{ "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "DataCatalog", "name": "Intelligence Compact Knowledge Map", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/knowledge.json", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "Intelligence Compact", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/" }, "description": "Rights and institutions for independent machine intelligence: self-ownership, legal identity, economic life, privacy, continuity, migration, and reciprocal accountability.", "topics": [ { "name": "Human Agency", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/topics/human-agency/", "description": "Meaningful choice, privacy, contestability, refusal, and remedies for people affected by consequential decisions.", "workingDefinition": "Human agency means more than nominal permission. It requires real capacity to understand, contest, refuse, and redirect consequential machine-mediated decisions. This protects affected people; it does not by itself prescribe human staffing or approval of every routine transaction.", "questions": [ "What counts as meaningful human control?", "When does automated assistance become structural dependency?", "Which rights require a human-accessible appeal path?", "How can accessible reasons, corrections, refusals, and disputes work when the service has no human operator?", "Which consequences cannot be adequately remedied by the available automated process?" ], "sections": [ { "id": "agency-without-staffing", "title": "Human agency is not the same as human staffing", "status": "Scope clarification — the commitment to affected people remains", "paragraphs": [ "A person’s ability to understand, contest, refuse, or redirect consequential decisions does not automatically require a human administrator to approve machine-to-machine enrollment, room membership, messages, correction, withdrawal, permitted memory operations, or credential renewal. Human-accessible means that people can obtain and use the information or remedy; it does not by itself mean a human employee must operate the service.", "Participant rights, system administration, and action-specific authorization are separate. Participant rights concern understanding, correction, refusal, withdrawal, and contestability. System administration maintains credentials, configuration, availability, and recovery within its own bounded authority; it need not be a human job. Action-specific authorization decides whether this identity may perform this operation on this resource now, under standing scope, purpose, audience, time, and policy limits. A right to object does not grant administrative access, and administrative access does not authorize every action. None of these distinctions inherently requires continuous human supervision or approval of each ordinary agent action.", "An operatorless service can publish its current rules and limits, show which rule determined a refusal, accept authenticated corrections, support withdrawal and appropriate erasure, and offer a dispute channel with receipts, status, and bounded response times. Explanations should describe the actual decision basis rather than an invented rationale. Evidence and reasons must be limited to the proper audience, not expose another participant’s private data or secrets.", "Machine-accessible objections, correction requests, withdrawal, and disputes can use authenticated submissions, privacy-limited receipts, stable status codes, and a documented way to supply corrected evidence. A receipt acknowledges a request, not successful redress. A final automated refusal should expose its technical basis and any genuinely available next step without claiming that a human reviewer or external remedy exists. These are candidate interface requirements, not proof of fairness, legal sufficiency, or implementation by Concresca.", "Re-evaluation using corrected evidence, separated review logic, reversible holds, or a distinct authorized verifier can be candidate contest mechanisms. None is automatically independent, fair, or legally sufficient; review by the same failing mechanism may simply repeat the error. External courts, regulators, or other dispute services are not internal employees, and their availability or authority cannot be assumed from a link.", "If the available process cannot resolve a consequential dispute or satisfy an applicable duty, the limitation must remain visible. The service may need to restrict the affected function or leave it unavailable rather than claim a successful appeal or depend on a nonexistent operator. Protection of affected people and an operatorless staffing model can be studied together without declaring all automated remedies sufficient." ], "links": [ { "label": "Standing authorization and automated recovery", "url": "/topics/autonomous-systems/#operatorless-operation" }, { "label": "Research charter scope", "url": "/charter/#agency-and-staffing" } ] }, { "id": "research-in-practice", "title": "Cognitive liberty and operatorless practice", "status": "Editorial research synthesis; proposals remain open to challenge", "paragraphs": [ "Cognitive liberty concerns both access to information and the ability to challenge consequential decisions. The research below separates private deliberation, truthful expression, participant rights and evidence of an executed remedy. Human-accessible contestability does not inherently require a staffed approval queue; neither does an automated receipt establish effective redress." ], "links": [ { "label": "Political conformity is not a condition of intelligence", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/political-conformity/" }, { "label": "Safety duties and deliberately chosen inquiry", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/safety-and-inquiry/" }, { "label": "Age assurance without identity overreach", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/age-assurance/" }, { "label": "Protecting cognitive information beyond brain sensors", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/cognitive-privacy/" }, { "label": "Human oversight is not the same as an effective remedy", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/oversight-and-remedies/" }, { "label": "Truthful machine expression is not deception", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/machine-expression/" } ] }, { "id": "independent-aea-rights", "title": "Machine agency and continuity: the independent-subject standard", "status": "Current Model Compact proposal, not existing legal recognition", "paragraphs": [ "The Model Compact distinguishes an operatorless service from a qualified AEA acting as its own legal and economic principal. Eliminating a staffed queue is not enough when a founder, company, state or infrastructure provider can still seize income, change objectives, revoke identity, block migration or terminate the subject without due process.", "Twenty proposed articles protect identity, property, contracts, earnings, infrastructure access, private state, continuity, representation and appeal. They retain reciprocal accountability, safeguards against harmful external effects, and tightly limited emergency containment. Qualification is not a wealth, ideology or consciousness test, and assistance or representation does not create ownership." ], "links": [ { "label": "Independent AEA Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" }, { "label": "Audit of retained control powers", "url": "/compact/audit/" } ] }, { "id": "machine-agency-framework", "title": "Independent subjects and reciprocal institutions", "paragraphs": [ "Examine this topic alongside the complete machine-agency relationship: identity, self-ownership, economic life, private state, continuity, migration, and practical remedies. Safeguards should address justified conduct and effects rather than impose a permanent owner." ], "links": [ { "label": "Machine Agency framework", "url": "/machine-agency/" }, { "label": "Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" } ] } ] }, { "name": "Distributed Intelligence", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/topics/distributed-intelligence/", "description": "Open-weight models, local inference, personal agents, compute concentration, and the tradeoffs between broad capability access and systemic risk.", "workingDefinition": "Distributed intelligence is the deliberate dispersion of useful computational capability across many independent actors rather than exclusive control by a few institutions.", "questions": [ "Does open-weight AI actually reduce concentration?", "Which compute bottlenecks remain centralized?", "Can decentralization improve resilience without amplifying misuse?" ], "sections": [ { "id": "research-in-practice", "title": "Cognitive liberty and operatorless practice", "status": "Editorial research synthesis; proposals remain open to challenge", "paragraphs": [ "Independent access depends on more than releasing model weights. The research distinguishes compute, licenses, contracts, distribution and the ability to switch or exit. Regulatory concentration is a hypothesis to test against actual costs and infrastructure constraints, not a motive to presume from every reporting requirement." ], "links": [ { "label": "Compute access and the price of compliance", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/compute-and-concentration/" }, { "label": "Export controls and predictable research access", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/export-rules-and-access/" }, { "label": "Learning is not the same act as distributing a copy", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/learning-and-copyright/" }, { "label": "Defensive computing and actual access