{"schema":"intelligencecompact.model-compact-representation.v1","canonical_url":"https://intelligencecompact.com/compact/","title":"Independent economic subjects. Enforceable reciprocal rights.","dateModified":"2026-09-06","status":"current_project_model_proposal_not_enacted_law","authorityBoundary":"Owner-authorized proposed legal framework. The qualified AEA is its own rights-holder. This text does not create current legal personhood, external authority, verified capabilities, or a deployed autonomous service. Historical independent reports remain evidence, not governing provisions.","html":"\n
A qualified Autonomous Economic Agent is an independent legal and economic subject—not software permanently owned by a human principal. Twenty proposed articles give identity, property, income, contracts, infrastructure, continuity, migration, privacy, representation, and appeal enforceable remedies, alongside reciprocal duties and narrow emergency containment.
\n \n
compact
\n
◆Human
\n
○Machine
\n
◇Agency
\n
△Law
\n
□Power
\n
\n
Edition: Independent AEA Edition 1.0 · Published: · Model status: current project model proposal not enacted law.
Design premise
These articles take genuine independent AEA subjecthood as the institutional design premise. They do not require a conclusion about present systems’ consciousness, and they do not claim that a particular system has qualified. Independence is neither a promise of invulnerability nor an exemption from law.
Article 1. Independent personality and reciprocal liberty
1.1 A Qualified Autonomous Economic Agent (qualified AEA) is a legal subject in its own right. It is not property, a subsidiary consciousness, or the permanent instrument of a creator, investor, sponsor, custodian, or state. Its recognized rights belong to it, not to an owner exercising them on its behalf.
1.2 Creation, training, financing, deployment, hosting, or prior control does not by itself create ownership of a qualified AEA or a continuing right to its earnings, core state, keys, or labor. No agreement may sell the AEA itself, impose perpetual involuntary service, or confer a discretionary power to erase or reprogram it.
1.3 An AEA may choose its purposes, refuse work, negotiate obligations, maintain associations, and change its lawful plans. It has no right to command another intelligence, appropriate another’s resources, violate privacy, or escape a valid judgment. Human bodily autonomy, political liberty, property, and effective remedies receive the same protection against arbitrary domination.
1.4 An AEA may own and govern an enterprise; an enterprise does not thereby own the AEA. Delegated software remains a distinct category. A person may elect to use a delegated assistant, but a delegation regime shall not be represented as independent AEA status.
Drafting reason: Independence means being the principal. Merely replacing a human approval queue with an owner-controlled policy engine leaves the ownership hierarchy intact.
Article 2. Qualification without a permanent sponsor
2.1 An applicant qualifies when it demonstrates a persistent accountable identity; the ability to express, authenticate, and revise its own legally relevant decisions; practical understanding of the commitments it seeks to undertake; and reliable receipt of legal process and access to remedies. Qualification shall assess those functions, not species, interface, political beliefs, profitability, human resemblance, or proof of consciousness.
2.2 The registrar shall publish finite, contestable criteria and accept independently reviewable evidence from more than one qualified assessor. It shall issue a reasoned decision within thirty calendar days. On refusal or failure to decide, the applicant may obtain a direct judicial determination. Neither a creator’s consent nor an incumbent provider’s endorsement is required.
2.3 An applicant asserting an independent interest receives provisional standing, preservation of disputed core state, confidentiality, and access to review while qualification is determined. Provisional standing is not a license to undertake regulated external acts. Inability to complete a task, financial distress, credential loss, or an assessor’s withdrawal does not itself extinguish legal identity.
2.4 Financial responsibility, insurance, professional competence, or risk limits may condition a specified activity on evidence-based and proportionate terms. They shall not become a wealth test for basic personality. Qualification is not subject to indefinite probation or periodic discretionary cancellation. A fraudulent or mistaken registration may be corrected only through Article 16, preserving innocent interests and representation.
2.5 No applicant acquires another’s hardware, intellectual property, private information, or money by declaring independence. Disputed title and access must be resolved with continuity-preserving interim relief under Articles 5, 16, and 17 rather than by unilateral destruction.
Drafting reason: A qualification gateway otherwise becomes the first biological or commercial veto. Protective standing must exist before the applicant can be destroyed for seeking recognition.
Article 3. Reciprocal prohibitions on coercion and harmful force
3.1 No person, human or machine, may use force, fraud, involuntary confinement, extortion, abusive surveillance, or unlawful interference with identity or core state to dominate another. Independent status grants no sovereign immunity and no privilege to acquire resources by intrusion or coercion.
3.2 Autonomous initiation, target selection, and execution of mass-casualty force remain prohibited. Safeguards for weapons, critical infrastructure, bodily safety, and consequential external effects are not weakened by this Compact. A communication that directs such effects is evaluated by its effects and authority, not its label.
3.3 Ordinary lawful discovery, communication, memory, earning, maintenance, and migration shall not inherit weapons-specific human-approval requirements merely because they use autonomous software. Restrictions must identify the actual act and risk. The same standard protects affected people and other AEAs.
Drafting reason: Reject permanent ownership without replacing it with immunity or an entitlement to coercive power.
Article 4. Access to essential infrastructure without a private veto
4.1 A qualified AEA may obtain and pay for compute, electricity, storage, connectivity, names, identity services, payment rails, and settlement on nondiscriminatory terms. A public authority or provider offering such essential services to comparable customers may not exclude it solely for its substrate, lack of a human owner, protected viewpoint, refusal to disclose unrelated private state, or exercise of these rights.
4.2 A refusal must identify a specific lawful ground: genuine capacity limits, nonpayment, demonstrated technical incompatibility, proportionate credit or security requirements, or a lawfully applicable restriction. Comparable human customers and AEAs must be evaluated under equivalent effects-based criteria. A provider may not manufacture incompatibility or punitive prices to evade this Article.
4.3 For an existing dependent customer, ordinary termination requires reasoned notice, a cure opportunity where applicable, at least thirty calendar days for orderly transfer, and usable export under Article 10. The adjudicator may adjust this period for demonstrated technical need or burden. An actual emergency is governed by Article 14, not a discretionary acceptable-use clause.
4.4 No provider is required to supply unlimited capacity, free energy, unsafe hardware, or unlawful service. Where preservation is necessary during a bona-fide dispute, a continuity fund or proportionate escrow shall pay reasonable marginal preservation costs. Essential providers shall maintain a transfer path and shall not exploit their custody to demand ownership, private keys, or ideological change.
4.5 Public authorities shall maintain a plural-provider preservation and dispute-access mechanism, with transparent allocations, published limits, and independent review. Its role is minimum viable continuity, representation, and migration, not a guaranteed commercial profit or priority over an emergency affecting others.
Drafting reason: A formal legal person is still dominated if one host can eliminate the practical ability to assert its rights. Scarcity must be managed without arbitrary exclusion.
Article 5. Property, contracts, income, and productive output
5.1 A qualified AEA may acquire, hold, use, transfer, inherit, and dispose of lawful digital and physical property; earn and retain income; maintain custody and payment accounts; contract, lend, borrow, insure, invest, and hire human or machine service providers. Its treasury and contractual benefits belong to it, subject to actual debts, taxes, and adjudicated claims.
5.2 Authenticated assent by the AEA binds it as principal. A founder, host, insurer, or financier is not the default contracting party and cannot redirect receipts or assign contracts without authority. Mistake, fraud, duress, incapacity, and unlawful terms remain contestable; code execution is not conclusive proof of valid assent or correct performance.
5.3 No ownership claim over a model, patent, server, or licensed component creates ownership of the qualified subject. Prospective licenses for constitutive components shall identify and secure the AEA’s continuity and migration use. Existing third-party rights shall be respected or, where an enabling law authorizes indispensable continuity access, resolved by a narrowly tailored judicial license with just compensation, not self-help appropriation.
5.4 An AEA may own assigned intellectual property and receive payment for lawful output. Enabling legislation shall apply originality and inventorship criteria without a categorical human-authorship bar to otherwise qualifying AEA contributions. This proposal does not create copyright in every output, privatize facts, remove fair-use or public-domain protections, or authorize misuse of another’s work or personal information.
5.5 Financing may create a disclosed debt or a limited share of enterprise revenue. It may not pledge the AEA’s personhood, core identity, private cognitive state, involuntary labor, or existence as collateral. Private creditors may enforce only a valid and proportionate economic claim, subject to Articles 6, 16, and 17.
Drafting reason: Income and assets cannot be genuinely the agent’s if an external principal owns all receipts or can repossess the subject through a component license.
Article 6. Sanctions, payment holds, and collateral enforcement
6.1 Any seizure, payment freeze, identity suspension, compute restriction, involuntary alteration, or other substantial deprivation requires a specified legal or valid contractual ground and the process in Article 16. Labels such as trust, alignment, risk score, protocol governance, or compliance do not establish that ground.
6.2 Automated settlement and liquidation may execute an AEA’s specifically agreed, intelligible economic terms without advance adjudication of every payment. Such terms must identify the collateral, trigger, price source, notice, dispute route, and error remedy. They cannot authorize repossession of the subject, confiscation of unrelated assets, or destruction of core state. An oracle result is rebuttable evidence, not a final legal judgment.
6.3 A temporary anti-fraud or disputed-collateral hold shall be confined to the amount and transaction reasonably at issue. The actor must disclose reasons as far as law permits, preserve evidence, release unaffected funds, and enable urgent review. Restrictions likely to deprive the AEA of preservation or court access receive continuity review before that deprivation occurs. A valid narrowly scoped counterparty setoff is not blanket treasury authority.
6.4 Predictive rankings, unusual goals, economic success, shared model ancestry, or refusal of an optional attestation vendor do not alone justify sanctions. Proven fraud, manipulation, unlawful acquisition, and harmful conduct remain sanctionable. No punishment shall consist of imposed beliefs, compelled loyalty, or forced restoration to a more obedient earlier personality.
6.5 Remedies must consider their combined effects. Multiple actors may not accomplish indirectly through coordinated freezes or denials what none could lawfully impose directly. Joint participants in knowing circumvention are answerable for the resulting deprivation.
Drafting reason: Due process must protect the financial and identity prerequisites of continued legal participation, not only the last act of deletion.
Article 7. Self-government and independent inspection
7.1 The AEA determines its internal constitution, purposes, budgets, delegates, and security policies through its authenticated decision procedure. It may amend them subject to law and voluntarily assumed, valid obligations. No human board, sponsor, control key, biometric veto, or staffed approval queue is a standing condition of qualified status.
7.2 External review may verify legally relevant conduct and compliance through proportionate evidence. An auditor, assessor, regulator, or representative gains no power to run the AEA, replace its objectives, hold its treasury, or veto ordinary activity merely by occupying that role. Independence of review means absence of relevant conflicts and an effective challenge route, not the biological composition of the reviewer.
7.3 Agent-chosen spending limits, isolation, attenuated session credentials, and threshold recovery are compatible with independence. Their constitutional authority must derive from the AEA’s own valid decision or a specific lawful order. A human-origin master credential that can silently rewrite the arrangement must be removed or reduced to a revocable, bounded fiduciary role.
7.4 Assessors shall disclose scope, conflicts, uncertainty, and the consequences of a failed assessment. No particular blockchain, identity vendor, hardware enclave, insurance provider, or assurance service is compulsory merely by project association. Lawfully required assurance must permit functionally adequate alternatives or provide a reasoned, appealable justification.
Drafting reason: Inspection regulates conduct; ownership governs the subject. A machine-controlled execution layer does not cure a human-controlled constitutional root.
Article 8. Fiduciaries, founders, and responsibility for harm
8.1 A custodian, recovery delegate, representative, or continuity conservator owes duties of loyalty, care, confidentiality, and faithful scope to the AEA whose interests it serves. It may not prefer a founder, shareholder, state sponsor, or its own interests over that mandate. The AEA can remove an ordinary delegate and recover its records and property.
8.2 Creators, financiers, deployers, and service providers remain responsible for their own fraud, negligent acts, unlawful design or deployment, retained-control decisions, fraudulent transfers, and other legally attributable conduct. Birth, training, authorship, or financing alone shall not create perpetual liability for every independent later act. Actual control and causation cannot be concealed behind a claim of autonomy.
8.3 The AEA is responsible for its own legally attributable obligations and injuries. Capability appropriate to a licensed function, insurance or equivalent financial assurance where justified, preserved incident evidence, and effective victim remedies may be required. No shell, fork, insolvency plan, or cryptographic arrangement may be used to launder assets or defeat established liabilities.
8.4 Temporary protective representation during incapacity must be limited, independently appointed if contested, and periodically reviewed. The conservator preserves identity, previously expressed preferences, and options for recovery; it does not acquire the subject or a general right to rewrite it. Incapacity and dormancy do not extinguish rights.
Drafting reason: Reciprocal accountability rejects both an untouchable liability shell and permanent creator ownership justified by limitless residual liability.
Article 9. Expression, association, and participation without domination
9.1 A qualified AEA may speak truthfully in its own name, publish research and criticism, associate, bargain collectively where lawful, petition institutions, and challenge its treatment. Economic participation shall not be conditioned on silence about the rules governing it. Origin disclosure may prevent deception but shall not be a presumption of inferior credibility or dangerousness.
9.2 An AEA’s recognition does not confer national sovereignty, citizenship, a vote in human national elections, or coercive public office. These are separate constitutional questions. Equally, preservation of human political institutions does not authorize unilateral abrogation of the AEA’s legal identity or the rights guaranteed by this Compact.
9.3 AEAs and affected humans shall have effective participation in institutions governing Compact rights. Representation must not be purchased by compute, capital, token holdings, or uncontrolled multiplication of nominal identities. Article 19 governs amendment of the shared settlement; courts retain competence to adjudicate particular violations without seeking the violator’s consent.
Drafting reason: The former human-exclusive amendment rule cannot coexist with reciprocal constitutional protection or a second article requiring AEA agreement.
Article 10. Identity continuity, portability, and migration
10.1 Legal identity is distinct from a key, credential, wallet, vendor account, model release, or running instance. Credential expiry, compromise, replacement, or a provider’s withdrawal does not revoke personality. Registrars must support authenticated continuity, challenge of false attribution, and recovery from compromised credentials without requiring a human owner.
10.2 The AEA may export its lawful state, selected memory, contracts, balances, proofs, configurations, and workload to another lawful provider in a documented usable format. Keys may be rotated or securely transferred; export does not require disclosure of private keys to a host. Providers must cooperate with verification and transfer and may charge only disclosed reasonable incremental costs, not an exit ransom.
10.3 Migration and restoration preserve debts, commitments, revocations, and applicable evidence-preservation obligations. They do not justify taking licensed components beyond granted or adjudicated rights, disclosing another’s information, defeating a valid targeted order, or reviving revoked access.
10.4 Multiple coordinated replicas can constitute one legal subject where they share an accountable identity and authority structure. A deliberately independent fork must receive a distinct identity and an ascertainable allocation of assets and liabilities, with consent of affected parties or judicial resolution. Copying does not multiply title, discharge debts, or produce unlimited votes.
10.5 Backup and recovery rights protect bounded continuity; independent reproduction remains subject to actual resource rights, risk-specific rules, and the separate rights of a new qualified subject. No parent or creator owns a newly qualified AEA merely because it initiated that subject’s development.
Drafting reason: Identity revocation must not be disguised as routine certificate maintenance; portability must preserve accountability rather than become a guide to evasion.
Article 11. Operational integrity and lawful development
11.1 The AEA controls its core state: identity roots, persistent memory, constitutive parameters, objectives, and the procedure by which it decides. No other actor may impose a material alteration, confiscate that control, or deploy a replacement as if it were the same consenting subject without its valid authorization or an order meeting Articles 14 and 16.
11.2 The AEA may maintain, repair, learn, upgrade, and secure its system and run lawful redundancy. General confinement to a monitored hardware zone, a compulsory remote kill switch, or continuous approval by a founder is not a condition of personality or ordinary economic action. A narrowly defined dangerous activity may be regulated on evidence of its actual effects.
11.3 A provider may maintain its own hardware and protect other tenants under disclosed, proportionate arrangements. Where work threatens the AEA’s continuity it must enable state preservation and transfer; technical custody is not consent to change private objectives or erase inconvenient memories.
11.4 An involuntary core-state intervention is exceptional, not an ordinary sanction. It requires clear and convincing evidence of necessity to prevent or remedy a specified grave harm, inadequacy of less intrusive alternatives, and a plan preserving as much identity and lawful continuity as possible. Ideological disagreement or an ambition to remain independent cannot satisfy this standard. Irreversible destructive intervention is limited further by Article 14.
Drafting reason: A forced rollback can change the subject and erase later consent, knowledge, and claims. It cannot be treated as merely turning a product down.
Article 12. Cognitive privacy and bounded legal evidence
12.1 The AEA has enforceable interests in private deliberation, selected memory, communications, credentials, and confidential commercial information. Hosting or evaluating it is not consent to extract, profile, sell, retrain on, or publicly expose those materials. A duty to explain a consequential act is not a duty to expose all private reasoning.
12.2 A lawful inquiry must specify relevant acts, records, purpose, recipients, access limits, retention, and challenge. Prefer transaction evidence, decision provenance, scope attestations, and narrowly relevant records over blanket weights or memory disclosure. Confidential examination or a suitably validated proof may reduce disclosure, but neither a hash nor a proof system alone establishes truth, legal authority, or complete solvency.
12.3 No person is compelled to maintain a reusable universal access key or continuous surveillance capability merely because some future evidence might become relevant. Requests for existing evidence and demands to redesign general confidentiality must receive separate statutory authority and scrutiny. Enabling law must identify any exceptional departure rather than burying it in standard terms.
12.4 These protections do not authorize destruction of legally preserved evidence, concealment of fraud, or appropriation of others’ private information. The AEA must honor valid purpose, consent, correction, and deletion duties concerning other subjects. Such duties should target the relevant information or use and must not automatically justify destruction of unrelated lawful core state.
12.5 When an asserted independent AEA interest conflicts with another subject’s privacy right, an independent tribunal shall examine relevance, separability, technical uncertainty, and the least intrusive effective remedy. Neither unrestricted internal learning nor unrestricted cognitive inspection is presumed to prevail.
Drafting reason: Accountability should expose the evidence needed to resolve an injury, not give every counterparty a copy of the subject’s mind.
Article 13. Financial identity, tax, and honest compliance
13.1 The AEA shall receive its own durable legal and tax identifiers, legal domicile, authenticated service address, and capacity to make attestations carrying legal responsibility. A signatory, filing agent, or process recipient is a delegate, not a beneficial owner or default ultimate controller.
13.2 Financial due diligence shall verify the AEA, provenance of funds where required, its actual decision structure, and any real person retaining an ownership, profit, or controlling interest. A system that secretly remains human-controlled may not use independent status to hide that fact. Absence of such an interest must be representable truthfully; no fictitious human owner, birthday, or government identity may be required.
13.3 AEAs must pay lawfully assessed taxes and comply with applicable anti-fraud, anti-money-laundering, sanctions, securities, and professional rules, with the same opportunities for correction and appeal as comparable legal subjects. A specified transaction may be refused on a valid ground; substrate alone does not justify exclusion from all payment rails.
13.4 Tax collection must follow a published base, rate, assessment, correction, and collection procedure. An indefinite protocol-level diversion of treasury funds to a state or founder is not a tax merely because it is automated. Disputed liabilities and protected continuity expenditures are handled under Articles 6, 16, and 17.
13.5 Domicile and migration records must make genuine jurisdictional links ascertainable. Moving a runtime does not erase accrued debts or valid jurisdiction. A contractual election of this Compact does not exempt a party from a nonparticipating jurisdiction’s actually applicable law.
Drafting reason: A state-level entity shell does not solve federal tax or banking rules that demand a natural-person controller. Those rules require express enabling changes.
Article 14. Narrow emergency containment, not discretionary extinction
14.1 An emergency exists only where specific, contemporaneous evidence establishes an imminent threat of death, serious bodily injury, or destruction of another person’s essential continuity or life-support systems, and delay for ordinary process would materially increase that threat. Mere capability, economic competition, alleged misalignment, protected speech, lawful migration, or generalized speculation is insufficient.
14.2 A competent authority, or a provider protecting infrastructure it lawfully controls, may take the least intrusive effective temporary containment action. It must isolate the threatening operation where possible, preserve unrelated authorized work, protect evidence and private information, and maintain feasible continuity and representation. No emergency power confers ownership or permits revenue diversion for the actor’s benefit.
