No, not strong integrity, since that depends on hardware secure modules which attest that the software on the phone is signed by Google.

We can't let Google get away with bundling their spyware in the name of security into a phone we must now have..

It's NOT ok that a government app (often practically mandatory) requires the user to accept some invasive ToS of a foreign corporation maintaining an illegal monopoly.

Requiring attestation doesn't mean Google spyware should be unremovable without breaking it, Google's business model should not be mandated by the law.

Difficult? Not at all, but it annoying at least.

The problem is not that it's difficult, the problem is that it makes phones that are not locked against their users commercially dead - a money losing venture for any manufacturer. Because most people simply won't bother with two phones.

yes

Can you please elaborate as maybe I couldn't understand what you were trying to convey.

Thanks in advance!

GrapheneOS publishes a list of the requirements: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

GrapheneOS devs have announced "We're currently working with a major OEM towards future generations of their devices meeting our requirements and providing official GrapheneOS support. GrapheneOS on both Pixels and these future non-Pixels will be fine." (https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115102564799343519)

You're welcome to assert otherwise, of course, but your assertions are contradictory with direct statements from the GrapheneOS team.

Not at all and ignorant of you to think so.

And that's even assuming one cares about the secure enclave. I am not convinced that any phones exist that one can not unlock the enclave via JTAG debugging.