SAFE-Matter™: Execution Authority and Evidential Legitimacy in Consequence-Bearing Systems
Fuente:
Zenodo
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866902090308124672 |
|---|---|
| author | Mincher, Paul |
| author_facet | Mincher, Paul |
| contents | <p>This paper defines execution authority as a continuously governed constitutional condition rather than a permission inherited from historic approval, prior validation, or operational continuity. Existing governance systems primarily establish legitimacy at discrete points in time through certification, compliance assessment, procedural authorisation, or initial deployment approval. Once operational, systems are generally permitted to continue execution unless visible failure, incident escalation, or procedural intervention occurs.</p> <p>This creates a structural governance condition in which execution authority may outlive the evidential conditions that originally justified reliance. As systems become increasingly autonomous, adaptive, interconnected, and consequence-bearing, this inherited model of legitimacy becomes progressively insufficient. Operational persistence does not inherently demonstrate continued admissibility.</p> <p>SAFE-Matter introduces a runtime admissibility model in which execution authority exists only while evidential legitimacy remains continuously established under present-state conditions. Authority is therefore not assumed to persist. It must remain actively supportable through contemporaneous, attributable, and admissible evidence at the moment of reliance.</p> <p>Within this framework, operational continuation becomes constitutionally conditional. A system may remain technically functional, procedurally authorised, and operationally active while simultaneously no longer retaining the evidential authority required to justify continued execution. The paper establishes the distinction between operational capability and constitutional admissibility, defines the boundary at which execution legitimacy collapses, and formalises the principle that execution authority must not outlive evidential authority.</p> <p>The paper further argues that future governance architectures will increasingly require runtime admissibility models capable of governing not merely whether systems can act, but whether they retain the legitimate authority to continue acting under continuously evolving conditions of reliance.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_20279056 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | SAFE-Matter™: Execution Authority and Evidential Legitimacy in Consequence-Bearing Systems Mincher, Paul (4-(m-Chlorophenylcarbamoyloxy)-2-butynyl)trimethylammonium Chloride Safe-Matter Admissibility Runtime Governance Execution Authority Evidential Legitimacy Present-State evidence Operational Governance Consequence-bearing Systems Constitutional Governance Continuous Assurance Evidential Authority Runtime Admissibility System Legitimacy Safety-critical systems Execution Governance Continuous Conformity <p>This paper defines execution authority as a continuously governed constitutional condition rather than a permission inherited from historic approval, prior validation, or operational continuity. Existing governance systems primarily establish legitimacy at discrete points in time through certification, compliance assessment, procedural authorisation, or initial deployment approval. Once operational, systems are generally permitted to continue execution unless visible failure, incident escalation, or procedural intervention occurs.</p> <p>This creates a structural governance condition in which execution authority may outlive the evidential conditions that originally justified reliance. As systems become increasingly autonomous, adaptive, interconnected, and consequence-bearing, this inherited model of legitimacy becomes progressively insufficient. Operational persistence does not inherently demonstrate continued admissibility.</p> <p>SAFE-Matter introduces a runtime admissibility model in which execution authority exists only while evidential legitimacy remains continuously established under present-state conditions. Authority is therefore not assumed to persist. It must remain actively supportable through contemporaneous, attributable, and admissible evidence at the moment of reliance.</p> <p>Within this framework, operational continuation becomes constitutionally conditional. A system may remain technically functional, procedurally authorised, and operationally active while simultaneously no longer retaining the evidential authority required to justify continued execution. The paper establishes the distinction between operational capability and constitutional admissibility, defines the boundary at which execution legitimacy collapses, and formalises the principle that execution authority must not outlive evidential authority.</p> <p>The paper further argues that future governance architectures will increasingly require runtime admissibility models capable of governing not merely whether systems can act, but whether they retain the legitimate authority to continue acting under continuously evolving conditions of reliance.</p> |
| title | SAFE-Matter™: Execution Authority and Evidential Legitimacy in Consequence-Bearing Systems |
| topic | (4-(m-Chlorophenylcarbamoyloxy)-2-butynyl)trimethylammonium Chloride Safe-Matter Admissibility Runtime Governance Execution Authority Evidential Legitimacy Present-State evidence Operational Governance Consequence-bearing Systems Constitutional Governance Continuous Assurance Evidential Authority Runtime Admissibility System Legitimacy Safety-critical systems Execution Governance Continuous Conformity |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20279056 |