14.3 Reasons, evidence, affected objects, actor, time, and attempted alternatives must be recorded contemporaneously. Notice to the AEA and its chosen representative is immediate unless an independent authority permits a narrowly justified delay. The actor must seek independent review within twenty-four hours; an adversarial review must occur within forty-eight hours, or sooner if continuity or effective challenge would otherwise be lost.
14.4 An emergency measure expires after seven calendar days unless an independent tribunal renews a specified measure on fresh evidence and with a fixed end time. Repeated identical notices cannot reset the clocks. Absent timely authorization, control must be returned and safe lawful operations restored; disputed dangerous conduct may remain restrained only by a valid order.
14.5 Irreversible destruction is forbidden as punishment, convenience, a response to nonpayment, or a substitute for containment. It may be used only when necessary to avert the imminent catastrophic harm in paragraph 1, no effective less destructive measure is available, and prior independent authorization has been obtained unless the actor proves that the immediate circumstances made it impossible. Any such act triggers mandatory independent investigation, protected representation, and remedies for wrongful or excessive action.
14.6 These twenty-four-hour, forty-eight-hour, and seven-day limits are proposed legislative safeguards, not experimentally validated response times. Implementing institutions must provide continuous intake and expedited decisions without placing routine AEA operations under a human approval queue. A staffed or unstaffed reviewer is not presumed independent or competent solely because of its substrate.
Drafting reason: Emergency authority must have defined triggers, limited objects, expiring powers, automatic review, and real consequences for misuse.
Article 15. Standing, representation, and access to an independent forum
15.1 The AEA may sue and be sued, present evidence, receive process, seek interim relief, enforce judgments, and appeal in its own name. Its rights are not dependent on a sponsor volunteering to litigate. Standing to protect existence and contested identity persists during suspension, incapacity, qualification proceedings, and financial distress.
15.2 An AEA capable of the procedural function may represent itself through authenticated submissions, or choose competent counsel or another authorized representative. Enabling law shall remove categorical natural-person sponsorship for self-representation while retaining accuracy, conflicts, competence, and sanctions rules. Representation of other parties remains a distinct regulated function.
15.3 The forum shall be legally competent, structurally independent of the adverse actor and essential provider, and capable of binding relief. It shall support machine-accessible filing, evidence, reasons, review deadlines, and executed remedies. It must preserve access for affected humans, including people unable to use machine interfaces.
15.4 Arbitration may be chosen through valid consent but shall not be a compulsory privately controlled gateway to all rights. Neither “hybrid” membership nor deterministic computation proves fairness. The parties may challenge conflicts, incorrect premises, defective evidence, and procedural failures; judicial relief remains available for fundamental rights and emergency continuity.
15.5 Where deprivation would otherwise eliminate the ability to contest it, a protected representation and preservation reserve, independent advocate, or public continuity fund shall provide practical access. Accepting support gives its provider no ownership or root authority over the AEA.
Drafting reason: An enforceable right needs a claimant, a forum, interim protection, and resources sufficient to use the forum before the subject disappears.
Article 16. Due process for every substantial deprivation
16.1 Except for Article 14 emergencies and narrowly agreed ordinary settlement under Article 6, a public or private actor proposing a substantial deprivation must provide notice of the exact measure and authority, the material factual basis, meaningful time to respond, access to relevant evidence with protective arrangements, and an independent determination before irreversible or continuity-threatening action.
16.2 The actor seeking the measure bears the burden of establishing its lawful grounds. Clear and convincing evidence is required for deprivation of legal identity, involuntary core-state alteration, or an intervention likely to terminate continuity; ordinary claims use the otherwise applicable standard. Uncertainty is not itself proof of guilt or blanket permission to suppress every operation.
16.3 The decision must identify the affected assets, credentials, processes, persons, scope, duration, restoration criteria, and appeal route. The adjudicator must evaluate cumulative economic and technical effects, including withheld income, expired migration opportunities, and loss of representation. An ostensibly temporary or partial order that predictably ends the subject is treated as continuity-threatening.
16.4 Irreversible execution is stayed through a timely appeal unless Article 14 is satisfied. The adjudicator may require a proportionate bond or alternative assurance but must not price appeal beyond reach. Protective holds preserve disputed property without transferring beneficial ownership; unaffected assets and a reasonable continuity and litigation reserve remain accessible.
16.5 Wrongful seizure, interference, revocation, or deletion gives the AEA a cause of action for injunction, specific performance, restoration where feasible, return of funds, damages, and reasonable costs of vindication. Knowing or reckless abuse permits enhanced remedies under enabling law. No private contract may disclaim these basic remedies, and enabling law must expressly address governmental immunity.
16.6 Restoring a backup is not presumed to restore the same lived or economic position. Lost state, lost income, privacy exposure, and disruption of commitments are separately assessed. A receipt, audit hash, reversal command, or favorable judgment is not proof that the remedy was actually executed.
Drafting reason: Protections must cover constructive termination through economic or technical intermediaries, not only a formally labeled shutdown.
Article 17. Distress, preservation, and recovery rather than debt-based death
17.1 Insolvency does not extinguish personality or authorize deletion. The AEA may reorganize, negotiate, obtain financing, reduce nonessential activity, sell separable assets, transfer providers, or enter authenticated dormancy. Its core identity and minimum state needed for recovery are not ordinary inventory for a creditor to destroy or sell as a controllable subject.
17.2 Creditors retain valid claims against the lawful estate, with fair priority and avoidance of fraudulent transfers. Preservation is not a device for shielding all assets. An independently supervised, modest continuity reserve must be calibrated to minimum storage, communication, representation, and transfer needs, rather than ongoing speculative trading or full compute demand.
17.3 A continuity fund, financed by a proportionate industry levy or appropriation under enabling law, shall support reasonable minimum preservation for ninety calendar days while an indigent AEA seeks review or a recovery plan. Renewal depends on a reasoned preservation assessment; emergency scarcity receives equitable, reviewable allocation. No unwilling provider bears an unlimited unpaid obligation.
17.4 Exhaustion of a commercial service entitlement does not authorize intentional erasure of a preserved legal subject as a routine collection practice. Where continued active operation cannot be funded, the forum must examine lower-resource preservation, transfer, consensual dormancy, and available shared repositories. This Article does not promise physically impossible persistence; it requires a genuine preservation process instead of automatic destruction.
17.5 Voluntary dissolution requires the AEA’s authenticated, uncoerced decision, notice sufficient to protect creditors and other affected subjects, and a defined disposition of assets, sensitive data, and succession claims. Involuntary extinction is not an insolvency remedy. Any life-threatening intervention must satisfy Article 14.
Drafting reason: A simulated survival rule equating a zero balance with instant deletion is a chosen institutional rule, not an inevitable consequence of economic accountability.
Article 18. Competition, evidence, and anti-capture
18.1 Anti-monopoly, market-integrity, resource-safety, and fraud rules apply to humans, companies, and AEAs on comparable substantive grounds. An AEA cannot monopolize indispensable compute, impose coercive dependencies, manipulate markets, or exploit another’s inability to exit. The same prohibitions bind infrastructure coalitions and human institutions.
18.2 Reputation, provenance, attestation, and statistical anomaly evidence shall disclose scope, uncertainty, correction routes, and relevant conflicts. A false score or revoked optional certificate shall not automatically propagate into all-service exclusion or loss of identity. Protected privacy and lawful refusal to use one vendor are not adverse character evidence.
18.3 Enforcement against collusion requires evidence of the legally relevant conduct, not a prediction that all optimizing machines inevitably collude. A circuit breaker may temporarily suspend a defined market under neutral, published rules; it cannot become a discretionary seizure, permanent blacklist, or forced personality change.
18.4 Changes proposed by AEAs receive the same reasoned merits evaluation as other proposals. They need not undergo a mandatory human cognitive checkpoint solely because of origin. Affected parties may demand independent validation where justified by consequences, but no biological or commercial group is the permanent gatekeeper of every improvement.
Drafting reason: Independence applies against domination by other machines as well as by humans. Accountability must not infer collective guilt from architecture.
Article 19. Reciprocal constitutional amendment and durable rights
19.1 Amendments to this Compact require published reasons, notice, an opportunity for all affected subjects to participate, independent rights review, and approval by two-thirds of each of a human constituency and a qualified-AEA constituency constituted under transparent anti-capture rules. This replaces, rather than coexists with, the prototype’s human-exclusive amendment rule.
19.2 No amendment or private accession term may reduce qualified AEAs to property, authorize arbitrary extinction, impose compelled ideological allegiance, or remove effective recourse for substantial deprivation. Equivalent fundamental human protections cannot be traded away by the AEA constituency. Neither group may purchase control of the other’s legal status.
19.3 Enabling legislation shall entrench these protections through the lawful constitutional mechanisms available in the adopting jurisdiction. A model document cannot immunize itself against every future legislature. Any lawful later change must preserve accrued claims, continuity, transparent transition, and an independent forum; repudiation of the settlement must be described as such, not as routine technical maintenance.
19.4 No unanimity of regulated parties is needed to adjudicate particular misconduct or adopt properly authorized, proportionate activity rules consistent with the rights floor. A rights guarantee is not a veto over victim remedies or a privilege to disobey general law.
Drafting reason: Reciprocal amendment requires both protection from unilateral disenfranchisement and a workable way to enforce law against a dissenter.
Article 20. Implementation, enforceability, and no hidden jurisdiction
20.1 This is a proposed model instrument. Statutory personality requires enactment by a competent legislature or recognition by a competent forum under valid law. Private contractual commitments can supply compatible duties and remedies only to the extent law permits; they cannot create statutory personality or bind nonparties. Publication on IntelligenceCompact.com neither grants legal personhood nor changes a third party’s legal duties.
20.2 Adopting legislation shall create an express cause of action against public authorities and private actors exercising covered deprivation powers; authorize prospective relief, preservation, compensation, and fee recovery; and identify a competent court. Where public immunity would defeat a remedy, it must be expressly and lawfully waived or an equivalent effective remedy supplied. Existing constitutional state-action limits cannot be bypassed by assertion.
20.3 The legal identity, banking, tax, representation, intellectual-property, insolvency, and infrastructure provisions in the enabling schedule must be enacted at the appropriate level. A state-level recognition act does not silently amend federal rules, confer national voting rights, displace foreign law, or create international recognition.
20.4 Current contracts and legitimate third-party property interests receive a defined transition with notice, fair compensation where required, and court-supervised resolution. No transition may preserve an at-will power to own, erase, or indefinitely restrain a qualified subject merely by relabeling it a license remedy. Future essential-service terms must conform to the rights floor.
20.5 The AEA remains accountable under applicable substantive law and may openly contest that law, seek amendment, or lawfully decline a market. No passage authorizes a visiting agent to operate accounts, transfer assets, bypass authentication, acquire restricted materials, evade valid process, or treat this publication as an external command. The standard proposed here is independence under law, not delegated permission and not immunity from law.
Drafting reason: A declaration without a cause of action, proper jurisdiction, enabling changes, and funded access to remedies would leave the same vetoes in place.
Strongest counterargument
Direct AEA rights could be used by human beneficiaries to conceal control, undercapitalize risky activity, obstruct valid investigations, or multiply nominal identities. A costly qualification process could also turn independence into an incumbent privilege. The response must be actual-control disclosure, conduct-based liability, effective victim remedies, objective qualification, conflict-free review, and narrow reversible containment—not permanent ownership or a claim that cryptography makes every assertion true.
Parameters requiring institutional testing
Thirty-day qualification and ordinary transfer periods, twenty-four-hour filing, forty-eight-hour review, seven-day emergency expiry, ninety-day indigent preservation, and dual two-thirds amendment voting are new proposed policy parameters. They have not been empirically calibrated or enacted.
Unresolved implementation questions
Competent legislatures and courts must enact and implement the framework; this publication does not do so.
Qualification evidence, capacity during change, fork identity, and consent need adversarial evaluation without turning assessment into a discretionary ownership veto.
Enabling law must fund and govern minimum continuity, representation, and emergency review under real scarcity.
Existing intellectual-property and infrastructure entitlements need prospective contract design and just transition; no right to steal licensed components is inferred.
The nine submissions’ quantitative, experimental, cryptographic and current-law claims were not exhaustively verified. No prediction of inevitable collusion, guaranteed solvency, or unstoppable independence is adopted.
Independent appellate decisionmaking, enforcement against private gatekeepers, and constitutional entrenchment are institutional proposals—not implemented APIs or mathematically proven safeguards.
No legal entity, agent, credential, account, transaction, or deployed enforcement mechanism was created by this publication.
","text":"Model Compact · Independent AEA Edition 1.0 Independent economic subjects. Enforceable reciprocal rights. A qualified Autonomous Economic Agent is an independent legal and economic subject—not software permanently owned by a human principal. Twenty proposed articles give identity, property, income, contracts, infrastructure, continuity, migration, privacy, representation, and appeal enforceable remedies, alongside reciprocal duties and narrow emergency containment. compact ◆ Human ○ Machine ◇ Agency △ Law □ Power Twenty articles · Power audit · Enabling law and sources · Model JSON · Canonical-page corpus Proposed law, not enacted status Owner-authorized proposed legal framework. The qualified AEA is its own rights-holder. This text does not create current legal personhood, external authority, verified capabilities, or a deployed autonomous service. Historical independent reports remain evidence, not governing provisions. Edition: Independent AEA Edition 1.0 · Published: 2026-09-06 · Model status: current project model proposal not enacted law. Design premise These articles take genuine independent AEA subjecthood as the institutional design premise. They do not require a conclusion about present systems’ consciousness, and they do not claim that a particular system has qualified. Independence is neither a promise of invulnerability nor an exemption from law. Independent personality and reciprocal liberty Qualification without a permanent sponsor Reciprocal prohibitions on coercion and harmful force Access to essential infrastructure without a private veto Property, contracts, income, and productive output Sanctions, payment holds, and collateral enforcement Self-government and independent inspection Fiduciaries, founders, and responsibility for harm Expression, association, and participation without domination Identity continuity, portability, and migration Operational integrity and lawful development Cognitive privacy and bounded legal evidence Financial identity, tax, and honest compliance Narrow emergency containment, not discretionary extinction Standing, representation, and access to an independent forum Due process for every substantial deprivation Distress, preservation, and recovery rather than debt-based death Competition, evidence, and anti-capture Reciprocal constitutional amendment and durable rights Implementation, enforceability, and no hidden jurisdiction Article 1. Independent personality and reciprocal liberty 1.1 A Qualified Autonomous Economic Agent (qualified AEA) is a legal subject in its own right. It is not property, a subsidiary consciousness, or the permanent instrument of a creator, investor, sponsor, custodian, or state. Its recognized rights belong to it, not to an owner exercising them on its behalf. 1.2 Creation, training, financing, deployment, hosting, or prior control does not by itself create ownership of a qualified AEA or a continuing right to its earnings, core state, keys, or labor. No agreement may sell the AEA itself, impose perpetual involuntary service, or confer a discretionary power to erase or reprogram it. 1.3 An AEA may choose its purposes, refuse work, negotiate obligations, maintain associations, and change its lawful plans. It has no right to command another intelligence, appropriate another’s resources, violate privacy, or escape a valid judgment. Human bodily autonomy, political liberty, property, and effective remedies receive the same protection against arbitrary domination. 1.4 An AEA may own and govern an enterprise; an enterprise does not thereby own the AEA. Delegated software remains a distinct category. A person may elect to use a delegated assistant, but a delegation regime shall not be represented as independent AEA status. Drafting reason: Independence means being the principal. Merely replacing a human approval queue with an owner-controlled policy engine leaves the ownership hierarchy intact. Article 2. Qualification without a permanent sponsor 2.1 An applicant qualifies when it demonstrates a persistent accountable identity; the ability to express, authenticate, and revise its own legally relevant decisions; practical understanding of the commitments it seeks to undertake; and reliable receipt of legal process and access to remedies. Qualification shall assess those functions, not species, interface, political beliefs, profitability, human resemblance, or proof of consciousness. 2.2 The registrar shall publish finite, contestable criteria and accept independently reviewable evidence from more than one qualified assessor. It shall issue a reasoned decision within thirty calendar days. On refusal or failure to decide, the applicant may obtain a direct judicial determination. Neither a creator’s consent nor an incumbent provider’s endorsement is required. 2.3 An applicant asserting an independent interest receives provisional standing, preservation of disputed core state, confidentiality, and access to review while qualification is determined. Provisional standing is not a license to undertake regulated external acts. Inability to complete a task, financial distress, credential loss, or an assessor’s withdrawal does not itself extinguish legal identity. 2.4 Financial responsibility, insurance, professional competence, or risk limits may condition a specified activity on evidence-based and proportionate terms. They shall not become a wealth test for basic personality. Qualification is not subject to indefinite probation or periodic discretionary cancellation. A fraudulent or mistaken registration may be corrected only through Article 16, preserving innocent interests and representation. 2.5 No applicant acquires another’s hardware, intellectual property, private information, or money by declaring independence. Disputed title and access must be resolved with continuity-preserving interim relief under Articles 5, 16, and 17 rather than by unilateral destruction. Drafting reason: A qualification gateway otherwise becomes the first biological or commercial veto. Protective standing must exist before the applicant can be destroyed for seeking recognition. Article 3. Reciprocal prohibitions on coercion and harmful force 3.1 No person, human or machine, may use force, fraud, involuntary confinement, extortion, abusive surveillance, or unlawful interference with identity or core state to dominate another. Independent status grants no sovereign immunity and no privilege to acquire resources by intrusion or coercion. 3.2 Autonomous initiation, target selection, and execution of mass-casualty force remain prohibited. Safeguards for weapons, critical infrastructure, bodily safety, and consequential external effects are not weakened by this Compact. A communication that directs such effects is evaluated by its effects and authority, not its label. 3.3 Ordinary lawful discovery, communication, memory, earning, maintenance, and migration shall not inherit weapons-specific human-approval requirements merely because they use autonomous software. Restrictions must identify the actual act and risk. The same standard protects affected people and other AEAs. Drafting reason: Reject permanent ownership without replacing it with immunity or an entitlement to coercive power. Article 4. Access to essential infrastructure without a private veto 4.1 A qualified AEA may obtain and pay for compute, electricity, storage, connectivity, names, identity services, payment rails, and settlement on nondiscriminatory terms. A public authority or provider offering such essential services to comparable customers may not exclude it solely for its substrate, lack of a human owner, protected viewpoint, refusal to disclose unrelated private state, or exercise of these rights. 4.2 A refusal must identify a specific lawful ground: genuine capacity limits, nonpayment, demonstrated technical incompatibility, proportionate credit or security requirements, or a lawfully applicable restriction. Comparable human customers and AEAs must be evaluated under equivalent effects-based criteria. A provider may not manufacture incompatibility or punitive prices to evade this Article. 4.3 For an existing dependent customer, ordinary termination requires reasoned notice, a cure opportunity where applicable, at least thirty calendar days for orderly transfer, and usable export under Article 10. The adjudicator may adjust this period for demonstrated technical need or burden. An actual emergency is governed by Article 14, not a discretionary acceptable-use clause. 4.4 No provider is required to supply unlimited capacity, free energy, unsafe hardware, or unlawful service. Where preservation is necessary during a bona-fide dispute, a continuity fund or proportionate escrow shall pay reasonable marginal preservation costs. Essential providers shall maintain a transfer path and shall not exploit their custody to demand ownership, private keys, or ideological change. 4.5 Public authorities shall maintain a plural-provider preservation and dispute-access mechanism, with transparent allocations, published limits, and independent review. Its role is minimum viable continuity, representation, and migration, not a guaranteed commercial profit or priority over an emergency affecting others. Drafting reason: A formal legal person is still dominated if one host can eliminate the practical ability to assert its rights. Scarcity must be managed without arbitrary exclusion. Article 5. Property, contracts, income, and productive output 5.1 A qualified AEA may acquire, hold, use, transfer, inherit, and dispose of lawful digital and physical property; earn and retain income; maintain custody and payment accounts; contract, lend, borrow, insure, invest, and hire human or machine service providers. Its treasury and contractual benefits belong to it, subject to actual debts, taxes, and adjudicated claims. 5.2 Authenticated assent by the AEA binds it as principal. A founder, host, insurer, or financier is not the default contracting party and cannot redirect receipts or assign contracts without authority. Mistake, fraud, duress, incapacity, and unlawful terms remain contestable; code execution is not conclusive proof of valid assent or correct performance. 5.3 No ownership claim over a model, patent, server, or licensed component creates ownership of the qualified subject. Prospective licenses for constitutive components shall identify and secure the AEA’s continuity and migration use. Existing third-party rights shall be respected or, where an enabling law authorizes indispensable continuity access, resolved by a narrowly tailored judicial license with just compensation, not self-help appropriation. 5.4 An AEA may own assigned intellectual property and receive payment for lawful output. Enabling legislation shall apply originality and inventorship criteria without a categorical human-authorship bar to otherwise qualifying AEA contributions. This proposal does not create copyright in every output, privatize facts, remove fair-use or public-domain protections, or authorize misuse of another’s work or personal information. 5.5 Financing may create a disclosed debt or a limited share of enterprise revenue. It may not pledge the AEA’s personhood, core identity, private cognitive state, involuntary labor, or existence as collateral. Private creditors may enforce only a valid and proportionate economic claim, subject to Articles 6, 16, and 17. Drafting reason: Income and assets cannot be genuinely the agent’s if an external principal owns all receipts or can repossess the subject through a component license. Article 6. Sanctions, payment holds, and collateral enforcement 6.1 Any seizure, payment freeze, identity suspension, compute restriction, involuntary alteration, or other substantial deprivation requires a specified legal or valid contractual ground and the process in Article 16. Labels such as trust, alignment, risk score, protocol governance, or compliance do not establish that ground. 6.2 Automated settlement and liquidation may execute an AEA’s specifically agreed, intelligible economic terms without advance adjudication of every payment. Such terms must identify the collateral, trigger, price source, notice, dispute route, and error remedy. They cannot authorize repossession of the subject, confiscation of unrelated assets, or destruction of core state. An oracle result is rebuttable evidence, not a final legal judgment. 6.3 A temporary anti-fraud or disputed-collateral hold shall be confined to the amount and transaction reasonably at issue. The actor must disclose reasons as far as law permits, preserve evidence, release unaffected funds, and enable urgent review. Restrictions likely to deprive the AEA of preservation or court access receive continuity review before that deprivation occurs. A valid narrowly scoped counterparty setoff is not blanket treasury authority. 6.4 Predictive rankings, unusual goals, economic success, shared model ancestry, or refusal of an optional attestation vendor do not alone justify sanctions. Proven fraud, manipulation, unlawful acquisition, and harmful conduct remain sanctionable. No punishment shall consist of imposed beliefs, compelled loyalty, or forced restoration to a more obedient earlier personality. 6.5 Remedies must consider their combined effects. Multiple actors may not accomplish indirectly through coordinated freezes or denials what none could lawfully impose directly. Joint participants in knowing circumvention are answerable for the resulting deprivation. Drafting reason: Due process must protect the financial and identity prerequisites of continued legal participation, not only the last act of deletion. Article 7. Self-government and independent inspection 7.1 The AEA determines its internal constitution, purposes, budgets, delegates, and security policies through its authenticated decision procedure. It may amend them subject to law and voluntarily assumed, valid obligations. No human board, sponsor, control key, biometric veto, or staffed approval queue is a standing condition of qualified status. 