diff --git a/protocol/proofs/generic-withdrawal-proofs.md b/protocol/proofs/generic-withdrawal-proofs.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..bd637c31
--- /dev/null
+++ b/protocol/proofs/generic-withdrawal-proofs.md
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# Super Root Withdrawal Proofs
+
+## Purpose
+
+Proposes a modification to the `OptimismPortal` that would add a new overload of
+`proveWithdrawalTransaction` that would allow users to prove against Super Roots.
+
+## Context
+
+Interop introduces the concept of the "Super Root" - a collection of Output Roots from all of the
+different chains in the interop set. The interop fault proof system argues over a super root rather
+than an individual Output Root. The `OptimismPortal` contract only supports proving withdrawals
+against a specific Output Root and will need to be modified to support the Super Root.
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+We need to modify the `OptimismPortal` contract to support proving withdrawals against a Super
+Root. Users would not be able to correctly execute withdrawals without this modification. This
+means that *some* solution to the problem is a basic requirement for interop.
+
+## Proposed Solution
+
+We propose to allow users to prove against Super Roots by adding a new overload of
+`proveWithdrawalTransaction` that allows a user to prove the existence of an Output Root inside of
+the Super Root before performing the standard withdrawal validation inside of the Output Root.
+
+We also specifically propose that this be implemented on the *base* `OptimismPortal` instead of
+introducing the code to the `OptimismPortalInterop` portal. Doing so means that we are including
+extra code on the `OptimismPortal` that is technically unnecessary until interop ships but also
+means that we do not need to ship any additional changes to the `OptimismPortal` before interop.
+
+We could expose a new public variable `superRootsActive` that would toggle this function on and off
+and would also act as a signal for client-side tooling to automatically switch between the two
+available functions. When `superRootsActive` is `false`, the version of
+`proveWithdrawalTransaction` for Super Roots would revert. When `superRootsActive` is `true`, the
+legacy version of the function would revert.
+
+At the time of interop launch, chains in the interop set would switch to the Super Root versions of
+the dispute game and set `superRootsActive` to `true`. Chains not in the interop set would still
+have `superRootsActive` set to `false`. We would then switch these chains to a single-chain Super
+Root proof and either set `superRootsActive` to `true` or remove the old code path at the same
+time.
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+### Using an Inherited Contract
+
+We could implement this function inside of an inherited contract instead of putting it in the base
+contract. However, this would mean performing two sets of upgrades to the `OptimismPortal` before
+interop ships on an already tight timeline.
+
+## Considerations
+
+### Unused Code in Production
+
+This proposal means we are shipping code that cannot yet be used into production. We believe this
+trade-off is worthwhile because it means that we would not have to ship the code later on.
+
+### Changes in Super Root Structure
+
+If the Super Root structure changes, the `OptimismPortal` code will have to change too. Keeping the
+code inside of an inherited contract would make this easier to do and wouldn't involve any type of
+upgrade to mainnet systems. We can mitigate this by getting strong commitment from the designers of
+the proof system that the Super Root will not change before interop goes live.
+
+### Audits
+
+We would want to audit this code *as if* the Super Root logic were already live. This is OK because
+we can blackbox the Fault Dispute Game. We also need to audit that the Super Root logic cannot be
+used unless it has been activated and that the inclusion of both functions is not dangerous for any
+reason.
+
+### Cross-Chain Withdrawals
+
+We have decided that we will NOT allow the `OptimismPortal` for one chain to process withdrawals
+from another chain when interop launches because of security implications with the correctness of
+the cross-domain message sender. The Super Root withdrawal proof must therefore guarantee that a
+given withdrawal was actually created on the specific chain that corresponds to the given
+`OptimismPortal`.
+
+This means that we need to include a chain ID in the `OptimismPortal`. Instead of adding this into
+the `OptimismPortal` itself, we will add this into the `SystemConfig` and have the portal read the
+chain ID from the portal.
+
+### Portal Code Differences
+
+We have a strong preference that all chains use the Super Root proof system within a relatively
+short time of the interop launch. We should have a clear plan to shipping this proof system to all
+chains after interop goes live.
+
+### Wrong Withdrawal Path
+
+If any chain were to use this code *before* switching to Super Roots, user proofs would not
+function properly. We would not expect any safety concerns, but this woudl cause issues for the
+impacted chain and require a relatively urgent upgrade.
+
+## Failure Modes
+
+### Bug in Proof Validation Logic
+
+The only significant failure mode of this change is a bug in the new proof validation logic.
+Although unlikely, the impact of this bug is only a HIGH because of existing withdrawal validity
+monitoring. Withdrawal validity monitoring will detect invalid withdrawals regardless of whether
+the proof verification bug is because of the output root logic or the merkle trie.
+
+### Premature Switch
+
+If a chain prematurely switches to setting `superRootsActive`, they will be using the Super Root
+withdrawal validation logic while the proof system will (correctly) be submitting Output Roots.
+This will cause user withdrawal proofs to fail and would therefore be a HIGH severity incident.