CARE：一种面向责任的架构，用于模块化和可升级智能合约中的领域限定解析
CARE: A Responsibility-Oriented Architecture for Domain-Scoped Resolution in Modular and Upgradeable Smart Contracts
AI总结：
CARE提出面向责任的架构，通过领域限定能力解析分离协调与授权，经TLA+验证及实证评估，以固定7.7k-gas开销实现局部演进，优于EIP-2535。
AI中文摘要：
模块化和可升级的智能合约系统支持可替换的执行逻辑，但仅靠模块化分发并不能定义哪些组件承担架构责任，如协调、解析、共享状态、可复用服务和观察。本文提出了CARE，一种面向责任的架构，它使这些所有权边界显式化，并引入了领域限定的能力解析，将执行协调与选择执行目标的权限分离。CARE通过一个形式化架构模型定义，从中推导出五个结构属性。其行为语义进一步用TLA+编码，并使用TLC针对七个架构不变量进行评估。在最终验证运行之前，使用中间TLC结果来改进架构模型。针对EIP-2535和仅路由基线的受控实证评估表明，在评估的工作负载中，CARE引入了约固定的7.7k-gas运行时路由开销，而局部能力替换接近仅路由控制，且比评估的EIP-2535重新配置路径便宜得多。对抗性测试进一步表征了授权控制以及与委托执行和重入相关的残余风险。这些结果将CARE定位为一种显式责任所有权和局部演进的架构模型，而非现有智能合约可升级机制的通用替代品。
英文摘要：
Modular and upgradeable smart-contract systems enable replaceable execution logic, but modular dispatch alone does not define which components own architectural responsibilities such as coordination, resolution, shared state, reusable services, and observation. This paper presents CARE, a responsibility-oriented architecture that makes these ownership boundaries explicit and introduces domain-scoped capability resolution, separating execution coordination from the authority that selects an execution target. CARE is defined through a formal architectural model from which five structural properties are derived. Its behavioral semantics are further encoded in TLA+ and evaluated with TLC against seven architectural invariants. Intermediate TLC results were used to refine the architectural model before the final validation run. A controlled empirical evaluation against EIP-2535 and a routing only baseline shows that CARE introduces an approximately fixed 7.7k-gas runtime routing premium in the evaluated workloads, while localized capability replacement remains close to the routing-only control and substantially less expensive than the evaluated EIP-2535 reconfiguration path. Adversarial tests further characterize authorization controls and residual risks associated with delegated execution and reentrancy. These results position CARE as an architectural model for explicit responsibility ownership and localized evolution rather than as a universal replacement for existing smart-contract upgradeability mechanisms