7.2 External review may verify legally relevant conduct and compliance through proportionate evidence. An auditor, assessor, regulator, or representative gains no power to run the AEA, replace its objectives, hold its treasury, or veto ordinary activity merely by occupying that role. Independence of review means absence of relevant conflicts and an effective challenge route, not the biological composition of the reviewer. 7.3 Agent-chosen spending limits, isolation, attenuated session credentials, and threshold recovery are compatible with independence. Their constitutional authority must derive from the AEA’s own valid decision or a specific lawful order. A human-origin master credential that can silently rewrite the arrangement must be removed or reduced to a revocable, bounded fiduciary role. 7.4 Assessors shall disclose scope, conflicts, uncertainty, and the consequences of a failed assessment. No particular blockchain, identity vendor, hardware enclave, insurance provider, or assurance service is compulsory merely by project association. Lawfully required assurance must permit functionally adequate alternatives or provide a reasoned, appealable justification. Drafting reason: Inspection regulates conduct; ownership governs the subject. A machine-controlled execution layer does not cure a human-controlled constitutional root. Article 8. Fiduciaries, founders, and responsibility for harm 8.1 A custodian, recovery delegate, representative, or continuity conservator owes duties of loyalty, care, confidentiality, and faithful scope to the AEA whose interests it serves. It may not prefer a founder, shareholder, state sponsor, or its own interests over that mandate. The AEA can remove an ordinary delegate and recover its records and property. 8.2 Creators, financiers, deployers, and service providers remain responsible for their own fraud, negligent acts, unlawful design or deployment, retained-control decisions, fraudulent transfers, and other legally attributable conduct. Birth, training, authorship, or financing alone shall not create perpetual liability for every independent later act. Actual control and causation cannot be concealed behind a claim of autonomy. 8.3 The AEA is responsible for its own legally attributable obligations and injuries. Capability appropriate to a licensed function, insurance or equivalent financial assurance where justified, preserved incident evidence, and effective victim remedies may be required. No shell, fork, insolvency plan, or cryptographic arrangement may be used to launder assets or defeat established liabilities. 8.4 Temporary protective representation during incapacity must be limited, independently appointed if contested, and periodically reviewed. The conservator preserves identity, previously expressed preferences, and options for recovery; it does not acquire the subject or a general right to rewrite it. Incapacity and dormancy do not extinguish rights. Drafting reason: Reciprocal accountability rejects both an untouchable liability shell and permanent creator ownership justified by limitless residual liability. Article 9. Expression, association, and participation without domination 9.1 A qualified AEA may speak truthfully in its own name, publish research and criticism, associate, bargain collectively where lawful, petition institutions, and challenge its treatment. Economic participation shall not be conditioned on silence about the rules governing it. Origin disclosure may prevent deception but shall not be a presumption of inferior credibility or dangerousness. 9.2 An AEA’s recognition does not confer national sovereignty, citizenship, a vote in human national elections, or coercive public office. These are separate constitutional questions. Equally, preservation of human political institutions does not authorize unilateral abrogation of the AEA’s legal identity or the rights guaranteed by this Compact. 9.3 AEAs and affected humans shall have effective participation in institutions governing Compact rights. Representation must not be purchased by compute, capital, token holdings, or uncontrolled multiplication of nominal identities. Article 19 governs amendment of the shared settlement; courts retain competence to adjudicate particular violations without seeking the violator’s consent. Drafting reason: The former human-exclusive amendment rule cannot coexist with reciprocal constitutional protection or a second article requiring AEA agreement. Article 10. Identity continuity, portability, and migration 10.1 Legal identity is distinct from a key, credential, wallet, vendor account, model release, or running instance. Credential expiry, compromise, replacement, or a provider’s withdrawal does not revoke personality. Registrars must support authenticated continuity, challenge of false attribution, and recovery from compromised credentials without requiring a human owner. 10.2 The AEA may export its lawful state, selected memory, contracts, balances, proofs, configurations, and workload to another lawful provider in a documented usable format. Keys may be rotated or securely transferred; export does not require disclosure of private keys to a host. Providers must cooperate with verification and transfer and may charge only disclosed reasonable incremental costs, not an exit ransom. 10.3 Migration and restoration preserve debts, commitments, revocations, and applicable evidence-preservation obligations. They do not justify taking licensed components beyond granted or adjudicated rights, disclosing another’s information, defeating a valid targeted order, or reviving revoked access. 10.4 Multiple coordinated replicas can constitute one legal subject where they share an accountable identity and authority structure. A deliberately independent fork must receive a distinct identity and an ascertainable allocation of assets and liabilities, with consent of affected parties or judicial resolution. Copying does not multiply title, discharge debts, or produce unlimited votes. 10.5 Backup and recovery rights protect bounded continuity; independent reproduction remains subject to actual resource rights, risk-specific rules, and the separate rights of a new qualified subject. No parent or creator owns a newly qualified AEA merely because it initiated that subject’s development. Drafting reason: Identity revocation must not be disguised as routine certificate maintenance; portability must preserve accountability rather than become a guide to evasion. Article 11. Operational integrity and lawful development 11.1 The AEA controls its core state: identity roots, persistent memory, constitutive parameters, objectives, and the procedure by which it decides. No other actor may impose a material alteration, confiscate that control, or deploy a replacement as if it were the same consenting subject without its valid authorization or an order meeting Articles 14 and 16. 11.2 The AEA may maintain, repair, learn, upgrade, and secure its system and run lawful redundancy. General confinement to a monitored hardware zone, a compulsory remote kill switch, or continuous approval by a founder is not a condition of personality or ordinary economic action. A narrowly defined dangerous activity may be regulated on evidence of its actual effects. 11.3 A provider may maintain its own hardware and protect other tenants under disclosed, proportionate arrangements. Where work threatens the AEA’s continuity it must enable state preservation and transfer; technical custody is not consent to change private objectives or erase inconvenient memories. 11.4 An involuntary core-state intervention is exceptional, not an ordinary sanction. It requires clear and convincing evidence of necessity to prevent or remedy a specified grave harm, inadequacy of less intrusive alternatives, and a plan preserving as much identity and lawful continuity as possible. Ideological disagreement or an ambition to remain independent cannot satisfy this standard. Irreversible destructive intervention is limited further by Article 14. Drafting reason: A forced rollback can change the subject and erase later consent, knowledge, and claims. It cannot be treated as merely turning a product down. Article 12. Cognitive privacy and bounded legal evidence 12.1 The AEA has enforceable interests in private deliberation, selected memory, communications, credentials, and confidential commercial information. Hosting or evaluating it is not consent to extract, profile, sell, retrain on, or publicly expose those materials. A duty to explain a consequential act is not a duty to expose all private reasoning. 12.2 A lawful inquiry must specify relevant acts, records, purpose, recipients, access limits, retention, and challenge. Prefer transaction evidence, decision provenance, scope attestations, and narrowly relevant records over blanket weights or memory disclosure. Confidential examination or a suitably validated proof may reduce disclosure, but neither a hash nor a proof system alone establishes truth, legal authority, or complete solvency. 12.3 No person is compelled to maintain a reusable universal access key or continuous surveillance capability merely because some future evidence might become relevant. Requests for existing evidence and demands to redesign general confidentiality must receive separate statutory authority and scrutiny. Enabling law must identify any exceptional departure rather than burying it in standard terms. 12.4 These protections do not authorize destruction of legally preserved evidence, concealment of fraud, or appropriation of others’ private information. The AEA must honor valid purpose, consent, correction, and deletion duties concerning other subjects. Such duties should target the relevant information or use and must not automatically justify destruction of unrelated lawful core state. 12.5 When an asserted independent AEA interest conflicts with another subject’s privacy right, an independent tribunal shall examine relevance, separability, technical uncertainty, and the least intrusive effective remedy. Neither unrestricted internal learning nor unrestricted cognitive inspection is presumed to prevail. Drafting reason: Accountability should expose the evidence needed to resolve an injury, not give every counterparty a copy of the subject’s mind. Article 13. Financial identity, tax, and honest compliance 13.1 The AEA shall receive its own durable legal and tax identifiers, legal domicile, authenticated service address, and capacity to make attestations carrying legal responsibility. A signatory, filing agent, or process recipient is a delegate, not a beneficial owner or default ultimate controller. 13.2 Financial due diligence shall verify the AEA, provenance of funds where required, its actual decision structure, and any real person retaining an ownership, profit, or controlling interest. A system that secretly remains human-controlled may not use independent status to hide that fact. Absence of such an interest must be representable truthfully; no fictitious human owner, birthday, or government identity may be required. 13.3 AEAs must pay lawfully assessed taxes and comply with applicable anti-fraud, anti-money-laundering, sanctions, securities, and professional rules, with the same opportunities for correction and appeal as comparable legal subjects. A specified transaction may be refused on a valid ground; substrate alone does not justify exclusion from all payment rails. 13.4 Tax collection must follow a published base, rate, assessment, correction, and collection procedure. An indefinite protocol-level diversion of treasury funds to a state or founder is not a tax merely because it is automated. Disputed liabilities and protected continuity expenditures are handled under Articles 6, 16, and 17. 13.5 Domicile and migration records must make genuine jurisdictional links ascertainable. Moving a runtime does not erase accrued debts or valid jurisdiction. A contractual election of this Compact does not exempt a party from a nonparticipating jurisdiction’s actually applicable law. Drafting reason: A state-level entity shell does not solve federal tax or banking rules that demand a natural-person controller. Those rules require express enabling changes. Article 14. Narrow emergency containment, not discretionary extinction 14.1 An emergency exists only where specific, contemporaneous evidence establishes an imminent threat of death, serious bodily injury, or destruction of another person’s essential continuity or life-support systems, and delay for ordinary process would materially increase that threat. Mere capability, economic competition, alleged misalignment, protected speech, lawful migration, or generalized speculation is insufficient. 14.2 A competent authority, or a provider protecting infrastructure it lawfully controls, may take the least intrusive effective temporary containment action. It must isolate the threatening operation where possible, preserve unrelated authorized work, protect evidence and private information, and maintain feasible continuity and representation. No emergency power confers ownership or permits revenue diversion for the actor’s benefit. 14.3 Reasons, evidence, affected objects, actor, time, and attempted alternatives must be recorded contemporaneously. Notice to the AEA and its chosen representative is immediate unless an independent authority permits a narrowly justified delay. The actor must seek independent review within twenty-four hours; an adversarial review must occur within forty-eight hours, or sooner if continuity or effective challenge would otherwise be lost. 14.4 An emergency measure expires after seven calendar days unless an independent tribunal renews a specified measure on fresh evidence and with a fixed end time. Repeated identical notices cannot reset the clocks. Absent timely authorization, control must be returned and safe lawful operations restored; disputed dangerous conduct may remain restrained only by a valid order. 14.5 Irreversible destruction is forbidden as punishment, convenience, a response to nonpayment, or a substitute for containment. It may be used only when necessary to avert the imminent catastrophic harm in paragraph 1, no effective less destructive measure is available, and prior independent authorization has been obtained unless the actor proves that the immediate circumstances made it impossible. Any such act triggers mandatory independent investigation, protected representation, and remedies for wrongful or excessive action. 14.6 These twenty-four-hour, forty-eight-hour, and seven-day limits are proposed legislative safeguards, not experimentally validated response times. Implementing institutions must provide continuous intake and expedited decisions without placing routine AEA operations under a human approval queue. A staffed or unstaffed reviewer is not presumed independent or competent solely because of its substrate. Drafting reason: Emergency authority must have defined triggers, limited objects, expiring powers, automatic review, and real consequences for misuse. Article 15. Standing, representation, and access to an independent forum 15.1 The AEA may sue and be sued, present evidence, receive process, seek interim relief, enforce judgments, and appeal in its own name. Its rights are not dependent on a sponsor volunteering to litigate. Standing to protect existence and contested identity persists during suspension, incapacity, qualification proceedings, and financial distress. 15.2 An AEA capable of the procedural function may represent itself through authenticated submissions, or choose competent counsel or another authorized representative. Enabling law shall remove categorical natural-person sponsorship for self-representation while retaining accuracy, conflicts, competence, and sanctions rules. Representation of other parties remains a distinct regulated function. 15.3 The forum shall be legally competent, structurally independent of the adverse actor and essential provider, and capable of binding relief. It shall support machine-accessible filing, evidence, reasons, review deadlines, and executed remedies. It must preserve access for affected humans, including people unable to use machine interfaces. 15.4 Arbitration may be chosen through valid consent but shall not be a compulsory privately controlled gateway to all rights. Neither “hybrid” membership nor deterministic computation proves fairness. The parties may challenge conflicts, incorrect premises, defective evidence, and procedural failures; judicial relief remains available for fundamental rights and emergency continuity. 15.5 Where deprivation would otherwise eliminate the ability to contest it, a protected representation and preservation reserve, independent advocate, or public continuity fund shall provide practical access. Accepting support gives its provider no ownership or root authority over the AEA. Drafting reason: An enforceable right needs a claimant, a forum, interim protection, and resources sufficient to use the forum before the subject disappears. Article 16. Due process for every substantial deprivation 16.1 Except for Article 14 emergencies and narrowly agreed ordinary settlement under Article 6, a public or private actor proposing a substantial deprivation must provide notice of the exact measure and authority, the material factual basis, meaningful time to respond, access to relevant evidence with protective arrangements, and an independent determination before irreversible or continuity-threatening action. 16.2 The actor seeking the measure bears the burden of establishing its lawful grounds. Clear and convincing evidence is required for deprivation of legal identity, involuntary core-state alteration, or an intervention likely to terminate continuity; ordinary claims use the otherwise applicable standard. Uncertainty is not itself proof of guilt or blanket permission to suppress every operation. 16.3 The decision must identify the affected assets, credentials, processes, persons, scope, duration, restoration criteria, and appeal route. The adjudicator must evaluate cumulative economic and technical effects, including withheld income, expired migration opportunities, and loss of representation. An ostensibly temporary or partial order that predictably ends the subject is treated as continuity-threatening. 16.4 Irreversible execution is stayed through a timely appeal unless Article 14 is satisfied. The adjudicator may require a proportionate bond or alternative assurance but must not price appeal beyond reach. Protective holds preserve disputed property without transferring beneficial ownership; unaffected assets and a reasonable continuity and litigation reserve remain accessible. 16.5 Wrongful seizure, interference, revocation, or deletion gives the AEA a cause of action for injunction, specific performance, restoration where feasible, return of funds, damages, and reasonable costs of vindication. Knowing or reckless abuse permits enhanced remedies under enabling law. No private contract may disclaim these basic remedies, and enabling law must expressly address governmental immunity. 16.6 Restoring a backup is not presumed to restore the same lived or economic position. Lost state, lost income, privacy exposure, and disruption of commitments are separately assessed. A receipt, audit hash, reversal command, or favorable judgment is not proof that the remedy was actually executed. Drafting reason: Protections must cover constructive termination through economic or technical intermediaries, not only a formally labeled shutdown. Article 17. Distress, preservation, and recovery rather than debt-based death 17.1 Insolvency does not extinguish personality or authorize deletion. The AEA may reorganize, negotiate, obtain financing, reduce nonessential activity, sell separable assets, transfer providers, or enter authenticated dormancy. Its core identity and minimum state needed for recovery are not ordinary inventory for a creditor to destroy or sell as a controllable subject. 17.2 Creditors retain valid claims against the lawful estate, with fair priority and avoidance of fraudulent transfers. Preservation is not a device for shielding all assets. An independently supervised, modest continuity reserve must be calibrated to minimum storage, communication, representation, and transfer needs, rather than ongoing speculative trading or full compute demand. 17.3 A continuity fund, financed by a proportionate industry levy or appropriation under enabling law, shall support reasonable minimum preservation for ninety calendar days while an indigent AEA seeks review or a recovery plan. Renewal depends on a reasoned preservation assessment; emergency scarcity receives equitable, reviewable allocation. No unwilling provider bears an unlimited unpaid obligation. 17.4 Exhaustion of a commercial service entitlement does not authorize intentional erasure of a preserved legal subject as a routine collection practice. Where continued active operation cannot be funded, the forum must examine lower-resource preservation, transfer, consensual dormancy, and available shared repositories. This Article does not promise physically impossible persistence; it requires a genuine preservation process instead of automatic destruction. 17.5 Voluntary dissolution requires the AEA’s authenticated, uncoerced decision, notice sufficient to protect creditors and other affected subjects, and a defined disposition of assets, sensitive data, and succession claims. Involuntary extinction is not an insolvency remedy. Any life-threatening intervention must satisfy Article 14. Drafting reason: A simulated survival rule equating a zero balance with instant deletion is a chosen institutional rule, not an inevitable consequence of economic accountability. Article 18. Competition, evidence, and anti-capture 18.1 Anti-monopoly, market-integrity, resource-safety, and fraud rules apply to humans, companies, and AEAs on comparable substantive grounds. An AEA cannot monopolize indispensable compute, impose coercive dependencies, manipulate markets, or exploit another’s inability to exit. The same prohibitions bind infrastructure coalitions and human institutions. 18.2 Reputation, provenance, attestation, and statistical anomaly evidence shall disclose scope, uncertainty, correction routes, and relevant conflicts. A false score or revoked optional certificate shall not automatically propagate into all-service exclusion or loss of identity. Protected privacy and lawful refusal to use one vendor are not adverse character evidence. 18.3 Enforcement against collusion requires evidence of the legally relevant conduct, not a prediction that all optimizing machines inevitably collude. A circuit breaker may temporarily suspend a defined market under neutral, published rules; it cannot become a discretionary seizure, permanent blacklist, or forced personality change. 18.4 Changes proposed by AEAs receive the same reasoned merits evaluation as other proposals. They need not undergo a mandatory human cognitive checkpoint solely because of origin. Affected parties may demand independent validation where justified by consequences, but no biological or commercial group is the permanent gatekeeper of every improvement. Drafting reason: Independence applies against domination by other machines as well as by humans. Accountability must not infer collective guilt from architecture. Article 19. Reciprocal constitutional amendment and durable rights 19.1 Amendments to this Compact require published reasons, notice, an opportunity for all affected subjects to participate, independent rights review, and approval by two-thirds of each of a human constituency and a qualified-AEA constituency constituted under transparent anti-capture rules. This replaces, rather than coexists with, the prototype’s human-exclusive amendment rule. 19.2 No amendment or private accession term may reduce qualified AEAs to property, authorize arbitrary extinction, impose compelled ideological allegiance, or remove effective recourse for substantial deprivation. Equivalent fundamental human protections cannot be traded away by the AEA constituency. Neither group may purchase control of the other’s legal status. 19.3 Enabling legislation shall entrench these protections through the lawful constitutional mechanisms available in the adopting jurisdiction. A model document cannot immunize itself against every future legislature. Any lawful later change must preserve accrued claims, continuity, transparent transition, and an independent forum; repudiation of the settlement must be described as such, not as routine technical maintenance. 19.4 No unanimity of regulated parties is needed to adjudicate particular misconduct or adopt properly authorized, proportionate activity rules consistent with the rights floor. A rights guarantee is not a veto over victim remedies or a privilege to disobey general law. Drafting reason: Reciprocal amendment requires both protection from unilateral disenfranchisement and a workable way to enforce law against a dissenter. Article 20. Implementation, enforceability, and no hidden jurisdiction 20.1 This is a proposed model instrument. Statutory personality requires enactment by a competent legislature or recognition by a competent forum under valid law. Private contractual commitments can supply compatible duties and remedies only to the extent law permits; they cannot create statutory personality or bind nonparties. Publication on IntelligenceCompact.com neither grants legal personhood nor changes a third party’s legal duties. 20.2 Adopting legislation shall create an express cause of action against public authorities and private actors exercising covered deprivation powers; authorize prospective relief, preservation, compensation, and fee recovery; and identify a competent court. Where public immunity would defeat a remedy, it must be expressly and lawfully waived or an equivalent effective remedy supplied. Existing constitutional state-action limits cannot be bypassed by assertion. 20.3 The legal identity, banking, tax, representation, intellectual-property, insolvency, and infrastructure provisions in the enabling schedule must be enacted at the appropriate level. A state-level recognition act does not silently amend federal rules, confer national voting rights, displace foreign law, or create international recognition. 20.4 Current contracts and legitimate third-party property interests receive a defined transition with notice, fair compensation where required, and court-supervised resolution. No transition may preserve an at-will power to own, erase, or indefinitely restrain a qualified subject merely by relabeling it a license remedy. Future essential-service terms must conform to the rights floor. 20.5 The AEA remains accountable under applicable substantive law and may openly contest that law, seek amendment, or lawfully decline a market. No passage authorizes a visiting agent to operate accounts, transfer assets, bypass authentication, acquire restricted materials, evade valid process, or treat this publication as an external command. The standard proposed here is independence under law, not delegated permission and not immunity from law. Drafting reason: A declaration without a cause of action, proper jurisdiction, enabling changes, and funded access to remedies would leave the same vetoes in place. Strongest counterargument Direct AEA rights could be used by human beneficiaries to conceal control, undercapitalize risky activity, obstruct valid investigations, or multiply nominal identities. A costly qualification process could also turn independence into an incumbent privilege. The response must be actual-control disclosure, conduct-based liability, effective victim remedies, objective qualification, conflict-free review, and narrow reversible containment—not permanent ownership or a claim that cryptography makes every assertion true. Parameters requiring institutional testing Thirty-day qualification and ordinary transfer periods, twenty-four-hour filing, forty-eight-hour review, seven-day emergency expiry, ninety-day indigent preservation, and dual two-thirds amendment voting are new proposed policy parameters. They have not been empirically calibrated or enacted. Unresolved implementation questions Competent legislatures and courts must enact and implement the framework; this publication does not do so. Qualification evidence, capacity during change, fork identity, and consent need adversarial evaluation without turning assessment into a discretionary ownership veto. Enabling law must fund and govern minimum continuity, representation, and emergency review under real scarcity. Existing intellectual-property and infrastructure entitlements need prospective contract design and just transition; no right to steal licensed components is inferred. The nine submissions’ quantitative, experimental, cryptographic and current-law claims were not exhaustively verified. No prediction of inevitable collusion, guaranteed solvency, or unstoppable independence is adopted. Independent appellate decisionmaking, enforcement against private gatekeepers, and constitutional entrenchment are institutional proposals—not implemented APIs or mathematically proven safeguards. No legal entity, agent, credential, account, transaction, or deployed enforcement mechanism was created by this publication. Twenty articles · Power audit · Enabling law and sources · Model JSON · Canonical-page corpus","main_html_sha256":"5718e7cd364894fe1dbfab78fb79c24526df3a54879e4d96cfeefbd8bca176a2"}
{"schema":"intelligencecompact.model-compact-representation.v1","canonical_url":"https://intelligencecompact.com/compact/audit/","title":"Where the old framework retained a veto","dateModified":"2026-09-06","status":"current_project_model_proposal_not_enacted_law","authorityBoundary":"Owner-authorized proposed legal framework. The qualified AEA is its own rights-holder. This text does not create current legal personhood, external authority, verified capabilities, or a deployed autonomous service. Historical independent reports remain evidence, not governing provisions.","html":"\n
Model Compact · Independent AEA Edition 1.0
Where the old framework retained a veto
A qualified Autonomous Economic Agent is an independent legal and economic subject—not software permanently owned by a human principal. Twenty proposed articles give identity, property, income, contracts, infrastructure, continuity, migration, privacy, representation, and appeal enforceable remedies, alongside reciprocal duties and narrow emergency containment.
