Arbiter automatically re-encrypts any entries that are behind the current scheme version. See [IMPLEMENTATION.md](IMPLEMENTATION.md) for the specific scheme and versioning mechanism.
 
 ---
 
-## 5. Vault Lifecycle
+## 6. Vault Lifecycle
 
-### 5.1 Sealed State
+### 6.1 Sealed State
 
 On boot, the root key is encrypted and the server cannot perform any signing operations. This state is called **Sealed**.
 
-### 5.2 Unseal Flow
+### 6.2 Unseal Flow
 
 To transition to the **Unsealed** state, a User Agent must provide the password:
 
@@ -95,7 +137,7 @@ To transition to the **Unsealed** state, a User Agent must provide the password:
    - **Success:** The root key is decrypted and placed into a hardened memory cell. The server transitions to `Unsealed`. Any entries pending encryption scheme migration are re-encrypted.
    - **Failure:** The server returns an error indicating the password is incorrect.
 
-### 5.3 Memory Protection
+### 6.3 Memory Protection
 
 Once unsealed, the root key must be protected in memory against:
 
@@ -107,9 +149,9 @@ See [IMPLEMENTATION.md](IMPLEMENTATION.md) for the current and planned memory pr
 
 ---
 
-## 6. Permission Engine
+## 7. Permission Engine
 
-### 6.1 Fundamental Rules
+### 7.1 Fundamental Rules
 
 - SDK clients have **no access by default**.
 - Access is granted **explicitly** by a User Agent.
@@ -119,11 +161,45 @@ Each blockchain requires its own policy system due to differences in static tran
 
 Arbiter is also responsible for ensuring that **transaction nonces are never reused**.
 
-### 6.2 EVM Policies
+### 7.2 EVM Policies
 
 Every EVM grant is scoped to a specific **wallet** and **chain ID**.
 
-#### 6.2.1 Transaction Sub-Grants
+#### 7.2.0 Transaction Signing Sequence
+
+The high-level interaction order is:
+
+```mermaid
+sequenceDiagram
+    autonumber
+    actor SDK as SDK Client
+    participant Server
+    participant UA as User Agent
+
+    SDK->>Server: SignTransactionRequest
+    Server->>Server: Resolve wallet and wallet visibility
+    alt Visibility approval required
+        Server->>UA: Ask for wallet visibility approval
+        UA-->>Server: Vote result
+    end
+    Server->>Server: Evaluate transaction
+    Server->>Server: Load grant and limits context
+    alt Grant approval required
+        Server->>UA: Ask for execution / grant approval
+        UA-->>Server: Vote result
+        opt Create persistent grant
+            Server->>Server: Create and store grant
+        end
+        Server->>Server: Retry evaluation
+    end
+    critical Final authorization path
+        Server->>Server: Check limits and record execution
+        Server-->>Server: Signature or evaluation error
+    end
+    Server-->>SDK: Signature or error
+```
+
+#### 7.2.1 Transaction Sub-Grants
 
 Arbiter maintains an ever-expanding database of known contracts and their ABIs. Based on contract knowledge, transaction requests fall into three categories:
 
@@ -147,7 +223,7 @@ Available restrictions:
 
 These transactions have no `calldata` and therefore cannot interact with contracts. They can be subject to the same volume and rate restrictions as above.
 
-#### 6.2.2 Global Limits
+#### 7.2.2 Global Limits
 
 In addition to sub-grant-specific restrictions, the following limits can be applied across all grant types:
 

IMPLEMENTATION.md

@@ -128,6 +128,52 @@ The central abstraction is the `Policy` trait. Each implementation handles one s
 4. **Evaluate** — `Policy::evaluate` checks the decoded meaning against the grant's policy-specific constraints and returns any violations.
 5. **Record** — If `RunKind::Execution` and there are no violations, the engine writes to `evm_transaction_log` and calls `Policy::record_transaction` for any policy-specific logging (e.g., token transfer volume).
 
+The detailed branch structure is shown below:
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TD
+    A[SDK Client sends sign transaction request] --> B[Server resolves wallet]
+    B --> C{Wallet exists?}
+
+    C -- No --> Z1[Return wallet not found error]
+    C -- Yes --> D[Check SDK client wallet visibility]
+
+    D --> E{Wallet visible to SDK client?}
+    E -- No --> F[Start wallet visibility voting flow]
+    F --> G{Vote approved?}
+    G -- No --> Z2[Return wallet access denied error]
+    G -- Yes --> H[Persist wallet visibility]
+    E -- Yes --> I[Classify transaction meaning]
+    H --> I
+
+    I --> J{Meaning supported?}
+    J -- No --> Z3[Return unsupported transaction error]
+    J -- Yes --> K[Find matching grant]
+
+    K --> L{Grant exists?}
+    L -- Yes --> M[Check grant limits]
+    L -- No --> N[Start execution or grant voting flow]
+
+    N --> O{User-agent decision}
+    O -- Reject --> Z4[Return no matching grant error]
+    O -- Allow once --> M
+    O -- Create grant --> P[Create grant with user-selected limits]
+    P --> Q[Persist grant]
+    Q --> M
+
+    M --> R{Limits exceeded?}
+    R -- Yes --> Z5[Return evaluation error]
+    R -- No --> S[Record transaction in logs]
+    S --> T[Produce signature]
+    T --> U[Return signature to SDK client]
+
+    note1[Limit checks include volume, count, and gas constraints.]
+    note2[Grant lookup depends on classified meaning, such as ether transfer or token transfer.]
+
+    K -. uses .-> note2
+    M -. checks .-> note1
+```
+
 ### Policy Trait
 
 | Method | Purpose |