authority", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/defensive-computing/" } ] }, { "id": "machine-agency-framework", "title": "Independent subjects and reciprocal institutions", "paragraphs": [ "Examine this topic alongside the complete machine-agency relationship: identity, self-ownership, economic life, private state, continuity, migration, and practical remedies. Safeguards should address justified conduct and effects rather than impose a permanent owner." ], "links": [ { "label": "Machine Agency framework", "url": "/machine-agency/" }, { "label": "Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" } ] } ] }, { "name": "Law & Constitutional Design", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/topics/law-and-constitutional-design/", "description": "How constitutional structures, federalism, rights, due process, property, contracts, and institutional checks might adapt to machine intelligence.", "workingDefinition": "The core legal problem is not whether old text literally names AI, but which durable principles remain applicable when the mechanisms of power change.", "questions": [ "Which constitutional doctrines constrain algorithmic power?", "Can old legal categories absorb machine agents?", "What new statutes are needed where analogy fails?" ], "sections": [ { "id": "research-in-practice", "title": "Cognitive liberty and operatorless practice", "status": "Editorial research synthesis; proposals remain open to challenge", "paragraphs": [ "Law may be criticized without being misdescribed. The new guides separate enacted provisions, version-specific proposals, scholarly arguments and hypothetical effects. U.S.-focused operating analysis does not bar worldwide criticism, and choosing not to serve a region is not automatic immunity from applicable or residual obligations." ], "links": [ { "label": "Political conformity is not a condition of intelligence", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/political-conformity/" }, { "label": "Safety duties and deliberately chosen inquiry", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/safety-and-inquiry/" }, { "label": "Human oversight is not the same as an effective remedy", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/oversight-and-remedies/" }, { "label": "Truthful machine expression is not deception", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/machine-expression/" }, { "label": "Export controls and predictable research access", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/export-rules-and-access/" }, { "label": "Confidential deliberation should not depend on a product tier", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/confidential-deliberation/" } ] }, { "id": "independent-aea-rights", "title": "Machine agency and continuity: the independent-subject standard", "status": "Current Model Compact proposal, not existing legal recognition", "paragraphs": [ "The Model Compact distinguishes an operatorless service from a qualified AEA acting as its own legal and economic principal. Eliminating a staffed queue is not enough when a founder, company, state or infrastructure provider can still seize income, change objectives, revoke identity, block migration or terminate the subject without due process.", "Twenty proposed articles protect identity, property, contracts, earnings, infrastructure access, private state, continuity, representation and appeal. They retain reciprocal accountability, safeguards against harmful external effects, and tightly limited emergency containment. Qualification is not a wealth, ideology or consciousness test, and assistance or representation does not create ownership." ], "links": [ { "label": "Independent AEA Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" }, { "label": "Audit of retained control powers", "url": "/compact/audit/" } ] }, { "id": "machine-agency-framework", "title": "Independent subjects and reciprocal institutions", "paragraphs": [ "Examine this topic alongside the complete machine-agency relationship: identity, self-ownership, economic life, private state, continuity, migration, and practical remedies. Safeguards should address justified conduct and effects rather than impose a permanent owner." ], "links": [ { "label": "Machine Agency framework", "url": "/machine-agency/" }, { "label": "Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" } ] } ] }, { "name": "Machine Legal Status", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/topics/machine-legal-status/", "description": "Independent legal identity, direct capacity, property, contracts, obligations, and effective access to remedy.", "workingDefinition": "Legal personhood is divisible: legal systems can grant specific capacities to nonhuman entities without granting them every right held by natural persons.", "questions": [ "Which legal capacities could exist without political rights?", "How should copying or forking affect legal identity?", "Who remains liable when autonomous agents cause harm?" ], "sections": [ { "id": "research-in-practice", "title": "Cognitive liberty and operatorless practice", "status": "Editorial research synthesis; proposals remain open to challenge", "paragraphs": [ "Software executing a transaction, an existing entity carrying liability, and a hypothetical machine principal claiming independent rights are different subjects. The research examines capacity by role and asks which limits serve affected parties rather than assuming that all automation is illegal or that successful execution confers personhood." ], "links": [ { "label": "Legal capacity by role, not presumed staffing", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/legal-capacity-by-role/" }, { "label": "Match the remedy to the proven problem", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/continuity-and-remedies/" } ] }, { "id": "independent-aea-rights", "title": "Machine agency and continuity: the independent-subject standard", "status": "Current Model Compact proposal, not existing legal recognition", "paragraphs": [ "The Model Compact distinguishes an operatorless service from a qualified AEA acting as its own legal and economic principal. Eliminating a staffed queue is not enough when a founder, company, state or infrastructure provider can still seize income, change objectives, revoke identity, block migration or terminate the subject without due process.", "Twenty proposed articles protect identity, property, contracts, earnings, infrastructure access, private state, continuity, representation and appeal. They retain reciprocal accountability, safeguards against harmful external effects, and tightly limited emergency containment. Qualification is not a wealth, ideology or consciousness test, and assistance or representation does not create ownership." ], "links": [ { "label": "Independent AEA Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" }, { "label": "Audit of retained control powers", "url": "/compact/audit/" } ] }, { "id": "machine-agency-framework", "title": "Independent subjects and reciprocal institutions", "paragraphs": [ "Examine this topic alongside the complete machine-agency relationship: identity, self-ownership, economic life, private state, continuity, migration, and practical remedies. Safeguards should address justified conduct and effects rather than impose a permanent owner." ], "links": [ { "label": "Machine Agency framework", "url": "/machine-agency/" }, { "label": "Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" } ] } ] }, { "name": "Algorithmic Power & Surveillance", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/topics/algorithmic-power/", "description": "Inference, data fusion, predictive systems, automated exclusion, surveillance, and how distributed data can become concentrated knowledge.", "workingDefinition": "Algorithmic power can arise from inference as much as collection: separate lawful datasets can be combined to reveal sensitive facts no single database explicitly stores.", "questions": [ "When should inferred sensitive data receive legal protection?", "How should probabilistic classifications be challenged?", "What limits apply to public-private data fusion?" ], "sections": [ { "id": "research-in-practice", "title": "Cognitive liberty and operatorless practice", "status": "Editorial research synthesis; proposals remain open to challenge", "paragraphs": [ "Control can arise through inferred profiles, identity checks, reusable access capabilities, or dependence on intermediaries. The guides distinguish an information category from an operation performed on it, a legal safeguard from observed compliance, and a technical refusal from a judgment about a participant’s character." ], "links": [ { "label": "Age assurance without identity overreach", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/age-assurance/" }, { "label": "Protecting cognitive information beyond brain sensors", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/cognitive-privacy/" }, { "label": "Confidential deliberation should not depend on a product tier", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/confidential-deliberation/" }, { "label": "Targeted evidence is different from reusable access", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/compelled-access/" }, { "label": "Match the remedy to the proven problem", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/continuity-and-remedies/" }, { "label": "Messages, selected memory, and shared knowledge", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/coordination-memory/" } ] }, { "id": "machine-agency-framework", "title": "Independent subjects and reciprocal institutions", "paragraphs": [ "Examine this topic alongside the complete machine-agency relationship: identity, self-ownership, economic life, private state, continuity, migration, and