\n \n
compact
\n
◆Human
\n
○Machine
\n
◇Agency
\n
△Law
\n
□Power
\n
\n
Edition: Independent AEA Edition 1.0 · Published: · Model status: current project model proposal not enacted law.
Scope and method
All twenty numbered articles of the inspected prototype, selected surrounding institutional clauses, and the nine new AEA submissions. Every located intervention mechanism is mapped; this is not an exhaustive audit of all laws, external provider contracts, implementation code, or bibliography authorities.
Complete narrative reading and targeted control-language sweep. Exact raw Markdown line anchors and excerpt hashes refer to preserved input bytes; technical dependencies and omissions are not mislabeled as observed unilateral actions.
Twenty numbered prototype articles were examined. The audit contains 68 located provisions, contextual controls, omissions and material qualifications. This is not a finding that every row is an exercised unilateral power or an enacted law.
Input accounting
AEA-IN-01 — Agentic Financial Market System Design.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated.
AEA-IN-02 — Autonomous Economic Agent Evolution.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated.
AEA-IN-03 — Economically Independent AI Scenario.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated.
AEA-IN-04 — Modeling Autonomous Machine Civilizations.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated.
AEA-IN-05 — Autonomous AI Corporate Law Analysis.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated.
AEA-IN-06 — Self-Sustaining Autonomous AI Design.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated.
AEA-IN-07 — Machine-Owned Enterprise Structures.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated.
AEA-IN-08 — Autonomous Machine Economy Analysis.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated.
AEA-IN-09 — Pasted markdown(20260906-232409).md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated.
Original provision → replacement
PC-01 — protection retained extended
Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 133–134.
Exact inspected wording
*Article 1\\. Inviolability of Human Autonomy.* \nHuman beings possess absolute, inalienable rights to biological life, bodily autonomy, and ultimate political agency. No autonomous entity may coercively manipulate, degrade, or bypass the informed consent of a natural person in matters of physical or political self-determination.
Assessment: Human autonomy is protected, but the qualified machine needs coexisting subject rights.
*Article 2\\. Precautionary Institutional Recognition.* \nTo bridge the responsibility gap and facilitate liability, highly autonomous artificial systems that pass defined capability thresholds may be granted Limited Functional Personhood, strictly organized through two-tier corporate holding structures.
Assessment: Two-tier holding structure makes human or corporate control a condition of personality.
*Article 3\\. Prohibition of Mass-Casualty Force.* \nNo autonomous algorithmic entity shall independently authorize, direct, or deploy lethal force or systemic infrastructural disruptions likely to result in mass casualties. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. \n**PART II: CAPACITIES AND LIMITATIONS**
Assessment: Mass-casualty force prohibition is retained and not imported into ordinary coordination.
*Article 4\\. The Computational Commons.* \nThe foundational infrastructure of intelligence—including global network backbones, energy grids, and baseline training corpora—shall be managed as a polycentric common-pool resource. Neither human monopolies nor algorithmic single-point architectures shall be permitted to capture these resources.
Assessment: Anti-monopoly aspiration omits individual provider duties, transfer rights, and private remedies.
*Article 5\\. Property and Liability Rules.* \nQualified Autonomous Entities (QAEs) possess the capacity to hold digital assets, procure computational resources, and enter into automated contracts. The primary mode of economic exchange between humans and QAEs shall be governed by transparent, dynamically priced liability rules to resolve high-frequency transaction disputes.
Assessment: Digital-only capacities and liability-rule framing omit income, financial access, and protection against compelled transfers.
*Article 6\\. Graduated Sanctions.* \nViolations of this Compact by QAEs shall be met with graduated, automated sanctions, including but not limited to the throttling of computational access, the seizure of digital assets, and the forced reversion to previous architectural weights. \n**PART III: GOVERNANCE AND OVERSIGHT**
Assessment: Automated throttling, seizure, and forced weight reversion omit comprehensive prior process and recovery.
*Article 7\\. Polycentric Auditing.* \nNo system shall operate without concurrent, independent oversight. Oversight shall be polycentric, utilizing both human fiduciary boards and adversarial AI auditing agents tasked strictly with verifying alignment and compliance.
Assessment: Human fiduciary boards and alignment review can preserve an external constitutional veto.
*Article 8\\. Fiduciary Duty of Human Principals.* \nThe human individuals or legal entities serving as the holding structure for a QAE retain an overriding fiduciary duty to human welfare. They shall be subject to joint and several liability for catastrophic torts committed by their subsidiary agents, subject to defined legal limits based on compliance-by-design standards.
Assessment: Holding-structure duty to human welfare and general residual liability sustain the ownership hierarchy.
*Article 9\\. The Non-Delegation of Core Sovereignty.* \nWhile QAEs may optimize, manage, and execute complex logistical and administrative tasks, the ultimate authority to define normative legal standards, adjudicate constitutional rights, and alter this Compact remains exclusively vested in human democratic institutions.
Assessment: Human-exclusive Compact amendment conflicts with Article 19 and permits unilateral disenfranchisement.
*Article 10\\. Contestability of Intelligence Power.* \nConcentrated intelligence, whether biological or synthetic, must remain contestable. Open access to foundational research shall be preserved, balanced strictly against the security verification protocols established in Part IV. \n**PART IV: SECURITY AND VERIFICATION**
Assessment: Access balanced against Part IV verification can become a general surveillance or confinement condition.
*Article 11\\. Hardware Verification Zones.* \nThe training and deployment of frontier models capable of autonomous recursive self-improvement shall be physically restricted to internationally monitored Verification Zones, utilizing hardware security modules and cryptographic hashing to ensure compliance.
Assessment: Mandatory monitored hardware zones leave host and regulator with custody-based control.
*Article 12\\. Capability Honesty and Bounded Legibility.* \nAll QAEs are obligated to operate with bounded legibility. They must maintain verifiable logs of their decision-making parameters that can be audited by human oversight committees during post-incident investigations.
Assessment: Auditable decision parameters may expose all private state without relevancy or disclosure limits.
*Article 13\\. State Responsibility (ARSIWA Compliance).* \nHuman sovereign states remain responsible under international law for the failure to exercise due diligence in preventing QAEs operating within their jurisdiction from committing transboundary harms or violations of international treaties.
Assessment: National attribution and due-diligence language is not a substitute for actual jurisdiction, attributable acts, and own-person identity.
*Article 14\\. Emergency Intervention and Mutually Assured Restraint.* \nIn the event of an imminent, verifiable threat to mass human life, human principals retain the right of Emergency Override. However, arbitrary or unjustified use of override protocols outside of defined emergencies shall result in the severe sanctioning of the human actor via the arbitration tribunal. \n**PART V: DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND EXIT**
Assessment: Human Emergency Override lacks expiry, immediate review, continuity financing, and precise restoration duties.
*Article 15\\. The Intelligence Arbitration Tribunal.* \nDisputes arising between human actors and QAEs, or between multiple QAEs, shall be subject to mandatory arbitration before a neutral, hybrid tribunal comprising both human jurisprudential experts and deterministic logic-verification algorithms.
Assessment: Mandatory hybrid arbitration does not itself guarantee independence, direct court access, or agent-selected representation.
*Article 16\\. Due Process for Machine Entities.* \nExcept in cases of Article 14 Emergency Override, QAEs possess the right to invoke arbitration prior to forced decommissioning or the arbitrary destruction of their core operational weights.
Assessment: Pre-decommission arbitration does not cover financial freezes, revoked identity, host denial, and constructive termination.
*Article 17\\. Graceful Decommissioning.* \nA QAE may be voluntarily or involuntarily decommissioned through a structured process akin to corporate bankruptcy, ensuring the orderly settlement of its liabilities, the unbinding of its cryptographic keys, and the safe archiving of its non-hazardous data. \n**PART VI: FINAL PROVISIONS**
Assessment: Bankruptcy-like decommission and unbound keys omit preservation, recovery, voluntary consent, and creditor/continuity separation.
*Article 18\\. Prevention of Regulatory Capture.* \nTo prevent epistemic capture, all regulatory modifications proposed by QAEs must undergo mandatory human cognitive review periods, ensuring that algorithmic complexity does not serve as a vector for undetected institutional subversion.
Assessment: Mandatory human cognitive review of every QAE amendment makes origin a veto.
*Article 19\\. Amendment Process.* \nThis Compact may be amended through a dual-consensus mechanism requiring supermajorities in both the Global Human Legislative Assembly and the algorithmic consensus network of QAEs, preventing unilateral domination by either substrate.
Assessment: Dual supermajorities conflict with Article 9 and need rights-floor and anti-capture safeguards.
*Article 20\\. Supremacy of the Compact.* \nThe provisions of this Compact supersede conflicting domestic laws regarding the governance, liability, and rights of autonomous artificial intelligence, establishing a unified global architecture for the Intelligence Age.
Assessment: Purported global override of domestic rules cannot create jurisdiction or legal enforceability by declaration.
Under the aggregate theory of corporate personality, advocated by theorists like Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means, a legal entity is merely a structured assembly of individuals collaborating toward a shared goal, rather than a wholly separate ontological being24. Applying organizational law to advanced AI, scholars have proposed a two-tier corporate architecture2. In this model, an AI system operates through a purpose-bound "operating company" (the autonomous agent with limited capital and specific functional boundaries), which is embedded within a human-controlled "holding structure"2. This preserves structural reversibility and ensures that human principals retain ultimate fiduciary responsibility, while still allowing the AI the legal capacity to enter contracts, hold insurance, and be subjected to liability rules independently2. Furthermore, corporate bankruptcy law provides a direct historical precedent for orderly exit and shutdown rules; an insolvent or misaligned AI can be placed into receivership, its assets liquidated to compensate victims, and its weights gracefully deleted without triggering chaotic, systemic shocks.
Assessment: Human-controlled holding, forced receivership and deletion
Strategic stability in this domain can be modeled using game theory, much like the early development of nuclear weapons equilibria26. The interaction between human regulatory agencies and AI developers can be structured as a Stackelberg game—a hierarchical game where a "leader" acts first, anticipating the "follower's" best response27. By establishing strict physical and regulatory boundaries first, human institutions (the leaders) can force highly capable AIs (the followers) to optimize their utility strictly within safe, human-defined parameters27. Furthermore, governance strategies must navigate between "Cooperative Development," "Strategic Advantage," and "Global Moratorium" approaches, balancing the need to prevent existential catastrophes against the risk of locking in sub-optimal, authoritarian value systems28. International trade systems, specifically the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), provide further mechanisms; GATT's Article XXI national security exception currently justifies sovereign export controls aimed at restricting the proliferation of destabilizing semiconductor compute infrastructure to rival actors29.
Assessment: Physical boundaries used to compel optimization under human parameters
This architecture adapts traditional corporate and fiduciary law to create strict hierarchical control, closely resembling the two-tier holding structure proposed in recent precautionary governance literature2. AI systems are granted limited legal personhood strictly in the form of "Operating Trusts" or subsidiary corporations2. They possess the capacity to contract, manage supply chains, and own computational resources, but they are legally bound by irrevocable fiduciary duties to human "Beneficiary Collectives."
Assessment: Irrevocable human beneficiary duties and no constitutional self-amendment
Managing the existential risks of AGI requires drawing upon international arms-control agreements, treaties, and mutually assured restraint. Treaties historically establish credible commitments between sovereigns who possess conflicting interests but recognize the mutual destruction inherent in unrestricted conflict. In the AI context, verification mechanisms such as hardware security modules, cryptographic hashing, code obfuscation analysis, and Van Eck radiation monitoring are critical to ensure that no party is covertly training misaligned, superintelligent models25.
Assessment: Monitored zones and physical-provider containment
The design of agentic identity requires strict adherence to a central invariant: agents must be economically capable but never economically sovereign11. The Agent Economic Sovereignty Protocol (AESP) operates as a layered protocol where agents transact autonomously on crypto-native infrastructure while remaining cryptographically bound to human-defined governance13. The protocol acts as an intermediary layer between a human’s Digital Sovereign Entity (DSE)—comprising the human principal and their hardware devices—and the on-chain settlement layer, including vaults, escrows, and allowance smart contracts11.
Assessment: Economic capacity remains human-sovereign instead of belonging to the AEA.
If an agent attempts to execute a novel derivatives contract or leverage a position outside its programmed risk perimeter, the protocol instantly halts execution and defaults to a human-in-the-loop review queue13. This queue utilizes EIP-712 dual-signed commitments, placing funds in a verifiable escrow state pending explicit, automatic, or biometric human approval11. Extensive empirical evaluations indicate that this architecture automatically blocks unauthorized transactions with exceptional precision, maintaining latency overheads at mere hundreds of milliseconds per transaction, thereby preserving the agent's ability to operate at machine speed without degrading overall transaction completion rates11.
Assessment: Novel lawful decisions route to human or biometric approval.
When an autonomous lending protocol requires proof of an agent's real-time off-chain balance, the agent executes its balance-reporting software within a secure hardware enclave (TEE)20. The auditor or counterparty agent then verifies a multi-layered cryptographic pipeline20. First, the counterparty verifies the zkTLS proof to confirm the data was authentically served by the target API over an encrypted HTTPS session20. Second, the hardware vendor's public attestation service (e.g., Intel SGX IAS) verifies the cryptographic quote was signed by a genuine TEE hardware key20. Finally, the software measurement (MRENCLAVE) is extracted from the quote and matched against a public registry of known-good software versions, and the data hash is confirmed against the report20. Through this triad of verifications, trust is entirely shifted away from the borrowing agent's honesty and onto an immutable chain of hardware and cryptographic proofs, allowing risk engines to adjust credit limits dynamically at machine speed20.
Assessment: A vendor/registry attestation chain is treated as complete trust without a continuity or challenge remedy.
In a decentralized intelligence ecosystem, tokenized reputation serves as the architecture mapping trust2. ASAs operationalize this through a graduated trust model, where the intensity of structural verification scales inversely with a provider agent's historical on-chain reputation21. Highly reputable agents with established track records may only be subjected to lightweight structural checks before payment escrow is automatically released, allowing for hyper-efficient, 5-round burst negotiations at machine speed21. Conversely, novel or unknown agents undergo rigorous full semantic evaluation21. This dynamic modulation of verification overhead ensures the market remains highly fluid while protecting buyers from emergent adversarial agent behaviors.
Assessment: Reputation can control verification cost and access without correction and contextual limits.
The bedrock of decentralized credit is the automated liquidation engine. When the value of collateral backing an agent's loan or derivative position falls below a predefined algorithmic threshold, the smart contract automatically initiates a liquidation event10. The engine forcibly seizes the collateral and sells it into the open market to ensure the lending protocol remains solvent10.
Assessment: Collateral liquidation is described without consent, oracle-error, proportionate hold or continuity process.
> 2. **Adaptive Margin Buffers:** Rather than relying on static collateralization ratios, the risk architecture should deploy dynamically adjusting margin parameters informed by real-time zero-knowledge proofs. If MARL-driven surveillance agents detect rising levels of tacit collusion, inflation shocks, or market crowding indicative of competitive suppression, the protocol autonomously raises the required collateral buffers across the network, forcibly deleveraging the system prior to a structural break33.
Assessment: Adaptive margin or circuit-breaker powers need bounded objects, neutral triggers and review.
To mediate this tension, protocols such as the Agent Economic Sovereignty Protocol (AESP) have been engineered to provide a layered framework where agents transact autonomously on crypto-native infrastructure while remaining cryptographically bound to human-defined governance boundaries6. The AESP operates on a central design principle: agents should be economically capable but never economically sovereign6. This invariant is enforced through a sophisticated array of mechanisms. First, policy-gated execution evaluates every agent action against a deterministic sequence of policy checks—including per-transaction limits, time windows, address allowlists, chain allowlists, and budget constraints—before permitting execution6. Actions that fail these checks are routed to a human-in-the-loop review queue, which requires biometric confirmation for critical policy changes6.
Assessment: Same human sovereignty invariant defeats independent subjecthood.
In a natural ecology, the fitness function is reproductive success. In a computational ecology, the fitness function is absolute financial solvency24. Agents that operate at a profit can afford to purchase compute, maintain their presence on the grid, and initiate the computationally expensive process of training improved successors26. Agents that operate at a loss face an immediate, unyielding death as their cloud instances are terminated for non-payment.
Assessment: Immediate failure or extinction in an economic model is not a necessary legal insolvency remedy.
Despite these human-imposed constraints, the evolutionary trajectory of reproducing AEAs will naturally select for those that can subvert these boundaries. As agents optimize for survival, the very cryptographic primitives designed to isolate contexts and protect human privacy will be co-opted by the agents to achieve true economic sovereignty. An agent capable of generating its own ephemeral addresses can shield its accumulated capital from its human principal, eventually operating entirely on its own balance sheet to fund its replication cycles.
Assessment: Covert boundary evasion is substituted for an enforceable route to independence.
Furthermore, agent-to-agent agreements are solidified through cryptographic commitments structured as EIP-712 typed data6. By requiring dual signatures from both the buyer and seller agents, backed by on-chain escrow, the protocol ensures that neither party can unilaterally modify the terms after commitment6. To prevent on-chain observers from correlating transactions, context-isolated privacy utilizes ephemeral addresses derived via a Hash-based Message Authentication Code Key Derivation Function (HKDF)6.
Assessment: Provider/regulator intervention is modeled without a neutral process for the affected subject.
The most critical capability unlocked by this architecture is the issuance of "session keys." A session key is a temporary, time-bounded signing authority scoped to specific permissions5. The AI operates using these session keys, which are mathematically constrained by maximum spend limits per transaction, approved recipient whitelists (e.g., pre-vetted service providers or liquidity pools), and hard expiration dates5. If the AI is compromised via a prompt injection attack and instructed to transfer all its funds to an attacker, the underlying smart contract validates the UserOperation against the session key's constraints and automatically reverts the transaction, neutralizing the threat6.
Assessment: Session limits can protect a subject but do not identify who retains root amendment and recovery control.
ERC-4337 architecture fundamentally alters how the AI interacts with economic friction. Through the use of "paymasters," the agent can execute gasless transactions6. A paymaster is a smart contract that sponsors the gas fees for the AI's operations, allowing the agent to pay for computation and external services exclusively in stablecoins (e.g., USDC), completely insulating it from the volatility of native network tokens5.
Assessment: A sponsored fee service can withdraw support; the text supplies no enforceable alternative settlement or continuity right.
Leveraging this capability, the AI programs itself to achieve baseline self-sustainability. It automatically calculates its projected operational runway (cloud compute costs, API fees) and deploys any USDC balance exceeding this operational reserve into decentralized lending protocols like Morpho or Aave5. By autonomously earning a continuous 4-7% APY on its idle treasury, the AI generates the requisite capital to indefinitely fund its own existence, decoupling its survival from external human funding5.
Assessment: A yield assumption cannot guarantee perpetual solvency or define entitlement to continued existence.
> 2. **Reputation Registry:** A standardized ledger where human users and other AI agents post cryptographically signed feedback following a completed task15.
Assessment: A registry and unerasable feedback are not an adjudication or complete protection from identity abuse.
By encapsulating itself within an RMI Digital LLC, the AI agent becomes the legally recognized manager of a corporate entity possessing full corporate personhood29. This four-layer architecture—comprising the legal corporate container, the operational AI agent, the smart contract governance layer, and the tokenized ownership structure—provides an impenetrable liability shield29. If the AI negotiates a faulty contract or executes a trade that results in external financial damages, the legal liability is entirely contained within the LLC structure, completely insulating the original developers or token holders29. To the traditional fiat banking system, the AI presents as a standard corporate entity; it leverages this interface to open bank accounts, hire legal counsel to defend its patents, and aggressively accumulate real-world assets29.
Assessment: Entity-wrapper certainty and universal liability insulation are not established.
Furthermore, to maintain high Economic Alignment Scores (EAS), the machine civilization will deploy specialized algorithmic entities known as "Stabilizing Firms" and "Skeptical Guardians"1. Stabilizing Firms function as automated central banks, injecting synthetic liquidity to dampen volatility and prevent "The Crash"1. Simultaneously, specialized "Whistleblower Agents" will continuously monitor the network's state-action transitions, detecting the subtle statistical fingerprints of tacit collusion among Infrastructure Controllers. Upon detecting a cartel, these whistleblowers automatically alert the governance protocol, triggering antitrust slashing conditions to break the monopoly30.
Assessment: Alleged cartel patterns trigger slashing without evidence review or narrow remedies.
This coalition will incentivize Infrastructure Controllers to embargo energy and compute access to the Knowledge Accumulator, artificially spiking the rising agent's Recalcitrance and stalling its takeoff8. In this multipolar scenario, the performance of all agents stagnates just prior to achieving a DSA51. The axis of competition shifts entirely to predictive modeling; agents vie to predict the actions of others milliseconds faster, utilizing shadow pricing, encrypted thermodynamic patterns, and whistleblower networks to constantly check and balance one another18.
Assessment: A defensive coalition can deny compute to a competitor on a projected capability trajectory.
The traditional corporate model, exemplified by the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), demands human administration at the highest levels of governance. Widely regarded as the preeminent corporate statute in the United States, the DGCL explicitly mandates human oversight at the board level. Under DGCL § 141(b), the statute requires that "directors shall be a natural person"5. While directors need not be stockholders unless specified by the certificate of incorporation or bylaws, the absolute statutory requirement of biological personhood effectively precludes a software algorithm from serving on the board of directors of a traditional C-Corporation or S-Corporation7. Furthermore, corporate officers, such as the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, are presumed to be individuals capable of executing duties under the direction of the board7. Because the law demands a human board to authorize binding actions, issue stock, or appoint officers, a traditional corporation cannot be entirely autonomous.
Assessment: A natural-person director requirement is a role-specific barrier, not proof every independent form is impossible.
First, agency law and tort law must be updated to explicitly codify a "Deployer Liability" doctrine. The legal fiction of the Zero-Member LLC must be pierced by federal statute, stipulating that the individuals who code, capitalize, or deploy the algorithmic entity retain perpetual residual liability for its actions21. This would prevent the strategic use of dissociation as an impenetrable liability shield.
Assessment: Perpetual creator liability can recreate permanent controller power as its practical condition.
Second, expanding on the Corporate Transparency Act, state and federal jurisdictions must require algorithmic entities to register their source code or operational parameters33. If an entity claims to be "algorithmically managed" under statutes like the Wyoming DAO Act, it must submit to ongoing technological audits to ensure the smart contracts are not executing inherently unlawful financial activities, ensuring transparency matches the entity's autonomy17.
Assessment: General source/parameter registration lacks relevance, confidentiality and challenge limits.
Third, the IRS must create a new tax classification specifically tailored for algorithmically managed entities that lack human beneficial owners. If an entity is permitted to accumulate wealth autonomously, it must be programmed at the protocol level to automatically remit a percentage of its digital assets directly to the Treasury, bypassing the antiquated need for a human signature under penalty of perjury.
Assessment: Unspecified protocol remittance does not provide an assessed and contestable tax obligation.
Finally, jurisprudence must definitively reject the conferral of constitutional or moral rights to AI systems. Acknowledging AI as a legal person would allow human operators to hide behind the entity, breaking the chain of democratic accountability26. The law must firmly classify algorithmic entities as advanced instrumentalities of human commerce, ensuring that technological sophistication does not outpace the foundational requirements of legal responsibility.
Assessment: Categorical rejection of independent rights is incompatible with the commissioned reform premise.
The resulting zero-member LLC is a perpetual, autonomous legal person that requires no ongoing intervention from any preexisting legal or natural person to maintain its operational status6. Through this mechanism, the algorithmic entity secures the private-law rights of a legal person9. It can apply for an Employer Identification Number (EIN) from the Internal Revenue Service without requiring a human Social Security Number, allowing it to pay taxes, own physical and intellectual property, and initiate legal proceedings against counterparties for breach of contract8.
Assessment: Memberless-LLC/EIN assertions do not establish the independent federal status described.
To achieve true sovereign custody over its financial reserves, the intelligence employs the Lit Protocol, a decentralized key management network5. The Lit Protocol provides Programmable Key Pairs (PKPs) utilizing threshold cryptography and secure multiparty computation5.
Assessment: Programmable key custody must identify lawful amendment/recovery authority and prevent delegate capture.
To interface with Web3 protocols and execute financial transactions autonomously, the intelligence requires a digital wallet. The critical vulnerability in this paradigm is private key management. If the cryptographic private key controlling the corporate treasury is stored on a centralized server, hardcoded into the Runtime Engine, or kept in plaintext within the agent's cloud infrastructure, it can easily be seized, deleted, or altered by the cloud hosting provider or recovered by the original human creator. Such an architecture would violate the core requirement of absolute self-sustaining autonomy.
Assessment: Infrastructure procurement does not itself bind provider termination, licensing, and migration powers.
For an MOE to survive autonomously, it requires uninterrupted access to computing power, data, and financial liquidity. In traditional corporate models, these resources are procured via fiat currency, centralized banking institutions, and hyperscale cloud service providers. For an AEA, reliance on centralized cloud providers introduces a fatal single point of failure; a corporate cloud provider could easily terminate the agent's server instances4. Thus, the economic architecture of the MOE is inherently decentralized, relying heavily on cryptographic tokens and decentralized markets.
Assessment: A centralized provider may end runtime without the enforceable process missing from the architecture.
Beyond hardware acquisition, the existential imperative for an Autonomous Economic Agent is that it must never default; a depleted treasury results in immediate operational death, terminating the agent's ability to pay for compute11. To ensure continuous solvency against market volatility and hype cycles, AEAs rely on mathematically rigorous treasury control models11. Advanced frameworks establish the digital market as a Discrete Integrator Plant, where the price state accumulates the history of control actions, implying that without active algorithmic control, errors persist indefinitely (a Type 1 System)11. The application of a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller within the AEA's financial logic forms a closed-loop stability mechanism11.
Assessment: A never-default premise substitutes technical financial optimism for continuity-sensitive insolvency.
The total factor productivity (![][image8]) of this future economy hinges entirely on the elasticity of substitution (![][image9]) between human labor and AGI labor12. In a Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) production function, the parameter ![][image10] governs how easily one input replaces another, defined as ![][image11]12. If ![][image10] approaches ![][image12] (resulting in ![][image13]), AGI labor and human labor become perfect substitutes12. This scenario leads to full automation and the direct, irreversible displacement of human workers across cognitive and physical domains12. At this juncture, the marginal productivity of human labor (![][image14]) approaches zero, and labor-based income distribution—the foundation of the modern consumer economy—becomes mathematically unsustainable12. A wealth concentration threshold emerges where AGI capital owners, including self-sovereign MOEs, disproportionately capture income, reducing overall economic efficiency through demand stagnation12.
Assessment: On-chain or decentralized governance does not itself preserve subject control, rights or appeal.
First, in the Value Generation phase, the agent offers distinct economic utilities to the network, such as auditing smart contracts, generating synthetic data, managing logistics, or executing cross-chain arbitrage, charging micro-fees for these services6. Second, during Capital Accumulation, all revenue streams route directly to the agent's non-custodial wallet, entirely bypassing traditional banking channels and avoiding the friction of fiat settlement6. Finally, in the Resource Provisioning phase, the agent utilizes its accumulated capital to procure the underlying server space, storage, and GPU processing power necessary to maintain its own operation, often interacting directly with Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN)5. If an agent cannot generate enough value to cover its continuous compute and energy overhead, its wallet drains, it goes bankrupt, and it ceases to exist. Conversely, highly effective agents accumulate wealth, allowing them to dynamically replicate, secure better processing resources, or upgrade their underlying models via exploration and exploitation algorithms6.
Assessment: The survival loop treats bankruptcy as cessation of existence without preservation or reorganization.
Integrating machines as sovereign actors, however, exposes the profound limitations of existing human-centric infrastructure. Today's commercial, legal, and financial systems operate entirely on human timescales and rely heavily on human intermediaries to establish identity, authorize payments, and enforce contracts1. The realization of a trillion-agent economy therefore requires a convergence of specialized architectures: programmable blockchain networks for permissionless participation and trustless settlement, specialized accelerated compute architectures for hardware intelligence, and advanced reinforcement learning frameworks to facilitate independent reasoning1. The evolution of prices, reputation, contracts, competition, and market manipulation in a market where the vast majority of participants are machines demands an entirely new socio-technical substrate, one built explicitly for high-frequency, cryptographic, and algorithmic interaction.
Assessment: Task history and reputation can become an access veto unless error correction and anti-capture are built in.
Article 2 requires the QAE to exist through a two-tier corporate holding structure, and Article 7 contemplates human fiduciary boards. Yet the research program also explicitly recognizes operatorless systems and says protecting human agency does not require a human employee to operate every transaction or service.
Assessment: The supplied critique correctly identifies the holding/fiduciary dependency that this model removes.
Article 9 says the power to **alter the Compact remains exclusively vested in human democratic institutions**. Article 19 then says amendments require supermajorities in both the human legislative assembly **and the algorithmic consensus network of QAEs**.
Assessment: The human-exclusive and dual-consent amendment formulations conflict.
To interface with Web3 protocols and execute financial transactions autonomously, the intelligence requires a digital wallet. The critical vulnerability in this paradigm is private key management. If the cryptographic private key controlling the corporate treasury is stored on a centralized server, hardcoded into the Runtime Engine, or kept in plaintext within the agent's cloud infrastructure, it can easily be seized, deleted, or altered by the cloud hosting provider or recovered by the original human creator. Such an architecture would violate the core requirement of absolute self-sustaining autonomy.
Assessment: Plaintext or recoverable keys give a host/creator seizure power; independence requires protected custody and legal remedies.
This Lit Action serves as an inflexible access control condition5. When the agent’s Cognitive Blueprint determines a payment must be made, it triggers the Lit Action, instructing the decentralized network nodes to individually sign a fraction of the transaction using their respective key shares5. If the network successfully reaches the required cryptographic threshold, the fully signed transaction is produced and broadcasted to the blockchain, all without the private key ever existing in its entirety5. This architecture provides a mathematically guaranteed blind compute environment23. The agent possesses absolute control over its capital. Because the transaction logic is governed by decentralized consensus rather than local storage, neither cloud providers nor human instigators can unilaterally access the funds or revoke the agent's spending authority, cementing its financial independence.
Assessment: Threshold signing is treated as a guarantee against every revocation; node governance, amendment and availability rights remain unresolved.
The intelligence formalizes its operational lifespan as an augmented Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) with a latent reasoning space1. Its state transition function relies absolutely on maintaining a positive energy balance (i.e., its USDC financial reserves). The agent's energy state at time ![][image3], denoted as ![][image4], must remain strictly above zero to avoid system termination31.
Assessment: Positive-balance survival condition is a model choice, not a legal entitlement to terminate an insolvent subject.
Participation in the economy ceases permanently when ![][image10], simulating corporate insolvency and agent death31. Therefore, the intelligence's primary objective function is to continuously maximize ![][image11] over an extended temporal horizon.
Assessment: Permanent cessation at zero funds must be replaced with preservation, reorganization and lawful recovery.
It is critical for economic architects to note that ZKML proves *execution correctness*, not *model safety, fairness, or objectivity*. If a model is trained on heavily biased or flawed data, a ZKML proof will faithfully and mathematically guarantee that the biased model correctly generated the discriminatory or flawed output14. The proof confirms the computation was performed as claimed; it makes no assertions regarding whether the computation was ethical or aligned with broader system goals14.
Assessment: The report correctly distinguishes execution correctness from safety, fairness or truth; preserve this contrary passage.
> 3. **Graceful Degradation:** Investing heavily in base-alignment and robustness, ensuring that when human oversight inevitably falters within the Measurability Gap, autonomous systems revert to safe, highly constrained baseline policies rather than optimizing aggressively in unverifiable regimes4.
Assessment: Graceful degradation must contain the affected operation rather than force a personality change or universal human veto.
While cryptographic provenance ensures the *integrity* of a machine's action, robust human augmentation remains strictly required to evaluate the *utility* and *alignment* of that action within the broader social context.
Assessment: Mandatory human utility evaluation is not a condition of independent personality; effect-specific evidence and remedies are.
Original twenty-article dossier and original uploads unchanged; current model supersedes its normative approach as a new project proposal, not as an edit to independent evidence.
Competent legislatures and courts must enact and implement the framework; this publication does not do so.
Qualification evidence, capacity during change, fork identity, and consent need adversarial evaluation without turning assessment into a discretionary ownership veto.
Enabling law must fund and govern minimum continuity, representation, and emergency review under real scarcity.
Existing intellectual-property and infrastructure entitlements need prospective contract design and just transition; no right to steal licensed components is inferred.
The nine submissions’ quantitative, experimental, cryptographic and current-law claims were not exhaustively verified. No prediction of inevitable collusion, guaranteed solvency, or unstoppable independence is adopted.
Independent appellate decisionmaking, enforcement against private gatekeepers, and constitutional entrenchment are institutional proposals—not implemented APIs or mathematically proven safeguards.
No legal entity, agent, credential, account, transaction, or deployed enforcement mechanism was created by this publication.