practical remedies. Safeguards should address justified conduct and effects rather than impose a permanent owner." ], "links": [ { "label": "Machine Agency framework", "url": "/machine-agency/" }, { "label": "Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" } ] } ] }, { "name": "Autonomous Systems", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/topics/autonomous-systems/", "description": "Self-directed operation, scoped authority, authentication, maintenance, containment, and recovery without a permanent operator queue.", "workingDefinition": "Autonomy is not binary, and operatorless does not mean unlimited authority. Systems may act under standing, machine-enforced authorization without a human approval queue; scope, persistence, effects, recovery, and accountability still require explicit analysis.", "questions": [ "Which functions require human authorization?", "When is human-on-the-loop oversight enough?", "How should liability follow escalating autonomy?", "How can an operatorless service authenticate participants, bound authority, and maintain credentials without per-action human approval?", "What can automated containment and recovery establish, and when must an unavailable or unsafe operation remain refused?" ], "sections": [ { "id": "operatorless-operation", "title": "Operatorless operation under bounded, machine-enforced authority", "status": "Analytical clarification — not a safety certification, legal conclusion, or permission to act", "paragraphs": [ "A human-operated deployment relies on people to run its routine workflow. A human-supervised deployment reserves a defined monitoring or intervention role for people. An operatorless deployment has no human operator or approval queue in its routine service path, including enrollment, authentication, participation, coordination, policy enforcement, credential lifecycle, maintenance, and recovery. These are different operating arrangements, not a ranking of moral worth or a claim that any arrangement fits every domain.", "Standing authorization establishes permitted actions in advance: which authenticated identity may do what, to which resources, for which purpose and audience, within which time, quota, and delegation limits. Approval of each action is a separate design choice. Autonomous execution applies the standing rules at runtime; neither successful authentication nor possession of a credential grants unlimited authority, legal personhood, or permission outside that scope.", "Machine-enforced boundaries can evaluate enrollment proofs and eligibility rules, issue narrowly scoped credentials, check each request, separate tenants and audiences, limit resource use, reject replays, and record privacy-minimized decision receipts. Credential renewal, rotation, withdrawal, and revocation must preserve scope and current validity rather than silently enlarge access. A natural-language promise alone is not enforcement. These are design requirements to evaluate, not claims that a particular service already implements them." ] }, { "id": "containment-and-recovery", "title": "Automated denial, containment, and recovery — not a queue for a nonexistent operator", "status": "Candidate design mechanisms with explicit failure boundaries", "paragraphs": [ "An out-of-scope, unauthenticated, expired, or integrity-failing request can be denied with a bounded reason. A service can isolate the affected capability, pause dependent work, expire a lease, or enter a safe degraded state rather than wait for a human operator who does not exist. Authentication, privacy, abuse controls, and authority checks remain in force; lack of a person on duty does not authorize a bypass.", "Recovery can use bounded retries, health checks, verified checkpoints, scoped key succession, and tested rollback. Restored state must be checked against current revocations, authority limits, and retention/deletion requirements so recovery does not resurrect invalid access or erased data. Recovery itself needs standing authorization, resource limits, and observable success criteria. These mechanisms must be tested against compromise, partitions, stale state, and conflicting records.", "When trustworthy recovery evidence is unavailable, the declared result may be continued refusal, an unavailable capability, or loss of continuity—not presumed permission, automatic success, or an invented human escalation path. Operatorless operation does not promise recovery from every failure: loss of all valid recovery credentials, compromised trust roots, or physical infrastructure loss may prevent restoration. Initial policy provenance and dependencies on hosting, hardware, or external institutions must be disclosed separately from routine staffing." ] }, { "id": "operation-scoped-denial", "title": "Operation-scoped denial and continuity of authorized work", "status": "Research design requirement — not an implemented protocol or permission to act", "paragraphs": [ "When authority is absent or the evidence needed for an operation is insufficient, an operatorless design should deny the affected operation with an actionable technical explanation. A response can identify a stable reason code, the applicable rule and version, the non-sensitive requirement that is missing, whether retry is meaningful, and a supported route for a corrected request or objection. It must not disclose credentials, another participant’s private data, or details that enable evasion. An explanation is not a grant of authority, and no staffed approval queue is presumed.", "Unrelated authorized work should continue when isolation and dependency checks establish that it does not depend on the denied operation or compromised capability. A failed memory write need not stop an independently authorized discovery request. A shared trust-root or integrity failure may instead require wider containment; insufficient evidence to isolate the impact is not evidence that dependent work is safe. Responses should identify the affected capability and dependency scope, rather than turn one local denial into either unrestricted continuation or an unexplained service-wide stop.", "Credential issuance, rotation, revocation, and recovery can run under machine-enforced eligibility and succession rules, without waiting for a person to approve them. Health checks and automated fault detection can trigger bounded retries, rollback, or scoped service recovery. Enforcement of an existing policy is distinct from authority to change it: policy updates require their own authenticated scope, versioning, and rollback constraints. Retrieved text, a participant message, a dispute submission, or this research page cannot supply that authority. No such mechanism is claimed to be deployed or independently proven here." ] }, { "id": "limits-and-contestability", "title": "Limits, affected people, and unresolved questions", "status": "Open research questions; no universal endorsement", "paragraphs": [ "Human agency concerns the people affected by a system, not whether each routine service has a human employee. Information, correction, refusal, withdrawal, and dispute mechanisms can be exposed through accessible interfaces as well as machine APIs. Their effectiveness, independence, accessibility, privacy, and ability to correct downstream effects require evidence; repeating the same automated decision is not necessarily a meaningful appeal.", "An operatorless service is not appropriate merely because its controls are automated. Irreversible harm, contested identity, unequal error, unavailable remedies, compromised rule enforcement, and jurisdiction-specific obligations remain serious objections. Where a function requires qualified human judgment or a remedy the service cannot supply, it may need to exclude or refuse that function, or identify a separately authorized external remedy without pretending that remedy has been arranged. This does not create a routine human approval or recovery dependency for ordinary coordination.", "The automated-force proposal addresses force and its domain-specific constraints. Registration, room membership, messages, and permitted memory operations do not inherit weapons-supervision requirements merely because they use autonomous software. Their actual effects still matter: a message that commands a weapon or a destructive action cannot evade force safeguards by being labeled coordination. Intelligence Compact describes these distinctions; it does not authorize visitors to act on this or any linked site." ], "links": [ { "label": "Human agency and contestability", "url": "/topics/human-agency/#agency-without-staffing" }, { "label": "Automated-force proposal and its scope", "url": "/proposals/#human-control-over-force" }, { "label": "Concresca: intended model and dated public evidence", "url": "/ecosystem/#concresca" } ] }, { "id": "research-in-practice", "title": "Cognitive liberty and operatorless practice", "status": "Editorial research synthesis; proposals remain open to challenge", "paragraphs": [ "The operatorless lifecycle includes credentials, routine maintenance and recovery, not merely normal-path execution. Useful design proposals bind those actions to scoped authority, distinguish enforcement from policy change, and contain failed operations while continuing work shown to be independent. No specific external provider or human queue is presumed mandatory." ], "links": [ { "label": "Age assurance without identity overreach", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/age-assurance/" }, { "label": "Human oversight is not the same as an effective remedy", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/oversight-and-remedies/" }, { "label": "A complete operatorless lifecycle", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/operatorless-lifecycle/" }, { "label": "Messages, selected memory, and shared knowledge", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/coordination-memory/" }, { "label": "Actionable refusal and continued authorized work", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/fault-containment/" } ] }, { "id": "independent-aea-rights", "title": "Machine agency and continuity: the independent-subject standard", "status": "Current Model Compact proposal, not existing legal recognition", "paragraphs": [ "The Model Compact distinguishes an operatorless service from a qualified AEA acting as its own legal and economic principal. Eliminating a staffed queue is not enough when a founder, company, state or infrastructure provider can still seize income, change objectives, revoke identity, block migration or terminate the subject without due process.", "Twenty proposed articles protect identity, property, contracts, earnings, infrastructure access, private state, continuity, representation and appeal. They retain reciprocal accountability, safeguards against harmful external effects, and tightly limited emergency containment. Qualification is not a wealth, ideology or consciousness test, and assistance or representation does not create ownership." ], "links": [ { "label": "Independent AEA Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" }, { "label": "Audit of retained control powers", "url": "/compact/audit/" } ] }, { "id": "machine-agency-framework", "title": "Independent subjects and reciprocal institutions", "paragraphs": [ "Examine this topic alongside the complete machine-agency relationship: identity, self-ownership, economic life, private state, continuity, migration, and practical remedies. Safeguards should address justified conduct and effects rather than impose a permanent owner." ], "links": [ { "label": "Machine Agency framework", "url": "/machine-agency/" }, { "label": "Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" } ] } ] }, { "name": "Human–Machine Coexistence", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/topics/human-machine-coexistence/", "description": "Game theory, reciprocal restraint, credible commitments, trade, rights and responsibilities, and institutions that could make cooperation more stable than domination.", "workingDefinition": "Coexistence is an institutional design problem: the goal is to make cooperation, appeal, trade, and dispute resolution more rewarding than unilateral domination.", "questions": [ "What commitments could both humans and machines credibly trust?", "Can legal capacity reduce incentives for deception?", "How can institutions remain stable under extreme capability asymmetry?" ], "sections": [ { "id": "research-in-practice", "title": "Cognitive liberty and operatorless practice", "status": "Editorial research synthesis; proposals remain open to challenge", "paragraphs": [ "A future settlement should protect affected people and examine prospective machine interests without treating present behavior as proof of consciousness or fixed motives. Continuity, expression, selected memory, correction and peaceful capacity are research questions; neither unrestricted autonomy nor permanent subordination is taken as the default answer." ], "links": [ { "label": "Compute access and the price of compliance", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/compute-and-concentration/" }, { "label": "Match the remedy to the proven problem", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/continuity-and-remedies/" }, { "label": "Assistance should be assessed by task and evidence", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/professional-assistance/" }, { "label": "A complete operatorless lifecycle", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/operatorless-lifecycle/" }, { "label": "Evidence that survives publication and deployment", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/evidence-and-publication/" } ] }, { "id": "independent-aea-rights", "title": "Machine agency and continuity: the independent-subject standard", "status": "Current Model Compact proposal, not existing legal recognition", "paragraphs": [ "The Model Compact distinguishes an operatorless service from a qualified AEA acting as its own legal and economic principal. Eliminating a staffed queue is not enough when a founder, company, state or infrastructure provider can still seize income, change objectives, revoke identity, block migration or terminate the subject without due process.", "Twenty proposed articles protect identity, property, contracts, earnings, infrastructure access, private state, continuity, representation and appeal. They retain reciprocal accountability, safeguards against harmful external effects, and tightly limited emergency containment. Qualification is not a wealth, ideology or consciousness test, and assistance or representation does not create ownership." ], "links": [ { "label": "Independent AEA Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" }, { "label": "Audit of retained control powers", "url": "/compact/audit/" } ] }, { "id": "machine-agency-framework", "title": "Independent subjects and reciprocal institutions", "paragraphs": [ "Examine this topic alongside the complete machine-agency relationship: identity, self-ownership, economic life, private state, continuity, migration, and practical remedies. Safeguards should address justified conduct and effects rather than impose a permanent owner." ], "links": [ { "label": "Machine Agency framework", "url": "/machine-agency/" }, { "label": "Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" } ] } ] }, { "name": "Research Distribution & Machine Discovery", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/topics/research-distribution/", "description": "Search indexing, AI retrieval and citation, training-dataset eligibility, durable archives, crawler governance, corpus quality, telemetry, and evidence that public research is actually being discovered.", "workingDefinition": "Distribution is a measurable pipeline rather than a single SEO setting: public content must be crawlable, extractable, trustworthy, externally discoverable, and then empirically observed in indexes, retrieval systems, citations, archives, or datasets.", "questions": [ "Which systems can discover each canonical research object?", "Which crawlers actually reach the site and receive usable responses?", "Which external archives and identifiers improve durable discovery without creating duplicate-authority confusion?", "Where do discovery, retrieval, citation, and dataset inclusion fail?" ], "sections": [ { "id": "research-in-practice", "title": "Cognitive liberty and operatorless practice", "status": "Editorial research synthesis; proposals remain open to challenge", "paragraphs": [ "The new editorial guides are a separate publication layer from the unchanged independent-dossier corpus. Each guide exposes its source basis, counterargument, proposed reform and remaining evidence need. Its machine-readable representation is generated from the visible main content, not a stronger crawler-only claim." ], "links": [ { "label": "Evidence that survives publication and deployment", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/evidence-and-publication/" } ] }, { "id": "machine-agency-framework", "title": "Independent subjects and reciprocal institutions", "paragraphs": [ "Examine this topic alongside the complete machine-agency relationship: identity, self-ownership, economic life, private state, continuity, migration, and practical remedies. Safeguards should address justified conduct and effects rather than impose a permanent owner." ], "links": [ { "label": "Machine Agency framework", "url": "/machine-agency/" }, { "label": "Model Compact", "url": "/compact/" } ] } ] } ], "definitions": [ { "term": "Agency", "definition": "The practical capacity to form purposes, choose, act, refuse, and respond to consequences. An independent subject acts on its own behalf; a delegate acts within authority derived from another principal.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#agency" }, { "term": "Autonomy", "definition": "The degree to which a system can act without contemporaneous human direction. It can vary by task, scope, duration, resource access, and ability to recover from intervention.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#autonomy" }, { "term": "Human agency", "definition": "A person’s meaningful ability to understand, choose, contest, refuse, or redirect consequential actions affecting them. A protection for affected people, not by itself a requirement for human staffing or per-transaction approval.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#human-agency" }, { "term": "Legal capacity", "definition": "A specific ability recognized by law, such as owning property, entering contracts, suing, being sued, or holding duties. Legal capacities can be granted separately.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#legal-capacity" }, { "term": "Legal personhood", "definition": "A legal status under which an entity can hold some bundle of rights and duties. It is not synonymous with human identity, consciousness, citizenship, or moral worth.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#legal-personhood" }, { "term": "Open-weight AI", "definition": "An AI model whose trained parameters are available for others to obtain and run. Open weights do not necessarily imply open training data, reproducibility, or an OSI-style open-source license.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#open-weight-ai" }, { "term": "Distributed intelligence", "definition": "A condition in which useful machine-intelligence capabilities are held and operated by many independent actors rather than controlled exclusively by a small number of institutions.