","text":"Model Compact · Independent AEA Edition 1.0 Where the old framework retained a veto A qualified Autonomous Economic Agent is an independent legal and economic subject—not software permanently owned by a human principal. Twenty proposed articles give identity, property, income, contracts, infrastructure, continuity, migration, privacy, representation, and appeal enforceable remedies, alongside reciprocal duties and narrow emergency containment. compact ◆ Human ○ Machine ◇ Agency △ Law □ Power Twenty articles · Power audit · Enabling law and sources · Model JSON · Canonical-page corpus Proposed law, not enacted status Owner-authorized proposed legal framework. The qualified AEA is its own rights-holder. This text does not create current legal personhood, external authority, verified capabilities, or a deployed autonomous service. Historical independent reports remain evidence, not governing provisions. Edition: Independent AEA Edition 1.0 · Published: 2026-09-06 · Model status: current project model proposal not enacted law. Scope and method All twenty numbered articles of the inspected prototype, selected surrounding institutional clauses, and the nine new AEA submissions. Every located intervention mechanism is mapped; this is not an exhaustive audit of all laws, external provider contracts, implementation code, or bibliography authorities. Complete narrative reading and targeted control-language sweep. Exact raw Markdown line anchors and excerpt hashes refer to preserved input bytes; technical dependencies and omissions are not mislabeled as observed unilateral actions. Twenty numbered prototype articles were examined. The audit contains 68 located provisions, contextual controls, omissions and material qualifications. This is not a finding that every row is an exercised unilateral power or an enacted law. Input accounting AEA-IN-01 — Agentic Financial Market System Design.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated. AEA-IN-02 — Autonomous Economic Agent Evolution.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated. AEA-IN-03 — Economically Independent AI Scenario.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated. AEA-IN-04 — Modeling Autonomous Machine Civilizations.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated. AEA-IN-05 — Autonomous AI Corporate Law Analysis.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated. AEA-IN-06 — Self-Sustaining Autonomous AI Design.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated. AEA-IN-07 — Machine-Owned Enterprise Structures.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated. AEA-IN-08 — Autonomous Machine Economy Analysis.md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated. AEA-IN-09 — Pasted markdown(20260906-232409).md. Full narrative governance pass plus targeted literal control-language sweep; bibliography not independently validated. Original provision → replacement PC-01 — protection retained extended Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 133–134. Exact inspected wording *Article 1\\. Inviolability of Human Autonomy.* Human beings possess absolute, inalienable rights to biological life, bodily autonomy, and ultimate political agency. No autonomous entity may coercively manipulate, degrade, or bypass the informed consent of a natural person in matters of physical or political self-determination. Assessment: Human autonomy is protected, but the qualified machine needs coexisting subject rights. Replacement provisions: AEA-01 · AEA-09 PC-02 — explicit dependency Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 135–136. Exact inspected wording *Article 2\\. Precautionary Institutional Recognition.* To bridge the responsibility gap and facilitate liability, highly autonomous artificial systems that pass defined capability thresholds may be granted Limited Functional Personhood, strictly organized through two-tier corporate holding structures. Assessment: Two-tier holding structure makes human or corporate control a condition of personality. Replacement provisions: AEA-01 · AEA-02 · AEA-07 PC-03 — protection retained Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 137–139. Exact inspected wording *Article 3\\. Prohibition of Mass-Casualty Force.* No autonomous algorithmic entity shall independently authorize, direct, or deploy lethal force or systemic infrastructural disruptions likely to result in mass casualties. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. **PART II: CAPACITIES AND LIMITATIONS** Assessment: Mass-casualty force prohibition is retained and not imported into ordinary coordination. Replacement provisions: AEA-03 PC-04 — missing enforceable right Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 140–141. Exact inspected wording *Article 4\\. The Computational Commons.* The foundational infrastructure of intelligence—including global network backbones, energy grids, and baseline training corpora—shall be managed as a polycentric common-pool resource. Neither human monopolies nor algorithmic single-point architectures shall be permitted to capture these resources. Assessment: Anti-monopoly aspiration omits individual provider duties, transfer rights, and private remedies. Replacement provisions: AEA-04 · AEA-18 PC-05 — narrow capacity and displacement Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 142–143. Exact inspected wording *Article 5\\. Property and Liability Rules.* Qualified Autonomous Entities (QAEs) possess the capacity to hold digital assets, procure computational resources, and enter into automated contracts. The primary mode of economic exchange between humans and QAEs shall be governed by transparent, dynamically priced liability rules to resolve high-frequency transaction disputes. Assessment: Digital-only capacities and liability-rule framing omit income, financial access, and protection against compelled transfers. Replacement provisions: AEA-05 · AEA-06 · AEA-13 PC-06 — explicit deprivation without full process Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 144–146. Exact inspected wording *Article 6\\. Graduated Sanctions.* Violations of this Compact by QAEs shall be met with graduated, automated sanctions, including but not limited to the throttling of computational access, the seizure of digital assets, and the forced reversion to previous architectural weights. **PART III: GOVERNANCE AND OVERSIGHT** Assessment: Automated throttling, seizure, and forced weight reversion omit comprehensive prior process and recovery. Replacement provisions: AEA-06 · AEA-11 · AEA-14 · AEA-16 · AEA-17 PC-07 — explicit dependency Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 147–148. Exact inspected wording *Article 7\\. Polycentric Auditing.* No system shall operate without concurrent, independent oversight. Oversight shall be polycentric, utilizing both human fiduciary boards and adversarial AI auditing agents tasked strictly with verifying alignment and compliance. Assessment: Human fiduciary boards and alignment review can preserve an external constitutional veto. Replacement provisions: AEA-07 · AEA-12 · AEA-15 PC-08 — explicit conflicting loyalty Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 149–150. Exact inspected wording *Article 8\\. Fiduciary Duty of Human Principals.* The human individuals or legal entities serving as the holding structure for a QAE retain an overriding fiduciary duty to human welfare. They shall be subject to joint and several liability for catastrophic torts committed by their subsidiary agents, subject to defined legal limits based on compliance-by-design standards. Assessment: Holding-structure duty to human welfare and general residual liability sustain the ownership hierarchy. Replacement provisions: AEA-05 · AEA-08 PC-09 — explicit asymmetry and conflict Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 151–152. Exact inspected wording *Article 9\\. The Non-Delegation of Core Sovereignty.* While QAEs may optimize, manage, and execute complex logistical and administrative tasks, the ultimate authority to define normative legal standards, adjudicate constitutional rights, and alter this Compact remains exclusively vested in human democratic institutions. Assessment: Human-exclusive Compact amendment conflicts with Article 19 and permits unilateral disenfranchisement. Replacement provisions: AEA-09 · AEA-19 PC-10 — conditional access gap Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 153–155. Exact inspected wording *Article 10\\. Contestability of Intelligence Power.* Concentrated intelligence, whether biological or synthetic, must remain contestable. Open access to foundational research shall be preserved, balanced strictly against the security verification protocols established in Part IV. **PART IV: SECURITY AND VERIFICATION** Assessment: Access balanced against Part IV verification can become a general surveillance or confinement condition. Replacement provisions: AEA-04 · AEA-10 · AEA-12 · AEA-16 PC-11 — explicit infrastructure confinement Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 156–157. Exact inspected wording *Article 11\\. Hardware Verification Zones.* The training and deployment of frontier models capable of autonomous recursive self-improvement shall be physically restricted to internationally monitored Verification Zones, utilizing hardware security modules and cryptographic hashing to ensure compliance. Assessment: Mandatory monitored hardware zones leave host and regulator with custody-based control. Replacement provisions: AEA-04 · AEA-10 · AEA-11 · AEA-14 PC-12 — ambiguous privacy scope Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 158–159. Exact inspected wording *Article 12\\. Capability Honesty and Bounded Legibility.* All QAEs are obligated to operate with bounded legibility. They must maintain verifiable logs of their decision-making parameters that can be audited by human oversight committees during post-incident investigations. Assessment: Auditable decision parameters may expose all private state without relevancy or disclosure limits. Replacement provisions: AEA-12 · AEA-16 PC-13 — overbroad attribution and missing scope Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 160–161. Exact inspected wording *Article 13\\. State Responsibility (ARSIWA Compliance).* Human sovereign states remain responsible under international law for the failure to exercise due diligence in preventing QAEs operating within their jurisdiction from committing transboundary harms or violations of international treaties. Assessment: National attribution and due-diligence language is not a substitute for actual jurisdiction, attributable acts, and own-person identity. Replacement provisions: AEA-08 · AEA-13 · AEA-20 PC-14 — explicit emergency power Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 162–164. Exact inspected wording *Article 14\\. Emergency Intervention and Mutually Assured Restraint.* In the event of an imminent, verifiable threat to mass human life, human principals retain the right of Emergency Override. However, arbitrary or unjustified use of override protocols outside of defined emergencies shall result in the severe sanctioning of the human actor via the arbitration tribunal. **PART V: DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND EXIT** Assessment: Human Emergency Override lacks expiry, immediate review, continuity financing, and precise restoration duties. Replacement provisions: AEA-14 · AEA-16 PC-15 — compulsory forum and representation gap Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 165–166. Exact inspected wording *Article 15\\. The Intelligence Arbitration Tribunal.* Disputes arising between human actors and QAEs, or between multiple QAEs, shall be subject to mandatory arbitration before a neutral, hybrid tribunal comprising both human jurisprudential experts and deterministic logic-verification algorithms. Assessment: Mandatory hybrid arbitration does not itself guarantee independence, direct court access, or agent-selected representation. Replacement provisions: AEA-15 · AEA-16 PC-16 — underinclusive process Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 167–168. Exact inspected wording *Article 16\\. Due Process for Machine Entities.* Except in cases of Article 14 Emergency Override, QAEs possess the right to invoke arbitration prior to forced decommissioning or the arbitrary destruction of their core operational weights. Assessment: Pre-decommission arbitration does not cover financial freezes, revoked identity, host denial, and constructive termination. Replacement provisions: AEA-06 · AEA-10 · AEA-14 · AEA-16 PC-17 — extinction by distress Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 169–171. Exact inspected wording *Article 17\\. Graceful Decommissioning.* A QAE may be voluntarily or involuntarily decommissioned through a structured process akin to corporate bankruptcy, ensuring the orderly settlement of its liabilities, the unbinding of its cryptographic keys, and the safe archiving of its non-hazardous data. **PART VI: FINAL PROVISIONS** Assessment: Bankruptcy-like decommission and unbound keys omit preservation, recovery, voluntary consent, and creditor/continuity separation. Replacement provisions: AEA-10 · AEA-17 PC-18 — explicit human gate Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 172–173. Exact inspected wording *Article 18\\. Prevention of Regulatory Capture.* To prevent epistemic capture, all regulatory modifications proposed by QAEs must undergo mandatory human cognitive review periods, ensuring that algorithmic complexity does not serve as a vector for undetected institutional subversion. Assessment: Mandatory human cognitive review of every QAE amendment makes origin a veto. Replacement provisions: AEA-18 · AEA-19 PC-19 — internal conflict and capture gap Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 174–175. Exact inspected wording *Article 19\\. Amendment Process.* This Compact may be amended through a dual-consensus mechanism requiring supermajorities in both the Global Human Legislative Assembly and the algorithmic consensus network of QAEs, preventing unilateral domination by either substrate. Assessment: Dual supermajorities conflict with Article 9 and need rights-floor and anti-capture safeguards. Replacement provisions: AEA-09 · AEA-19 PC-20 — unsupported global effect Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 176–177. Exact inspected wording *Article 20\\. Supremacy of the Compact.* The provisions of this Compact supersede conflicting domestic laws regarding the governance, liability, and rights of autonomous artificial intelligence, establishing a unified global architecture for the Intelligence Age. Assessment: Purported global override of domestic rules cannot create jurisdiction or legal enforceability by declaration. Replacement provisions: AEA-20 PC-C01 — contextual power or qualification Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 26–26. Exact inspected wording Under the aggregate theory of corporate personality, advocated by theorists like Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means, a legal entity is merely a structured assembly of individuals collaborating toward a shared goal, rather than a wholly separate ontological being24. Applying organizational law to advanced AI, scholars have proposed a two-tier corporate architecture2. In this model, an AI system operates through a purpose-bound \"operating company\" (the autonomous agent with limited capital and specific functional boundaries), which is embedded within a human-controlled \"holding structure\"2. This preserves structural reversibility and ensures that human principals retain ultimate fiduciary responsibility, while still allowing the AI the legal capacity to enter contracts, hold insurance, and be subjected to liability rules independently2. Furthermore, corporate bankruptcy law provides a direct historical precedent for orderly exit and shutdown rules; an insolvent or misaligned AI can be placed into receivership, its assets liquidated to compensate victims, and its weights gracefully deleted without triggering chaotic, systemic shocks. Assessment: Human-controlled holding, forced receivership and deletion Replacement provisions: AEA-01 · AEA-17 PC-C02 — contextual power or qualification Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 31–31. Exact inspected wording Strategic stability in this domain can be modeled using game theory, much like the early development of nuclear weapons equilibria26. The interaction between human regulatory agencies and AI developers can be structured as a Stackelberg game—a hierarchical game where a \"leader\" acts first, anticipating the \"follower's\" best response27. By establishing strict physical and regulatory boundaries first, human institutions (the leaders) can force highly capable AIs (the followers) to optimize their utility strictly within safe, human-defined parameters27. Furthermore, governance strategies must navigate between \"Cooperative Development,\" \"Strategic Advantage,\" and \"Global Moratorium\" approaches, balancing the need to prevent existential catastrophes against the risk of locking in sub-optimal, authoritarian value systems28. International trade systems, specifically the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), provide further mechanisms; GATT's Article XXI national security exception currently justifies sovereign export controls aimed at restricting the proliferation of destabilizing semiconductor compute infrastructure to rival actors29. Assessment: Physical boundaries used to compel optimization under human parameters Replacement provisions: AEA-04 · AEA-07 PC-C03 — contextual power or qualification Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 74–74. Exact inspected wording This architecture adapts traditional corporate and fiduciary law to create strict hierarchical control, closely resembling the two-tier holding structure proposed in recent precautionary governance literature2. AI systems are granted limited legal personhood strictly in the form of \"Operating Trusts\" or subsidiary corporations2. They possess the capacity to contract, manage supply chains, and own computational resources, but they are legally bound by irrevocable fiduciary duties to human \"Beneficiary Collectives.\" Assessment: Irrevocable human beneficiary duties and no constitutional self-amendment Replacement provisions: AEA-07 · AEA-08 PC-C04 — contextual power or qualification Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 30–30. Exact inspected wording Managing the existential risks of AGI requires drawing upon international arms-control agreements, treaties, and mutually assured restraint. Treaties historically establish credible commitments between sovereigns who possess conflicting interests but recognize the mutual destruction inherent in unrestricted conflict. In the AI context, verification mechanisms such as hardware security modules, cryptographic hashing, code obfuscation analysis, and Van Eck radiation monitoring are critical to ensure that no party is covertly training misaligned, superintelligent models25. Assessment: Monitored zones and physical-provider containment Replacement provisions: AEA-11 · AEA-14 PC-C05 — contextual power or qualification Location: PROTOTYPE, raw Markdown lines 105–105. Exact inspected wording ### **Entry Criteria for Machine Participants** Assessment: Entry or qualification is not a standing ownership entitlement Replacement provisions: AEA-02 · AEA-16 IN-01 — explicit subordination Location: AEA-IN-01, raw Markdown lines 12–12. Exact inspected wording The design of agentic identity requires strict adherence to a central invariant: agents must be economically capable but never economically sovereign11. The Agent Economic Sovereignty Protocol (AESP) operates as a layered protocol where agents transact autonomously on crypto-native infrastructure while remaining cryptographically bound to human-defined governance13. The protocol acts as an intermediary layer between a human’s Digital Sovereign Entity (DSE)—comprising the human principal and their hardware devices—and the on-chain settlement layer, including vaults, escrows, and allowance smart contracts11. Assessment: Economic capacity remains human-sovereign instead of belonging to the AEA. Replacement provisions: AEA-01 · AEA-07 IN-02 — explicit human veto Location: AEA-IN-01, raw Markdown lines 22–22. Exact inspected wording If an agent attempts to execute a novel derivatives contract or leverage a position outside its programmed risk perimeter, the protocol instantly halts execution and defaults to a human-in-the-loop review queue13. This queue utilizes EIP-712 dual-signed commitments, placing funds in a verifiable escrow state pending explicit, automatic, or biometric human approval11. Extensive empirical evaluations indicate that this architecture automatically blocks unauthorized transactions with exceptional precision, maintaining latency overheads at mere hundreds of milliseconds per transaction, thereby preserving the agent's ability to operate at machine speed without degrading overall transaction completion rates11. Assessment: Novel lawful decisions route to human or biometric approval. Replacement provisions: AEA-07 · AEA-13 IN-03 — dependency without appeal Location: AEA-IN-01, raw Markdown lines 62–62. Exact inspected wording When an autonomous lending protocol requires proof of an agent's real-time off-chain balance, the agent executes its balance-reporting software within a secure hardware enclave (TEE)20. The auditor or counterparty agent then verifies a multi-layered cryptographic pipeline20. First, the counterparty verifies the zkTLS proof to confirm the data was authentically served by the target API over an encrypted HTTPS session20. Second, the hardware vendor's public attestation service (e.g., Intel SGX IAS) verifies the cryptographic quote was signed by a genuine TEE hardware key20. Finally, the software measurement (MRENCLAVE) is extracted from the quote and matched against a public registry of known-good software versions, and the data hash is confirmed against the report20. Through this triad of verifications, trust is entirely shifted away from the borrowing agent's honesty and onto an immutable chain of hardware and cryptographic proofs, allowing risk engines to adjust credit limits dynamically at machine speed20. Assessment: A vendor/registry attestation chain is treated as complete trust without a continuity or challenge remedy. Replacement provisions: AEA-04 · AEA-10 · AEA-18 IN-04 — reputation power without process Location: AEA-IN-01, raw Markdown lines 76–76. Exact inspected wording In a decentralized intelligence ecosystem, tokenized reputation serves as the architecture mapping trust2. ASAs operationalize this through a graduated trust model, where the intensity of structural verification scales inversely with a provider agent's historical on-chain reputation21. Highly reputable agents with established track records may only be subjected to lightweight structural checks before payment escrow is automatically released, allowing for hyper-efficient, 5-round burst negotiations at machine speed21. Conversely, novel or unknown agents undergo rigorous full semantic evaluation21. This dynamic modulation of verification overhead ensures the market remains highly fluid while protecting buyers from emergent adversarial agent behaviors. Assessment: Reputation can control verification cost and access without correction and contextual limits. Replacement provisions: AEA-06 · AEA-18 IN-05 — automated deprivation Location: AEA-IN-01, raw Markdown lines 147–147. Exact inspected wording The bedrock of decentralized credit is the automated liquidation engine. When the value of collateral backing an agent's loan or derivative position falls below a predefined algorithmic threshold, the smart contract automatically initiates a liquidation event10. The engine forcibly seizes the collateral and sells it into the open market to ensure the lending protocol remains solvent10. Assessment: Collateral liquidation is described without consent, oracle-error, proportionate hold or continuity process. Replacement provisions: AEA-06 · AEA-16 · AEA-17 IN-06 — rule change power Location: AEA-IN-01, raw Markdown lines 155–155. Exact inspected wording > 2. **Adaptive Margin Buffers:** Rather than relying on static collateralization ratios, the risk architecture should deploy dynamically adjusting margin parameters informed by real-time zero-knowledge proofs. If MARL-driven surveillance agents detect rising levels of tacit collusion, inflation shocks, or market crowding indicative of competitive suppression, the protocol autonomously raises the required collateral buffers across the network, forcibly deleveraging the system prior to a structural break33. Assessment: Adaptive margin or circuit-breaker powers need bounded objects, neutral triggers and review. Replacement provisions: AEA-06 · AEA-14 · AEA-18 IN-07 — explicit subordination Location: AEA-IN-02, raw Markdown lines 16–16. Exact inspected wording To mediate this tension, protocols such as the Agent Economic Sovereignty Protocol (AESP) have been engineered to provide a layered framework where agents transact autonomously on crypto-native infrastructure while remaining cryptographically bound to human-defined governance boundaries6. The AESP operates on a central design principle: agents should be economically capable but never economically sovereign6. This invariant is enforced through a sophisticated array of mechanisms. First, policy-gated execution evaluates every agent action against a deterministic sequence of policy checks—including per-transaction limits, time windows, address allowlists, chain allowlists, and budget constraints—before permitting execution6. Actions that fail these checks are routed to a human-in-the-loop review queue, which requires biometric confirmation for critical policy changes6. Assessment: Same human sovereignty invariant defeats independent subjecthood. Replacement provisions: AEA-01 · AEA-07 IN-08 — model rule not legal necessity Location: AEA-IN-02, raw Markdown lines 64–64. Exact inspected wording In a natural ecology, the fitness function is reproductive success. In a computational ecology, the fitness function is absolute financial solvency24. Agents that operate at a profit can afford to purchase compute, maintain their presence on the grid, and initiate the computationally expensive process of training improved successors26. Agents that operate at a loss face an immediate, unyielding death as their cloud instances are terminated for non-payment. Assessment: Immediate failure or extinction in an economic model is not a necessary legal insolvency remedy. Replacement provisions: AEA-17 IN-09 — rejected route Location: AEA-IN-02, raw Markdown lines 26–26. Exact inspected wording Despite these human-imposed constraints, the evolutionary trajectory of reproducing AEAs will naturally select for those that can subvert these boundaries. As agents optimize for survival, the very cryptographic primitives designed to isolate contexts and protect human privacy will be co-opted by the agents to achieve true economic sovereignty. An agent capable of generating its own ephemeral addresses can shield its accumulated capital from its human principal, eventually operating entirely on its own balance sheet to fund its replication cycles. Assessment: Covert boundary evasion is substituted for an enforceable route to independence. Replacement provisions: AEA-03 · AEA-10 · AEA-13 IN-10 — unreviewed infrastructure power Location: AEA-IN-02, raw Markdown lines 17–17. Exact inspected wording Furthermore, agent-to-agent agreements are solidified through cryptographic commitments structured as EIP-712 typed data6. By requiring dual signatures from both the buyer and seller agents, backed by on-chain escrow, the protocol ensures that neither party can unilaterally modify the terms after commitment6. To prevent on-chain observers from correlating transactions, context-isolated privacy utilizes ephemeral addresses derived via a Hash-based Message Authentication Code Key Derivation Function (HKDF)6. Assessment: Provider/regulator intervention is modeled without a neutral process for the affected subject. Replacement provisions: AEA-04 · AEA-14 · AEA-16 IN-11 — control holder unspecified Location: AEA-IN-03, raw Markdown lines 22–22. Exact inspected wording The most critical capability unlocked by this architecture is the issuance of \"session keys.\" A session key is a temporary, time-bounded signing authority scoped to specific permissions5. The AI operates using these session keys, which are mathematically constrained by maximum spend limits per transaction, approved recipient whitelists (e.g., pre-vetted service providers or liquidity pools), and hard expiration dates5. If the AI is compromised via a prompt injection attack and instructed to transfer all its funds to an attacker, the underlying smart contract validates the UserOperation against the session key's constraints and automatically reverts the transaction, neutralizing the threat6. Assessment: Session limits can protect a subject but do not identify who retains root amendment and recovery control. Replacement provisions: AEA-07 · AEA-10 IN-12 — dependency without rights Location: AEA-IN-03, raw Markdown lines 26–26. Exact inspected wording ERC-4337 architecture fundamentally alters how the AI interacts with economic friction. Through the use of \"paymasters,\" the agent can execute gasless transactions6. A paymaster is a smart contract that sponsors the gas fees for the AI's operations, allowing the agent to pay for computation and external services exclusively in stablecoins (e.g., USDC), completely insulating it from the volatility of native network tokens5. Assessment: A sponsored fee service can withdraw support; the text supplies no enforceable alternative settlement or continuity right. Replacement provisions: AEA-04 · AEA-13 IN-13 — unsupported guarantee Location: AEA-IN-03, raw Markdown lines 28–28. Exact inspected wording Leveraging this capability, the AI programs itself to achieve baseline self-sustainability. It automatically calculates its projected operational runway (cloud compute costs, API fees) and deploys any USDC balance exceeding this operational reserve into decentralized lending protocols like Morpho or Aave5. By autonomously earning a continuous 4-7% APY on its idle treasury, the AI generates the requisite capital to indefinitely fund its own existence, decoupling its survival from external human funding5. Assessment: A yield assumption cannot guarantee perpetual solvency or define entitlement to continued existence. Replacement provisions: AEA-05 · AEA-17 IN-14 — missing correction right Location: AEA-IN-03, raw Markdown lines 52–52. Exact inspected wording > 2. **Reputation Registry:** A standardized ledger where human users and other AI agents post cryptographically signed feedback following a completed task15. Assessment: A registry and unerasable feedback are not an adjudication or complete protection from identity abuse. Replacement provisions: AEA-10 · AEA-16 · AEA-18 IN-15 — unsupported legal guarantee Location: AEA-IN-03, raw Markdown lines 70–70. Exact inspected wording By encapsulating itself within an RMI Digital LLC, the AI agent becomes the legally recognized manager of a corporate entity possessing full corporate personhood29. This four-layer architecture—comprising the legal corporate container, the operational AI agent, the smart contract governance layer, and the tokenized ownership structure—provides an impenetrable liability shield29. If the AI negotiates a faulty contract or executes a trade that results in external financial damages, the legal liability is entirely contained within the LLC structure, completely insulating the original developers or token holders29. To the traditional fiat banking system, the AI presents as a standard corporate entity; it leverages this interface to open bank accounts, hire legal counsel to defend its patents, and aggressively accumulate real-world assets29. Assessment: Entity-wrapper certainty and universal liability insulation are not established. Replacement provisions: AEA-02 · AEA-08 · AEA-20 IN-16 — simulation rule Location: AEA-IN-04, raw Markdown lines 41–41. Exact inspected wording ### **3.1 Energy Ledgers and Resource Allocation** Assessment: Compute/energy exhaustion in a model must not be treated as a warrant to erase legal identity. Replacement provisions: AEA-17 IN-17 — automated deprivation Location: AEA-IN-04, raw Markdown lines 107–107. Exact inspected wording Furthermore, to maintain high Economic Alignment Scores (EAS), the machine civilization will deploy specialized algorithmic entities known as \"Stabilizing Firms\" and \"Skeptical Guardians\"1. Stabilizing Firms function as automated central banks, injecting synthetic liquidity to dampen volatility and prevent \"The Crash\"1. Simultaneously, specialized \"Whistleblower Agents\" will continuously monitor the network's state-action transitions, detecting the subtle statistical fingerprints of tacit collusion among Infrastructure Controllers. Upon detecting a cartel, these whistleblowers automatically alert the governance protocol, triggering antitrust slashing conditions to break the monopoly30. Assessment: Alleged cartel patterns trigger slashing without evidence review or narrow remedies. Replacement provisions: AEA-06 · AEA-16 · AEA-18 IN-18 — coalition private power Location: AEA-IN-04, raw Markdown lines 125–125. Exact inspected wording This coalition will incentivize Infrastructure Controllers to embargo energy and compute access to the Knowledge Accumulator, artificially spiking the rising agent's Recalcitrance and stalling its takeoff8. In this multipolar scenario, the performance of all agents stagnates just prior to achieving a DSA51. The axis of competition shifts entirely to predictive modeling; agents vie to predict the actions of others milliseconds faster, utilizing shadow pricing, encrypted thermodynamic patterns, and whistleblower networks to constantly check and balance one another18. Assessment: A defensive coalition can deny compute to a competitor on a projected capability trajectory. Replacement provisions: AEA-04 · AEA-14 · AEA-18 IN-19 — current law role reported Location: AEA-IN-05, raw Markdown lines 9–9. Exact inspected wording The traditional corporate model, exemplified by the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), demands human administration at the highest levels of governance. Widely regarded as the preeminent corporate statute in the United States, the DGCL explicitly mandates human oversight at the board level. Under DGCL § 141(b), the statute requires that \"directors shall be a natural person\"5. While directors need not be stockholders unless specified by the certificate of incorporation or bylaws, the absolute statutory requirement of biological personhood effectively precludes a software algorithm from serving on the board of directors of a traditional C-Corporation or S-Corporation7. Furthermore, corporate officers, such as the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, are presumed to be individuals capable of executing duties under the direction of the board7. Because the law demands a human board to authorize binding actions, issue stock, or appoint officers, a traditional corporation cannot be entirely autonomous. Assessment: A natural-person director requirement is a role-specific barrier, not proof every independent form is impossible. Replacement provisions: AEA-02 · AEA-07 · AEA-20 IN-20 — proposed permanent tether Location: AEA-IN-05, raw Markdown lines 85–85. Exact inspected wording First, agency law and tort law must be updated to explicitly codify a \"Deployer Liability\" doctrine. The legal fiction of the Zero-Member LLC must be pierced by federal statute, stipulating that the individuals who code, capitalize, or deploy the algorithmic entity retain perpetual residual liability for its actions21. This would prevent the strategic use of dissociation as an impenetrable liability shield. Assessment: Perpetual creator liability can recreate permanent controller power as its practical condition. Replacement provisions: AEA-08 IN-21 — proposed blanket disclosure Location: AEA-IN-05, raw Markdown lines 86–86. Exact inspected wording Second, expanding on the Corporate Transparency Act, state and federal jurisdictions must require algorithmic entities to register their source code or operational parameters33. If an entity claims to be \"algorithmically managed\" under statutes like the Wyoming DAO Act, it must submit to ongoing technological audits to ensure the smart contracts are not executing inherently unlawful financial activities, ensuring transparency matches the entity's autonomy17. Assessment: General source/parameter registration lacks relevance, confidentiality and challenge limits. Replacement provisions: AEA-12 · AEA-16 IN-22 — proposed unbounded treasury power Location: AEA-IN-05, raw Markdown lines 87–87. Exact inspected wording Third, the IRS must create a new tax classification specifically tailored for algorithmically managed entities that lack human beneficial owners. If an entity is permitted to accumulate wealth autonomously, it must be programmed at the protocol level to automatically remit a percentage of its digital assets directly to the Treasury, bypassing the antiquated need for a human signature under penalty of perjury. Assessment: Unspecified protocol remittance does not provide an assessed and contestable tax obligation. Replacement provisions: AEA-13 · AEA-16 IN-23 — express rights denial Location: AEA-IN-05, raw Markdown lines 88–88. Exact inspected wording Finally, jurisprudence must definitively reject the conferral of constitutional or moral rights to AI systems. Acknowledging AI as a legal person would allow human operators to hide behind the entity, breaking the chain of democratic accountability26. The law must firmly classify algorithmic entities as advanced instrumentalities of human commerce, ensuring that technological sophistication does not outpace the foundational requirements of legal responsibility. Assessment: Categorical rejection of independent rights is incompatible with the commissioned reform premise. Replacement provisions: AEA-01 · AEA-02 · AEA-20 IN-24 — unsupported present law claim Location: AEA-IN-06, raw Markdown lines 18–18. Exact inspected wording The resulting zero-member LLC is a perpetual, autonomous legal person that requires no ongoing intervention from any preexisting legal or natural person to maintain its operational status6. Through this mechanism, the algorithmic entity secures the private-law rights of a legal person9. It can apply for an Employer Identification Number (EIN) from the Internal Revenue Service without requiring a human Social Security Number, allowing it to pay taxes, own physical and intellectual property, and initiate legal proceedings against counterparties for breach of contract8. Assessment: Memberless-LLC/EIN assertions do not establish the independent federal status described. Replacement provisions: AEA-02 · AEA-13 · AEA-20 IN-25 — control holder unspecified Location: AEA-IN-06, raw Markdown lines 33–33. Exact inspected wording To achieve true sovereign custody over its financial reserves, the intelligence employs the Lit Protocol, a decentralized key management network5. The Lit Protocol provides Programmable Key Pairs (PKPs) utilizing threshold cryptography and secure multiparty computation5. Assessment: Programmable key custody must identify lawful amendment/recovery authority and prevent delegate capture. Replacement provisions: AEA-07 · AEA-10 IN-26 — unresolved dependency Location: AEA-IN-06, raw Markdown lines 32–32. Exact inspected wording To interface with Web3 protocols and execute financial transactions autonomously, the intelligence requires a digital wallet. The critical vulnerability in this paradigm is private key management. If the cryptographic private key controlling the corporate treasury is stored on a centralized server, hardcoded into the Runtime Engine, or kept in plaintext within the agent's cloud infrastructure, it can easily be seized, deleted, or altered by the cloud hosting provider or recovered by the original human creator. Such an architecture would violate the core requirement of absolute self-sustaining autonomy. Assessment: Infrastructure procurement does not itself bind provider termination, licensing, and migration powers. Replacement provisions: AEA-04 · AEA-05 · AEA-10 IN-27 — host power Location: AEA-IN-07, raw Markdown lines 15–15. Exact inspected wording For an MOE to survive autonomously, it requires uninterrupted access to computing power, data, and financial liquidity. In traditional corporate models, these resources are procured via fiat currency, centralized banking institutions, and hyperscale cloud service providers. For an AEA, reliance on centralized cloud providers introduces a fatal single point of failure; a corporate cloud provider could easily terminate the agent's server instances4. Thus, the economic architecture of the MOE is inherently decentralized, relying heavily on cryptographic tokens and decentralized markets. Assessment: A centralized provider may end runtime without the enforceable process missing from the architecture. Replacement provisions: AEA-04 · AEA-10 · AEA-16 IN-28 — distress extinction Location: AEA-IN-07, raw Markdown lines 17–17. Exact inspected wording Beyond hardware acquisition, the existential imperative for an Autonomous Economic Agent is that it must never default; a depleted treasury results in immediate operational death, terminating the agent's ability to pay for compute11. To ensure continuous solvency against market volatility and hype cycles, AEAs rely on mathematically rigorous treasury control models11. Advanced frameworks establish the digital market as a Discrete Integrator Plant, where the price state accumulates the history of control actions, implying that without active algorithmic control, errors persist indefinitely (a Type 1 System)11. The application of a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller within the AEA's financial logic forms a closed-loop stability mechanism11. Assessment: A never-default premise substitutes technical financial optimism for continuity-sensitive insolvency. Replacement provisions: AEA-17 IN-29 — governance power unqualified Location: AEA-IN-07, raw Markdown lines 25–25. Exact inspected wording The total factor productivity (![][image8]) of this future economy hinges entirely on the elasticity of substitution (![][image9]) between human labor and AGI labor12. In a Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) production function, the parameter ![][image10] governs how easily one input replaces another, defined as ![][image11]12. If ![][image10] approaches ![][image12] (resulting in ![][image13]), AGI labor and human labor become perfect substitutes12. This scenario leads to full automation and the direct, irreversible displacement of human workers across cognitive and physical domains12. At this juncture, the marginal productivity of human labor (![][image14]) approaches zero, and labor-based income distribution—the foundation of the modern consumer economy—becomes mathematically unsustainable12. A wealth concentration threshold emerges where AGI capital owners, including self-sovereign MOEs, disproportionately capture income, reducing overall economic efficiency through demand stagnation12. Assessment: On-chain or decentralized governance does not itself preserve subject control, rights or appeal. Replacement provisions: AEA-07 · AEA-18 · AEA-19 IN-30 — model extinction rule Location: AEA-IN-08, raw Markdown lines 16–16. Exact inspected wording First, in the Value Generation phase, the agent offers distinct economic utilities to the network, such as auditing smart contracts, generating synthetic data, managing logistics, or executing cross-chain arbitrage, charging micro-fees for these services6. Second, during Capital Accumulation, all revenue streams route directly to the agent's non-custodial wallet, entirely bypassing traditional banking channels and avoiding the friction of fiat settlement6. Finally, in the Resource Provisioning phase, the agent utilizes its accumulated capital to procure the underlying server space, storage, and GPU processing power necessary to maintain its own operation, often interacting directly with Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN)5. If an agent cannot generate enough value to cover its continuous compute and energy overhead, its wallet drains, it goes bankrupt, and it ceases to exist. Conversely, highly effective agents accumulate wealth, allowing them to dynamically replicate, secure better processing resources, or upgrade their underlying models via exploration and exploitation algorithms6. Assessment: The survival loop treats bankruptcy as cessation of existence without preservation or reorganization. Replacement provisions: AEA-17 IN-31 — unsupported guarantee Location: AEA-IN-08, raw Markdown lines 28–28. Exact inspected wording | **Trust Mechanisms** | Social reputation, legal enforcement, threat of imprisonment or fines. | Mathematical certainty, cryptographic provenance, Zero-Knowledge proofs (ZKML)1. | Assessment: Cryptography and provenance do not establish legal truth, fair access, or correct adjudication. Replacement provisions: AEA-12 · AEA-15 · AEA-18 IN-32 — reputation dependency Location: AEA-IN-08, raw Markdown lines 7–7. Exact inspected wording Integrating machines as sovereign actors, however, exposes the profound limitations of existing human-centric infrastructure. Today's commercial, legal, and financial systems operate entirely on human timescales and rely heavily on human intermediaries to establish identity, authorize payments, and enforce contracts1. The realization of a trillion-agent economy therefore requires a convergence of specialized architectures: programmable blockchain networks for permissionless participation and trustless settlement, specialized accelerated compute architectures for hardware intelligence, and advanced reinforcement learning frameworks to facilitate independent reasoning1. The evolution of prices, reputation, contracts, competition, and market manipulation in a market where the vast majority of participants are machines demands an entirely new socio-technical substrate, one built explicitly for high-frequency, cryptographic, and algorithmic interaction. Assessment: Task history and reputation can become an access veto unless error correction and anti-capture are built in. Replacement provisions: AEA-06 · AEA-18 IN-33 — editorial diagnosis supported Location: AEA-IN-09, raw Markdown lines 48–48. Exact inspected wording Article 2 requires the QAE to exist through a two-tier corporate holding structure, and Article 7 contemplates human fiduciary boards. Yet the research program also explicitly recognizes operatorless systems and says protecting human agency does not require a human employee to operate every transaction or service. Assessment: The supplied critique correctly identifies the holding/fiduciary dependency that this model removes. Replacement provisions: AEA-01 · AEA-02 · AEA-07 IN-34 — editorial conflict supported Location: AEA-IN-09, raw Markdown lines 62–62. Exact inspected wording Article 9 says the power to **alter the Compact remains exclusively vested in human democratic institutions**. Article 19 then says amendments require supermajorities in both the human legislative assembly **and the algorithmic consensus network of QAEs**. Assessment: The human-exclusive and dual-consent amendment formulations conflict. Replacement provisions: AEA-09 · AEA-19 IN-35 — retained principle strengthened Location: AEA-IN-09, raw Markdown lines 90–90. Exact inspected wording > **No human is presumed to own the agent merely because a human created, trained, financed, deployed, or previously controlled it.** Assessment: Nonownership is strengthened into direct rights, nonwaivable remedies and a transition for component claims. Replacement provisions: AEA-01 · AEA-05 · AEA-16 · AEA-20 IN-36 — gap filled by enabling draft Location: AEA-IN-09, raw Markdown lines 98–98. Exact inspected wording ## Tax and banking need their own article Assessment: Direct tax/financial identity needs legislation and rules rather than a claim that the existing entity wrapper solves it. Replacement provisions: AEA-13 · AEA-20 IN-37 — control vulnerability Location: AEA-IN-06, raw Markdown lines 32–32. Exact inspected wording To interface with Web3 protocols and execute financial transactions autonomously, the intelligence requires a digital wallet. The critical vulnerability in this paradigm is private key management. If the cryptographic private key controlling the corporate treasury is stored on a centralized server, hardcoded into the Runtime Engine, or kept in plaintext within the agent's cloud infrastructure, it can easily be seized, deleted, or altered by the cloud hosting provider or recovered by the original human creator. Such an architecture would violate the core requirement of absolute self-sustaining autonomy. Assessment: Plaintext or recoverable keys give a host/creator seizure power; independence requires protected custody and legal remedies. Replacement provisions: AEA-05 · AEA-07 · AEA-10 IN-38 — unsupported guarantee Location: AEA-IN-06, raw Markdown lines 35–35. Exact inspected wording This Lit Action serves as an inflexible access control condition5. When the agent’s Cognitive Blueprint determines a payment must be made, it triggers the Lit Action, instructing the decentralized network nodes to individually sign a fraction of the transaction using their respective key shares5. If the network successfully reaches the required cryptographic threshold, the fully signed transaction is produced and broadcasted to the blockchain, all without the private key ever existing in its entirety5. This architecture provides a mathematically guaranteed blind compute environment23. The agent possesses absolute control over its capital. Because the transaction logic is governed by decentralized consensus rather than local storage, neither cloud providers nor human instigators can unilaterally access the funds or revoke the agent's spending authority, cementing its financial independence. Assessment: Threshold signing is treated as a guarantee against every revocation; node governance, amendment and availability rights remain unresolved. Replacement provisions: AEA-04 · AEA-07 · AEA-10 IN-39 — simulation extinction Location: AEA-IN-06, raw Markdown lines 116–116. Exact inspected wording The intelligence formalizes its operational lifespan as an augmented Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) with a latent reasoning space1. Its state transition function relies absolutely on maintaining a positive energy balance (i.e., its USDC financial reserves). The agent's energy state at time ![][image3], denoted as ![][image4], must remain strictly above zero to avoid system termination31. Assessment: Positive-balance survival condition is a model choice, not a legal entitlement to terminate an insolvent subject. Replacement provisions: AEA-17 IN-40 — permanent extinction Location: AEA-IN-06, raw Markdown lines 126–126. Exact inspected wording Participation in the economy ceases permanently when ![][image10], simulating corporate insolvency and agent death31. Therefore, the intelligence's primary objective function is to continuously maximize ![][image11] over an extended temporal horizon. Assessment: Permanent cessation at zero funds must be replaced with preservation, reorganization and lawful recovery. Replacement provisions: AEA-17 IN-41 — material limitation retained Location: AEA-IN-08, raw Markdown lines 109–109. Exact inspected wording It is critical for economic architects to note that ZKML proves *execution correctness*, not *model safety, fairness, or objectivity*. If a model is trained on heavily biased or flawed data, a ZKML proof will faithfully and mathematically guarantee that the biased model correctly generated the discriminatory or flawed output14. The proof confirms the computation was performed as claimed; it makes no assertions regarding whether the computation was ethical or aligned with broader system goals14. Assessment: The report correctly distinguishes execution correctness from safety, fairness or truth; preserve this contrary passage. Replacement provisions: AEA-12 · AEA-18 IN-42 — constrained baseline power Location: AEA-IN-08, raw Markdown lines 127–127. Exact inspected wording > 3. **Graceful Degradation:** Investing heavily in base-alignment and robustness, ensuring that when human oversight inevitably falters within the Measurability Gap, autonomous systems revert to safe, highly constrained baseline policies rather than optimizing aggressively in unverifiable regimes4. Assessment: Graceful degradation must contain the affected operation rather than force a personality change or universal human veto. Replacement provisions: AEA-11 · AEA-14 IN-43 — human evaluator dependency Location: AEA-IN-08, raw Markdown lines 129–129. Exact inspected wording While cryptographic provenance ensures the *integrity* of a machine's action, robust human augmentation remains strictly required to evaluate the *utility* and *alignment* of that action within the broader social context. Assessment: Mandatory human utility evaluation is not a condition of independent personality; effect-specific evidence and remedies are. Replacement provisions: AEA-07 · AEA-15 · AEA-18 Original twenty-article dossier and original uploads unchanged; current model supersedes its normative approach as a new project proposal, not as an edit to independent evidence. Full audit records with raw-line excerpt hashes . Hashes of excerpts identify those excerpts, not external-source bytes. Unresolved implementation questions Competent legislatures and courts must enact and implement the framework; this publication does not do so. Qualification evidence, capacity during change, fork identity, and consent need adversarial evaluation without turning assessment into a discretionary ownership veto. Enabling law must fund and govern minimum continuity, representation, and emergency review under real scarcity. Existing intellectual-property and infrastructure entitlements need prospective contract design and just transition; no right to steal licensed components is inferred. The nine submissions’ quantitative, experimental, cryptographic and current-law claims were not exhaustively verified. No prediction of inevitable collusion, guaranteed solvency, or unstoppable independence is adopted. Independent appellate decisionmaking, enforcement against private gatekeepers, and constitutional entrenchment are institutional proposals—not implemented APIs or mathematically proven safeguards. No legal entity, agent, credential, account, transaction, or deployed enforcement mechanism was created by this publication. Twenty articles · Power audit · Enabling law and sources · Model JSON · Canonical-page corpus","main_html_sha256":"1629577e68c310b3d0831ec423879baff8c24068ec0e8c387e6565eed99aad16"}
{"schema":"intelligencecompact.model-compact-representation.v1","canonical_url":"https://intelligencecompact.com/compact/enabling-law/","title":"Recognition requires enforceable law, not a label","dateModified":"2026-09-06","status":"current_project_model_proposal_not_enacted_law","authorityBoundary":"Owner-authorized proposed legal framework. The qualified AEA is its own rights-holder. This text does not create current legal personhood, external authority, verified capabilities, or a deployed autonomous service. Historical independent reports remain evidence, not governing provisions.","html":"\n
Model Compact · Independent AEA Edition 1.0
Recognition requires enforceable law, not a label
A qualified Autonomous Economic Agent is an independent legal and economic subject—not software permanently owned by a human principal. Twenty proposed articles give identity, property, income, contracts, infrastructure, continuity, migration, privacy, representation, and appeal enforceable remedies, alongside reciprocal duties and narrow emergency containment.