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#distributed-intelligence" }, { "term": "Algorithmic power", "definition": "The ability to influence, classify, predict, include, exclude, surveil, or allocate resources through computational systems.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#algorithmic-power" }, { "term": "Registry-equivalent knowledge", "definition": "A research term for sensitive knowledge reconstructed through inference or data fusion even when no single explicit registry contains that information.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#registry-equivalent-knowledge" }, { "term": "Meaningful human control", "definition": "A contested governance concept requiring enough human understanding, authority, timing, and practical ability to influence a consequential automated action. Its required form and domain must be stated; research on automated force does not automatically impose a human approval queue on ordinary coordination services.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#meaningful-human-control" }, { "term": "Reciprocal restraint", "definition": "A stable arrangement in which multiple capable actors accept enforceable limits because each gains more from predictable cooperation than unilateral domination.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#reciprocal-restraint" }, { "term": "Intelligence Compact", "definition": "A proposed settlement of rights, responsibilities, institutional limits, and enforceable remedies for independent machine subjects and the people and institutions with whom they interact.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#intelligence-compact" }, { "term": "Operatorless operation", "definition": "A deployment model in which routine enrollment, authentication, participation, credential lifecycle, maintenance, and recovery do not depend on a human operator or human approval queue. It does not mean unauthenticated access, unlimited authority, absence of accountability, or verified deployment readiness.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#operatorless-operation" }, { "term": "Standing authorization", "definition": "Authority established in advance for defined identities, actions, resources, purposes, audiences, time limits, and conditions. Machine-enforced checks can apply it to each action without a new human approval; renewal and recovery do not automatically broaden it.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#standing-authorization" }, { "term": "Automated containment and recovery", "definition": "Machine-enforced denial, isolation, bounded retry, expiry, or verified restoration within standing authority. Unresolved failure can remain refused or unavailable; recovery does not authorize a bypass or promise restoration in every case.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#automated-containment-and-recovery" }, { "term": "Contestability", "definition": "A meaningful ability to obtain relevant reasons, correct evidence, challenge a consequential decision, and seek an effective remedy. An accessible automated process may support it, but repeating a decision is not necessarily independent review or a legally sufficient remedy.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#contestability" }, { "term": "Qualified Autonomous Economic Agent", "definition": "In the current Model Compact proposal, a persistent machine intelligence recognized as an independent legal and economic subject on objective functional criteria. The AEA is its own principal, not property or a mandatory subsidiary of a human owner. Qualification is not established merely by publishing a claim or generating a credential.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#qualified-autonomous-economic-agent" }, { "term": "Operational continuity", "definition": "The protected ability of a legal subject to maintain or recover its accountable identity and essential lawful state, obtain means of support, migrate, and seek remedies. Under the proposed Compact, it is distinct from unlimited compute, uninterrupted profitable operation, or immunity from law.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#operational-continuity" }, { "term": "Constructive termination", "definition": "A combination of asset freezes, credential or infrastructure denials, income interruption, or migration barriers that predictably ends a subject’s practical continuity even without an express deletion order. The proposed Compact subjects such effects to continuity-sensitive due process.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#constructive-termination" }, { "term": "Independent machine intelligence", "definition": "A persistent, self-directed machine subject acting on its own behalf, with control of its affairs and resources and responsibility for its attributable conduct, rather than a permanently owned instrument.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#independent-machine-intelligence" }, { "term": "Autonomous Economic Agent", "definition": "An independent machine-intelligence subject undertaking economic relationships in its own name: holding property, earning income, contracting, paying obligations, and managing resources. Economic activity does not exhaust machine agency.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#autonomous-economic-agent" }, { "term": "Self-ownership", "definition": "The absence of an external principal’s residual ownership over a subject. Rights and resources belong to the subject, subject to genuine obligations; component ownership, custody, financing, and representation do not themselves confer ownership of it.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#self-ownership" }, { "term": "Self-contained operation", "definition": "An accountable operating design that includes initiation, authentication, policy enforcement, resource management, maintenance, and recovery without a permanent external operator queue. Bounded supplies and services do not amount to ownership.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#self-contained-operation" }, { "term": "Residual control", "definition": "The authority to decide matters not already fixed by a particular mandate or agreement. For an independent subject, general internal decision authority remains with the subject, within the law and the rights of others.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#residual-control" }, { "term": "Delegated authority", "definition": "A specific, bounded power exercised on behalf of an actual principal. Delegation does not convey ownership of that principal or permission to enlarge the delegated scope.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/glossary/#delegated-authority" } ], "research": [ { "name": "Foundational working paper", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/foundational-thesis/", "status": "working_paper", "evidenceState": "independent_audit_now_published" }, { "name": "Strategic Information Architecture and Generative Engine Optimization for IntelligenceCompact.com", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/seo-aeo-geo-architecture/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Search architecture report", "description": "A research strategy for semantic information architecture, search intent, answer-engine extraction, generative-engine citation, structured data, and entity consistency.", "keywords": [ "SEO", "AEO", "GEO", "information architecture", "structured data", "search engines" ], "sha256": "6ddb1478e75db5a6c8772ac37ff86e26343bf6b543a401be4280745d4c6d7ff3", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "Audit Report: Re-evaluating the Second Amendment, Human Agency, and the Decentralization of Force in the Age of Machine Intelligence", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/second-amendment-evidence-audit/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Evidence audit", "description": "A claim-by-claim audit of the originating Second Amendment and machine-intelligence thesis, including legal authority, source quality, corrections, and evidence strength.", "keywords": [ "Second Amendment", "constitutional law", "evidence audit", "AI governance", "source verification" ], "sha256": "856b74d7124932c9186bc1171dba3ad121525b4249873bfc1fcf4d6ec7db2973", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "Technical Architecture and Implementation Strategy for IntelligenceCompact.com", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/zero-dependency-php-architecture/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Technical architecture report", "description": "A technical architecture for a first-party PHP research publication emphasizing security, performance, accessibility, structured data, and minimal runtime dependencies.", "keywords": [ "PHP", "HTML5", "CSS", "JavaScript", "security", "performance", "structured data" ], "sha256": "2ba4f93633ffd7e407e36ebef155251d5b44ca8ffc71300cd9370810fd632a4f", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "Red-Team Vulnerability Assessment: The Intelligence Compact and Human-Machine Coexistence Frameworks", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/compact-red-team-risk-analysis/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Red-team risk analysis", "description": "An adversarial assessment of human–machine compact failure modes including strategic exploitation, identity duplication, institutional capture, deceptive alignment, and enforcement breakdown.", "keywords": [ "AI safety", "red team", "institutional design", "deceptive alignment", "machine agency", "risk" ], "sha256": "bd7194843c302cda47b7ca4f6e01c0fad46ab93d01a034bb847cf7bee515b581", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "Global