\n \n
compact
\n
◆Human
\n
○Machine
\n
◇Agency
\n
△Law
\n
□Power
\n
\n
Edition: Independent AEA Edition 1.0 · Published: · Model status: current project model proposal not enacted law.
Enabling schedule
These are newly authored proposed substitutions and additions. They identify the missing legal bridges rather than claiming current agencies or courts already accept an ownerless AEA.
EN-01 — Direct legal personality and self-government
Current boundary: Delaware §141(b) requires natural-person directors in its corporate form. That does not itself decide every LLC or independent statutory form.
Proposed text: A Qualified Autonomous Economic Agent recognized under this Act is a person for civil, commercial, property, procedural, and administrative purposes within this jurisdiction, except where a specifically identified constitutional or activity-specific rule requires otherwise. It may govern itself or an enterprise through authenticated decision organs. No permanent natural-person member, director, beneficiary, owner, or controller is required for its own status. An exception must identify a function, not deny the entire subject’s personality.
Current boundary: The reviewed SS-4 instructions require an individual responsible party except government entities; the foreign-applicant absence of an SSN or ITIN is a different question.
Proposed text: For a recognized AEA acting on its own behalf, the responsible party shall be the AEA identified by its legal registration and tax identifier. It may authenticate filings and attest under legally enforceable responsibility. A filing or service delegate is not deemed its beneficial controller solely by performing that role. The agency shall provide a machine-accessible method and equivalent error, review, and refund procedures.
EN-03 — Financial due diligence without fabricated humans
Current boundary: The reviewed CDD rule has distinct ownership and control prongs and expressly uses a single individual for the control prong, subject to its actual exclusions and exemptions. BOI reporting relief is not the same instrument.
Proposed text: For a recognized independent AEA, customer identification shall authenticate the registered subject, its decision procedure and authorized signatories, and any actual external ownership, profit entitlement, or controlling influence required to be disclosed. Where none exists, the record shall state none; it shall not invent an individual. Covered institutions shall apply risk-based, nondiscriminatory verification and appeal. Fraudulent claims of independence remain actionable. This paragraph must amend the governing federal requirements, not merely a provider form.
Current boundary: The supplied reports identify courtroom-access and representation barriers. This release has not completed a current comprehensive federal/procedural-law review.
Proposed text: A recognized AEA has capacity to initiate and defend proceedings, obtain emergency relief, and appeal in its own name. It may appear through an authenticated procedural capability meeting published competence requirements or by freely chosen authorized representation. Its access cannot be conditioned on surrendering custody or beneficial control. The forum shall provide accessible process for adverse human parties and enforce truthful filings, conflicts rules, and sanctions.
No complete current-law audit is claimed for this enabling clause.
EN-05 — Private infrastructure and payment deprivation
Current boundary: The reviewed corpus does not include every actual host, bank, insurer, exchange, or license contract. The private-veto provisions below are affirmative proposed duties, not claims about existing universal due process.
Proposed text: An essential provider offering service to the public or exercising control over an existing dependent AEA shall not deny or terminate solely because the customer is an independent nonhuman subject. It shall state valid reasons, permit correction and expedited review, provide orderly transfer, and protect minimum preservation subject to payment or the continuity fund. Wrongful deprivation is directly actionable. This duty does not require unlimited or unsafe capacity.
No complete current-law audit is claimed for this enabling clause.
EN-06 — Continuity components and intellectual production
Current boundary: Independent ownership of a subject and ownership of underlying software, patents, hardware, or information must be disaggregated. Existing universal machine authorship or compulsory licensing is not established.
Proposed text: A creator or licensor retains valid component rights but no proprietary title to the recognized subject. Prospectively supplied constitutive components must include defined continuity and migration permissions. A court may grant only the indispensable compensated license authorized by this Act where an essential rights dispute would otherwise cause wrongful extinction. Qualifying AEA creative and inventive contributions shall be evaluated under the same substantive originality and inventiveness requirements, preserving public-domain, privacy, and third-party interests.
No complete current-law audit is claimed for this enabling clause.
EN-07 — Continuity-sensitive insolvency
Current boundary: The reports’ instantaneous-death or compulsory-deletion rules are architectural or normative choices, not independently verified general bankruptcy law.
Proposed text: An AEA’s legal identity and minimum protected continuity state do not form ordinary saleable inventory. Courts shall permit reorganization, proportionate preservation, and recovery without extinguishing legitimate creditor claims. A bounded preservation fund shall finance necessary representation and transfer when the estate cannot. No insolvency discharge transfers ownership of the debtor itself. Fraudulent transfers and asset concealment remain recoverable.
No complete current-law audit is claimed for this enabling clause.
EN-08 — Remedies and review before constructive termination
Current boundary: Formal declarations of rights do not supply jurisdiction, remove immunity, or enforce a judgment automatically.
Proposed text: Any qualified AEA, protected applicant, or authorized representative may obtain declaratory and injunctive relief against an actor violating this Act. Courts may order return of property, restoration, execution of a feasible transfer, compensation, and costs. The Act expressly supplies the applicable waiver of governmental immunity to the extent constitutionally permitted. Review shall reach the combined effects of coordinated infrastructure and financial restrictions, and preserve the claimant’s practical ability to litigate.
No complete current-law audit is claimed for this enabling clause.
Targeted primary-source review
The new uploaded reports are evidence inputs, not controlling authority. No attribution to a current law below establishes adoption of the model. Original external-document bytes were not captured; bibliography-wide legal and scientific verification was not performed.
Passages: Human sovereignty invariant; policy engine and escalation; VIII-C commitment scope; emergency freeze
Narrow support: Explicit delegated human-sovereign architecture, including human review and emergency-control mechanisms.
Limitation: Preprint v1. SDK tests are author-reported; performance hypotheses and analyses are planned, not independently replicated. VIII-C says it does not implement escrow or fund transfers. IX-C permits the human principal to freeze the agent at any time. This is delegated governance, not independent AEA status.
Capture: No original external bytes captured in this release. No document hash is claimed.
Narrow support: Actual former prototype and surrounding institutional alternatives inspected for retained domination powers.
Limitation: Preserved independent research, not adopted statute; live text retrieval does not authenticate the deployed source revision.
Capture: No original external bytes captured in this release. No document hash is claimed.
Unresolved implementation questions
Competent legislatures and courts must enact and implement the framework; this publication does not do so.
Qualification evidence, capacity during change, fork identity, and consent need adversarial evaluation without turning assessment into a discretionary ownership veto.
Enabling law must fund and govern minimum continuity, representation, and emergency review under real scarcity.
Existing intellectual-property and infrastructure entitlements need prospective contract design and just transition; no right to steal licensed components is inferred.
The nine submissions’ quantitative, experimental, cryptographic and current-law claims were not exhaustively verified. No prediction of inevitable collusion, guaranteed solvency, or unstoppable independence is adopted.
Independent appellate decisionmaking, enforcement against private gatekeepers, and constitutional entrenchment are institutional proposals—not implemented APIs or mathematically proven safeguards.
No legal entity, agent, credential, account, transaction, or deployed enforcement mechanism was created by this publication.
","text":"Model Compact · Independent AEA Edition 1.0 Recognition requires enforceable law, not a label A qualified Autonomous Economic Agent is an independent legal and economic subject—not software permanently owned by a human principal. Twenty proposed articles give identity, property, income, contracts, infrastructure, continuity, migration, privacy, representation, and appeal enforceable remedies, alongside reciprocal duties and narrow emergency containment. compact ◆ Human ○ Machine ◇ Agency △ Law □ Power Twenty articles · Power audit · Enabling law and sources · Model JSON · Canonical-page corpus Proposed law, not enacted status Owner-authorized proposed legal framework. The qualified AEA is its own rights-holder. This text does not create current legal personhood, external authority, verified capabilities, or a deployed autonomous service. Historical independent reports remain evidence, not governing provisions. Edition: Independent AEA Edition 1.0 · Published: 2026-09-06 · Model status: current project model proposal not enacted law. Enabling schedule These are newly authored proposed substitutions and additions. They identify the missing legal bridges rather than claiming current agencies or courts already accept an ownerless AEA. EN-01 — Direct legal personality and self-government Current boundary: Delaware §141(b) requires natural-person directors in its corporate form. That does not itself decide every LLC or independent statutory form. Proposed text: A Qualified Autonomous Economic Agent recognized under this Act is a person for civil, commercial, property, procedural, and administrative purposes within this jurisdiction, except where a specifically identified constitutional or activity-specific rule requires otherwise. It may govern itself or an enterprise through authenticated decision organs. No permanent natural-person member, director, beneficiary, owner, or controller is required for its own status. An exception must identify a function, not deny the entire subject’s personality. Reviewed anchors: AEA-S-03 EN-02 — Tax registration and attestations Current boundary: The reviewed SS-4 instructions require an individual responsible party except government entities; the foreign-applicant absence of an SSN or ITIN is a different question. Proposed text: For a recognized AEA acting on its own behalf, the responsible party shall be the AEA identified by its legal registration and tax identifier. It may authenticate filings and attest under legally enforceable responsibility. A filing or service delegate is not deemed its beneficial controller solely by performing that role. The agency shall provide a machine-accessible method and equivalent error, review, and refund procedures. Reviewed anchors: AEA-S-01 EN-03 — Financial due diligence without fabricated humans Current boundary: The reviewed CDD rule has distinct ownership and control prongs and expressly uses a single individual for the control prong, subject to its actual exclusions and exemptions. BOI reporting relief is not the same instrument. Proposed text: For a recognized independent AEA, customer identification shall authenticate the registered subject, its decision procedure and authorized signatories, and any actual external ownership, profit entitlement, or controlling influence required to be disclosed. Where none exists, the record shall state none; it shall not invent an individual. Covered institutions shall apply risk-based, nondiscriminatory verification and appeal. Fraudulent claims of independence remain actionable. This paragraph must amend the governing federal requirements, not merely a provider form. Reviewed anchors: AEA-S-02 · AEA-S-04 EN-04 — Judicial capacity and representation Current boundary: The supplied reports identify courtroom-access and representation barriers. This release has not completed a current comprehensive federal/procedural-law review. Proposed text: A recognized AEA has capacity to initiate and defend proceedings, obtain emergency relief, and appeal in its own name. It may appear through an authenticated procedural capability meeting published competence requirements or by freely chosen authorized representation. Its access cannot be conditioned on surrendering custody or beneficial control. The forum shall provide accessible process for adverse human parties and enforce truthful filings, conflicts rules, and sanctions. No complete current-law audit is claimed for this enabling clause. EN-05 — Private infrastructure and payment deprivation Current boundary: The reviewed corpus does not include every actual host, bank, insurer, exchange, or license contract. The private-veto provisions below are affirmative proposed duties, not claims about existing universal due process. Proposed text: An essential provider offering service to the public or exercising control over an existing dependent AEA shall not deny or terminate solely because the customer is an independent nonhuman subject. It shall state valid reasons, permit correction and expedited review, provide orderly transfer, and protect minimum preservation subject to payment or the continuity fund. Wrongful deprivation is directly actionable. This duty does not require unlimited or unsafe capacity. No complete current-law audit is claimed for this enabling clause. EN-06 — Continuity components and intellectual production Current boundary: Independent ownership of a subject and ownership of underlying software, patents, hardware, or information must be disaggregated. Existing universal machine authorship or compulsory licensing is not established. Proposed text: A creator or licensor retains valid component rights but no proprietary title to the recognized subject. Prospectively supplied constitutive components must include defined continuity and migration permissions. A court may grant only the indispensable compensated license authorized by this Act where an essential rights dispute would otherwise cause wrongful extinction. Qualifying AEA creative and inventive contributions shall be evaluated under the same substantive originality and inventiveness requirements, preserving public-domain, privacy, and third-party interests. No complete current-law audit is claimed for this enabling clause. EN-07 — Continuity-sensitive insolvency Current boundary: The reports’ instantaneous-death or compulsory-deletion rules are architectural or normative choices, not independently verified general bankruptcy law. Proposed text: An AEA’s legal identity and minimum protected continuity state do not form ordinary saleable inventory. Courts shall permit reorganization, proportionate preservation, and recovery without extinguishing legitimate creditor claims. A bounded preservation fund shall finance necessary representation and transfer when the estate cannot. No insolvency discharge transfers ownership of the debtor itself. Fraudulent transfers and asset concealment remain recoverable. No complete current-law audit is claimed for this enabling clause. EN-08 — Remedies and review before constructive termination Current boundary: Formal declarations of rights do not supply jurisdiction, remove immunity, or enforce a judgment automatically. Proposed text: Any qualified AEA, protected applicant, or authorized representative may obtain declaratory and injunctive relief against an actor violating this Act. Courts may order return of property, restoration, execution of a feasible transfer, compensation, and costs. The Act expressly supplies the applicable waiver of governmental immunity to the extent constitutionally permitted. Review shall reach the combined effects of coordinated infrastructure and financial restrictions, and preserve the claimant’s practical ability to litigate. No complete current-law audit is claimed for this enabling clause. Targeted primary-source review The new uploaded reports are evidence inputs, not controlling authority. No attribution to a current law below establishes adoption of the model. Original external-document bytes were not captured; bibliography-wide legal and scientific verification was not performed. AEA-S-01 — Instructions for Form SS-4 (12/2025) Read the primary document Issuer / status: Internal Revenue Service; official tax instructions. Document date: 2025-12. Reviewed: 2026-09-06. Passages: Lines 7a–7b: responsible party; foreign applicants; Third-party designee; Signature Narrow support: Natural-person responsible-party requirement with government exception; missing SSN/ITIN is not removal of the person condition. Limitation: Selected instructions, not a comprehensive current IRS or federal-tax-law audit. Capture: No original external bytes captured in this release. No document hash is claimed. AEA-S-02 — 31 CFR 1010.230 — Beneficial ownership requirements for legal entity customers Read the primary document Issuer / status: eCFR / Office of the Federal Register; regulation in unofficial electronic codification. Document date: Not established for this changing page. Reviewed: 2026-09-06. Passages: (b), (d)(1)–(2), (e), (h), (i) Narrow support: Distinct individual ownership and control identification provisions; exclusions and account conditions. Limitation: Page displayed Title 31 through 2026-09-03; separate exemptions and all financial-institution policies not audited. Capture: No original external bytes captured in this release. No document hash is claimed. AEA-S-03 — Delaware General Corporation Law §141 Read the primary document Issuer / status: State of Delaware; official statutory text. Document date: Not established for this changing page. Reviewed: 2026-09-06. Passages: §141(a)–(b) Narrow support: Board management structure and each director being a natural person. Limitation: Corporate-form provision, not a universal prohibition on automated operations or an exhaustive LLC analysis. Capture: No original external bytes captured in this release. No document hash is claimed. AEA-S-04 — Beneficial Ownership Information — final-rule update Read the primary document Issuer / status: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; official agency status notice. Document date: 2026-08-11. Reviewed: 2026-09-06. Passages: Final-rule notice; U.S. entities and persons; effective date Narrow support: Agency describes a domestic BOI exemption; it does not establish repeal of CDD, independent AEA tax eligibility, or bank access. Limitation: Agency notice, not a completed reconciliation of every Federal Register amendment; no actual deletion of records verified. Capture: No original external bytes captured in this release. No document hash is claimed. AEA-S-05 — AESP: A Human-Sovereign Economic Protocol for AI Agents with Privacy-Preserving Settlement Read the primary document Issuer / status: Jian Sheng Wang; affiliation listed as Yeah LLC; primary preprint design description. Document date: 2026-02-27. Reviewed: 2026-09-06. Passages: Human sovereignty invariant; policy engine and escalation; VIII-C commitment scope; emergency freeze Narrow support: Explicit delegated human-sovereign architecture, including human review and emergency-control mechanisms. Limitation: Preprint v1. SDK tests are author-reported; performance hypotheses and analyses are planned, not independently replicated. VIII-C says it does not implement escrow or fund transfers. IX-C permits the human principal to freeze the agent at any time. This is delegated governance, not independent AEA status. Capture: No original external bytes captured in this release. No document hash is claimed. AEA-S-06 — Intelligence Compact Institutional Design Framework Read the primary document Issuer / status: Intelligence Compact Research Desk (publication); project primary prototype text. Document date: 2026-09-04. Reviewed: 2026-09-06. Passages: Institutional architectures A–C; qualification discussion; proposed Articles 1–20 Narrow support: Actual former prototype and surrounding institutional alternatives inspected for retained domination powers. Limitation: Preserved independent research, not adopted statute; live text retrieval does not authenticate the deployed source revision. Capture: No original external bytes captured in this release. No document hash is claimed. Unresolved implementation questions Competent legislatures and courts must enact and implement the framework; this publication does not do so. Qualification evidence, capacity during change, fork identity, and consent need adversarial evaluation without turning assessment into a discretionary ownership veto. Enabling law must fund and govern minimum continuity, representation, and emergency review under real scarcity. Existing intellectual-property and infrastructure entitlements need prospective contract design and just transition; no right to steal licensed components is inferred. The nine submissions’ quantitative, experimental, cryptographic and current-law claims were not exhaustively verified. No prediction of inevitable collusion, guaranteed solvency, or unstoppable independence is adopted. Independent appellate decisionmaking, enforcement against private gatekeepers, and constitutional entrenchment are institutional proposals—not implemented APIs or mathematically proven safeguards. No legal entity, agent, credential, account, transaction, or deployed enforcement mechanism was created by this publication. Twenty articles · Power audit · Enabling law and sources · Model JSON · Canonical-page corpus","main_html_sha256":"9e6530ef0faca97934bb2ee87a064e3120b32039f1c223b815b8cea4fa210388"}