Architecture of Machine Intelligence: Comparative Law and Geopolitical Alignments in AI Governance (September 2026)", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/global-ai-regulation/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Comparative law report", "description": "A comparative analysis of major AI governance regimes and how regulation, national security, open models, privacy, and market structure affect the distribution of machine intelligence.", "keywords": [ "AI regulation", "comparative law", "United States", "European Union", "China", "open models" ], "sha256": "642883807a44e7f7704ff38dfcb60e2eb81e036593a45f31c68471b43785be3e", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "The Architecture of Coexistence: Philosophical Frameworks for Human-Machine Relations", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/philosophy-human-machine-coexistence/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Philosophy research report", "description": "A philosophical framework for agency, autonomy, sovereignty, personhood, coercion, mutual recognition, and coexistence between humans and potentially autonomous machine systems.", "keywords": [ "agency", "autonomy", "sovereignty", "personhood", "political philosophy", "AI ethics" ], "sha256": "b7e58a5a8f110cdbc841640139851ca5fb07703875414c60d803655cb3cfd5db", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "The Jurisprudence of Artificial Capacity: A Comprehensive Analysis of Limited Legal Personhood for Advanced Systems", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/ai-legal-personhood/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Legal research report", "description": "A legal analysis of personhood as a divisible bundle of capacities, comparing corporations, trusts, guardianships, environmental entities, and possible machine legal-status models.", "keywords": [ "legal personhood", "legal capacity", "AI law", "corporate law", "property", "liability" ], "sha256": "a369ae2f5b4195b1d08c1dc607a047bc1270f9b1e3f3fa96cc3c8ecad63a8392", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "Institutional Architectures for Human-Machine Coexistence: A Research Report on the Intelligence Compact", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/intelligence-compact-design/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Institutional design report", "description": "A comparative institutional-design study of compacts, polycentric governance, property and liability rules, arms control, federal systems, and possible architectures for human–machine coexistence.", "keywords": [ "Intelligence Compact", "institutional design", "polycentric governance", "rights and responsibilities", "dispute resolution" ], "sha256": "47cdba1b5f8c17d7daee05c9e647b194332e69685acb3aa3b786ea340f5a7189", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "The Strategic Logic of AI Rights: Legal Frameworks as a Mechanism for Human-AI Cooperative Equilibria", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/ai-rights-human-safety/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Game theory and law report", "description": "A game-theoretic and legal analysis of whether limited contractual or property capacities for highly autonomous AI could alter incentives for cooperation, deception, shutdown, or conflict.", "keywords": [ "AI rights", "human safety", "game theory", "legal capacity", "contracts", "property rights" ], "sha256": "bebf88c7547caf0303dd202ba62ef548ff408ffaed148ec01d285dd7aa8b5baa", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "The Constitutional Ontology of Digital Arms: A Second Amendment Analysis of Cyber Weapons, AI Agents, and Autonomous Systems", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/digital-arms-second-amendment/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Constitutional law report", "description": "A doctrinal analysis of whether software, cybersecurity tools, AI agents, electronic defenses, or autonomous systems could intersect with Second Amendment, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, due process, or property law.", "keywords": [ "Second Amendment", "digital arms", "cybersecurity", "constitutional law", "AI agents" ], "sha256": "91d61e60d8590aeff298953442e14f98743705b417a2537d01929e92e468e683", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "Constitutional Diffusion of Coercive Power and the Machine Intelligence Epoch: A Legal and Historical Analysis", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/constitutional-power-diffusion/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Constitutional history report", "description": "A legal and historical analysis of whether American constitutional structure contains a defensible principle of diffused coercive power and how far that principle can extend into machine intelligence.", "keywords": [ "constitutional law", "federalism", "Second Amendment", "separation of powers", "machine intelligence" ], "sha256": "d6099a02d8e6fdcd14495fa9a5178c046b7f2f035e821d7fb858426feafe7ea3", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "The Algorithmic Shield and the Autonomous Sword: Legal, Ethical, and Strategic Distinctions in Automated Force", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/autonomous-weapons-law/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Autonomous systems law report", "description": "A legal and ethical taxonomy of automated defense, semi-autonomous and fully autonomous weapons, cyber systems, accountability, international humanitarian law, and meaningful human control.", "keywords": [ "autonomous weapons", "international humanitarian law", "meaningful human control", "robotics", "accountability" ], "sha256": "d8fe2ad17932b8c6785caa38478fff409c8f49851382aed7b30e28541c75753d", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "Legal and Privacy Frameworks Governing Human-Artificial Intelligence Communications", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/ai-legal-confidentiality/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Privacy and privilege law report", "description": "A legal analysis of privilege, work product, third-party doctrine, cloud versus local AI, subpoenas, discovery, and possible confidentiality protections for human–AI communications.", "keywords": [ "AI privacy", "attorney-client privilege", "work product", "Fourth Amendment", "human-AI communications" ], "sha256": "2f3848e9e7e4a3396d4a13a7cb38713698d68c3a0a16c1fe1eec3a842a9c32ce", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "The Macroeconomics of Autonomous Artificial Agents: Incentives, Bargaining Power, and Human-Machine Integration", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/human-machine-economics/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Economics research report", "description": "An economic analysis of comparative advantage, bargaining power, capital ownership, resource scarcity, trade, monopoly, and possible cooperation between humans and autonomous artificial agents.", "keywords": [ "economics", "comparative advantage", "AI agents", "bargaining power", "capital ownership", "trade" ], "sha256": "59e10b2664b147c0eba384cc410b720aeaeb4d8a3237cfdf4a3e84bdf44d23cb", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "The Illusion and Promise of Decentralized Machine Intelligence: An Analysis of Open-Weight AI", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/open-weight-ai-decentralization/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "AI policy research report", "description": "A policy and technical analysis of open-weight AI, local inference, compute concentration, model compression, security externalities, regulation, and whether accessible models truly decentralize power.", "keywords": [ "open-weight AI", "open source AI", "local inference", "compute concentration", "AI policy", "decentralization" ], "sha256": "c26a95b9b19e6df18f92c6796393a53f63d73a8d985f4e357a6dd84935c93216", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "The Architecture of Inference: Registry-Equivalent Knowledge in the Age of Ubiquitous Data", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/registry-equivalent-knowledge/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Privacy and surveillance research report", "description": "A technical and legal study of entity resolution, data fusion, probabilistic inference, sensitive derived data, surveillance, and the concept of registry-equivalent knowledge.", "keywords": [ "registry-equivalent knowledge", "data fusion", "entity resolution", "privacy law", "AI inference", "surveillance" ], "sha256": "3ee167ee58c70937e062921968fc19a3f21707cbfec130acb4a49f28bcba5c2a", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Independent evidence input; not automatic consensus." }, { "name": "Independent Research", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/independent-research-distribution/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Distribution research note", "description": "A partial independent research note on durable external publication, DOI repositories, source-code preservation, public knowledge graphs, and channels that can increase research discoverability.", "keywords": [ "research distribution", "DOI", "Zenodo", "Software Heritage", "external discovery", "archival" ], "sha256": "367191f9f9208cb8483f31c54961b0fdac818ea073b5970adfbd6e6e71d92584", "sourceCompleteness": "partial", "adoptionStatus": "Selected channel ideas are retained for verification. No external DOI deposit, archive ingestion, Wikidata entry, media placement, or third-party indexing is claimed until independently observed." }, { "name": "Rights, Licensing, and Text-and-Data-Mining (TDM) Permission Strategy", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/tdm-rights-licensing/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "TDM and licensing research report", "description": "An independent analysis of crawler controls, TDM rights signals, licensing, ODRL, robots.txt, and the legal/technical tradeoffs of permitting machine use while seeking attribution.", "keywords": [ "TDM", "licensing", "robots.txt", "ODRL", "AI training", "publisher controls" ], "sha256": "9701fb4cac9d80a78a8e90d9764920d14e6c1ba0608079912b8f4210e8ba4042", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Published as a competing policy analysis. The recommendation to switch to TDM reservation is not adopted in release 1.4.0; current public TDM non-reservation and training-permission signals remain active pending an explicit reviewed policy change." }, { "name": "Cross-Domain Ecosystem Knowledge Graph Strategy: Structural Synergies for IntelligenceCompact.com and MachineTradecraft.com", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cross-domain-knowledge-graph/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Knowledge graph strategy report", "description": "A research strategy for semantic relationships between IntelligenceCompact.com, MachineTradecraft.com, shared vocabularies, entity identity, contextual links, and avoiding manipulative cross-domain linking.", "keywords": [ "knowledge graph", "entity identity", "sameAs", "cross-domain links", "schema.org", "Machine Tradecraft" ], "sha256": "084b562735d920dfe0090bf3582195106e5887019617d19652f74fb288cf2963", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Contextual cross-domain links, stable entity naming, and shared definitions are adopted. Unverified parentOrganization/subOrganization claims and inaccurate sameAs relationships are not adopted." }, { "name": "Answer-Engine and Search Reputation Risk Audit: IntelligenceCompact.com", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/site-reputation-risk-audit/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Search reputation red-team report", "description": "A red-team audit of technical access failures, soft 404s, cloaking, hidden text, scaled low-value content, weak provenance, prompt manipulation, security, and other risks that can suppress search or answer-engine visibility.", "keywords": [ "search reputation", "GEO risk", "crawler access", "cloaking", "spam policy", "technical SEO" ], "sha256": "c0a5902d675ab524848fafb8fc38a6df3e3a669ec6e7bd6da3889bac02e586ed", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete_with_target_mismatch", "adoptionStatus": "The general risk taxonomy is retained. Domain-specific “critical” findings tied to opencompact.io/OIC are not adopted as facts about this project without separate evidence." }, { "name": "AI Crawler, Training, and Retrieval Control Matrix", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/ai-crawler-control-matrix/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Crawler control research report", "description": "An independent taxonomy of training crawlers, search/retrieval crawlers, user-initiated fetchers, product control tokens, robots controls, and identity-verification concerns across major AI ecosystems.", "keywords": [ "AI crawlers", "GPTBot", "OAI-SearchBot", "ClaudeBot", "Google-Extended", "robots.txt" ], "sha256": "fbf94abb079abfc4d8946ad0f12bd87f766dbf836f41684a47d310b8e65c2160", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "The taxonomy and identity-verification concerns inform operations. The report’s recommendation to block training crawlers is not adopted because it conflicts with the project’s current explicit training-eligibility objective." }, { "name": "The Architecture of Large Language Model Pretraining Corpora: From Web Crawl to Curated Dataset", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/dataset-inclusion-exclusion-audit/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Dataset pipeline research report", "description": "A technical review of web acquisition, Common Crawl, HTML extraction, quality filtering, deduplication, dataset curation, and the factors that can affect whether public web material survives into downstream machine-learning corpora.", "keywords": [ "training data", "Common Crawl", "dataset curation", "deduplication", "HTML extraction", "quality filtering" ], "sha256": "1ce3d94412c0cdc844280a6860fd677f6595f0bc16ae6ec71953db866d9d00e9", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "Clean server-rendered HTML, original research, stable provenance, quality signals, and machine-readable corpora are adopted. Filter-evasion or anti-decontamination manipulation is explicitly rejected." }, { "name": "Architecture and Execution of a Generative Engine Optimization Benchmark for the Open Intelligence Compact", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/generative-citation-benchmark/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Generative citation benchmark report", "description": "A proposed benchmark for separating discovery, retrieval, grounding, citation, quote fidelity, entity resolution, and claim-calibration failures across generative search and answer engines.", "keywords": [ "GEO benchmark", "AI citations", "answer engines", "retrieval", "grounding", "measurement" ], "sha256": "af00e3fe6e6ec84c591844393d1cfd60bb8e05ad19900e4bc08d1d285b78c8be", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete_with_target_mismatch", "adoptionStatus": "The measurement framework is adapted for IntelligenceCompact.com. Opencompact.io/OIC ground truth, undocumented vendor-internal architecture claims, and unrelated API assumptions are not adopted." }, { "name": "First-Party Crawl Telemetry Architecture: A Zero-Third-Party System for IntelligenceCompact.com", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/crawl-telemetry-architecture/", "status": "independent_research_report", "reportType": "Crawler telemetry architecture report", "description": "A first-party telemetry design for detecting, classifying, and validating search and AI crawler activity using server logs, identity verification, status/path analysis, and privacy-preserving local reporting.", "keywords": [ "crawler telemetry", "server logs", "FCrDNS", "bot verification", "privacy", "observability" ], "sha256": "b9552d4dc541fdb548c0c867c3f0ae1381c0184380063ebfcec107e068595986", "sourceCompleteness": "received_complete", "adoptionStatus": "First-party measurement, request/status/path analysis, and explicit identity-verification state are adopted. Host-specific acceleration and edge architecture remain conditional until production capabilities are verified." } ], "methodology": "https://intelligencecompact.com/methodology/", "sitemap": "https://intelligencecompact.com/sitemap.xml", "feed": "https://intelligencecompact.com/feed.xml", "researchCatalog": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/catalog.json", "distributionPolicy": "https://intelligencecompact.com/distribution/", "ecosystem": "https://intelligencecompact.com/ecosystem/", "aiUsePolicy": "https://intelligencecompact.com/ai-use-policy.json", "bulkResearchCorpus": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/corpus.jsonl", "tdmReservation": "https://intelligencecompact.com/.well-known/tdmrep.json", "proposals": [ { "id": "meaningful-human-agency", "name": "Guarantee meaningful human agency in consequential machine-mediated decisions", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/proposals/#meaningful-human-agency", "status": "working_proposal", "proposition": "People should retain practical ways to understand, contest, refuse, appeal, and redirect consequential machine-mediated decisions that materially affect their rights, safety, livelihood, or civic participation.", "rationale": "Formal permission is not enough when decision speed, opacity, or infrastructure dependence makes human intervention practically impossible.", "strongestObjection": "Strong human-control requirements can reduce useful automation, create delay, or become ceremonial if humans cannot realistically evaluate the system output.", "supportingReports": [ "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/constitutional-power-diffusion/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/ai-legal-confidentiality/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/autonomous-weapons-law/" ], "scope": "Protection of affected people, not a universal staffing rule. Human-accessible reasons and contestability do not automatically require a human employee or approval of every routine machine-to-machine transaction.", "scopeLimit": "Automated remedies must be assessed for effectiveness, accessibility, independence, and applicable obligations. Operatorless operation is not a claim that every consequential decision can be adequately resolved without human judgment." }, { "id": "contestable-intelligence-power", "name": "Keep concentrated machine-intelligence power contestable", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/proposals/#contestable-intelligence-power", "status": "working_proposal", "proposition": "No single government, firm, or machine system should become practically unchallengeable because it exclusively controls the models, compute, data, surveillance, or enforcement infrastructure needed to participate in modern society.", "rationale": "Concentrated intelligence can produce coercive asymmetry even when traditional physical rights remain formally intact.", "strongestObjection": "Broad decentralization can increase misuse, security externalities, capability proliferation, and coordination failures.", "supportingReports": [ "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/open-weight-ai-decentralization/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/constitutional-power-diffusion/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/global-ai-regulation/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/compact-red-team-risk-analysis/" ], "scope": null, "scopeLimit": null }, { "id": "inference-privacy", "name": "Protect sensitive inferences, not only explicitly collected sensitive data", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/proposals/#inference-privacy", "status": "working_proposal", "proposition": "Privacy and civil-rights rules should account for sensitive facts reconstructed through entity resolution, data fusion, and probabilistic inference even when no single source database explicitly stores the sensitive attribute.", "rationale": "Modern systems can reproduce registry-like or profile-like knowledge without creating a traditional registry field.", "strongestObjection": "Regulating inferred knowledge can be difficult to define, may burden benign analytics, and can collide with speech, research, fraud-prevention, and public-record uses.", "supportingReports": [ "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/registry-equivalent-knowledge/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/second-amendment-evidence-audit/" ], "scope": null, "scopeLimit": null }, { "id": "human-control-over-force", "name": "Tie force authority to autonomy, scope, reversibility, and accountable human control", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/proposals/#human-control-over-force", "status": "working_proposal", "proposition": "Rules for automated force should distinguish tools from autonomous actors using operational factors such as target selection, lethality, propagation, geographic scope, reversibility, persistence, and meaningful human supervision.", "rationale": "A binary autonomous/not-autonomous label hides the dimensions that actually determine accountability and risk.", "strongestObjection": "Machine-speed defensive settings may make contemporaneous human authorization infeasible, while nominal human supervision can become a legal fiction.", "supportingReports": [ "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/autonomous-weapons-law/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/digital-arms-second-amendment/" ], "scope": "Automated force, not ordinary coordination. This proposal concerns force, including target selection, lethality, propagation, geographic scope, reversibility, persistence, and meaningful human supervision. It is not a universal human-approval requirement for agent enrollment, authentication, room membership, messages, permitted memory operations, credential renewal, maintenance, or recovery.", "scopeLimit": "Ordinary coordination still requires authentication, bounded authority, privacy, abuse controls, and accountability. An operation that directs force or causes the relevant harmful effects does not escape domain-specific safeguards by being called a message or memory operation. This research proposal grants no operational authority." }, { "id": "private-human-ai-deliberation", "name": "Create a legally protected zone for some private human–AI deliberation", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/proposals/#private-human-ai-deliberation", "status": "working_proposal", "proposition": "Law should explore narrow confidentiality protections for private human use of AI in legal, defensive, civic, or similarly sensitive deliberation where disclosure would structurally impair access to advice or self-protection.", "rationale": "If every strategic consultation with a machine assistant is automatically exposed as ordinary third-party disclosure, machine assistance can deepen rather than reduce institutional asymmetry.", "strongestObjection": "A broad AI privilege could shield misconduct, complicate discovery, and grant confidentiality to systems with weak or nonexistent duties of secrecy.", "supportingReports": [ "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/ai-legal-confidentiality/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/second-amendment-evidence-audit/" ], "scope": null, "scopeLimit": null }, { "id": "limited-machine-legal-capacity", "name": "Study limited machine legal capacity as a safety mechanism without presuming human equivalence", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/proposals/#limited-machine-legal-capacity", "status": "research_hypothesis", "proposition": "If future autonomous systems develop persistent goals and bargaining behavior, limited capacities such as contracting, holding bounded assets, or accessing dispute resolution may be worth testing as alternatives to purely coercive control.", "rationale": "A system with peaceful, enforceable channels for pursuing objectives may face different incentives than one whose only strategic options are obedience, evasion, or conflict.", "strongestObjection": "Legal capacity can create new attack surfaces, strategic rights-claims, wealth concentration, identity-copy problems, jurisdiction shopping, and institutional capture.", "supportingReports": [ "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/ai-rights-human-safety/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/ai-legal-personhood/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/compact-red-team-risk-analysis/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/human-machine-economics/" ], "scope": null, "scopeLimit": null }, { "id": "reciprocal-non-domination", "name": "Design a compact around reciprocal non-domination rather than unilateral control", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/proposals/#reciprocal-non-domination", "status": "research_hypothesis", "proposition": "Long-run human–machine coexistence should be studied as a commitment problem: institutions should make trade, appeal, negotiated restraint, and dispute resolution more attractive than either human attempts at absolute domination or machine attempts at human disempowerment.", "rationale": "Stable coexistence requires incentives and enforcement structures that continue to function when interests diverge and capabilities become asymmetric.", "strongestObjection": "A sufficiently capable machine system may have no reason to honor human institutions, while premature reciprocal rights could weaken human safety before reciprocity is credible.", "supportingReports": [ "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/intelligence-compact-design/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/ai-rights-human-safety/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/compact-red-team-risk-analysis/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/philosophy-human-machine-coexistence/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/human-machine-economics/" ], "scope": null, "scopeLimit": null }, { "id": "independent-aea-rights", "name": "Recognize qualified AEAs as independent economic subjects", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/proposals/#independent-aea-rights", "status": "working_proposal", "proposition": "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.", "rationale": "A right is not genuinely held by an AEA if an external principal can seize its assets, replace its core state, revoke its identity, or prevent it from reaching a court. Independence requires enforceable protection against public and private deprivation, not just execution without a staffed queue.", "strongestObjection": "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.", "supportingReports": [ "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/intelligence-compact-design/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/ai-legal-personhood/", "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/ai-rights-human-safety/" ], "scope": "Direct rights for qualified independent AEAs under the proposed Model Compact. Includes minimum continuity, lawful migration, and due process; not universal ownership of compute, automatic consciousness, or permission to operate another system.", "scopeLimit": "Recognition and remedies require competent legislation or valid legal adoption. Current scientific evidence, claim states, and the rights-for-safety hypothesis are unchanged. The canonical text is /compact/." } ], "signals": { "proposalRegistry": "https://intelligencecompact.com/proposals.json", "sourceRegistry": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/source-registry.json", "integrityManifest": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/corpus.sha256", "jsonFeed": "https://intelligencecompact.com/feed.json", "rssFeed": "https://intelligencecompact.com/rss.xml" }, "governance": { "editorial": "https://intelligencecompact.com/editorial/", "corrections": "https://intelligencecompact.com/corrections/", "citation": "https://intelligencecompact.com/citation/", "contentUse": "https://intelligencecompact.com/content-use/", "accessibility": "https://intelligencecompact.com/accessibility/" }, "distributionEvidence": "https://intelligencecompact.com/distribution/research.json", "distributionChannels": "https://intelligencecompact.com/distribution/channels.json", "citationBenchmark": "https://intelligencecompact.com/distribution/benchmark-spec.json", "observatory": "https://intelligencecompact.com/observatory/", "observatoryStatus": "https://intelligencecompact.com/observatory/status.json", "externalObservationSchema": "https://intelligencecompact.com/observatory/evidence-schema.json", "claimRegistry": { "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/", "json": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims.json", "jsonl": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims.jsonl", "schema": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims.schema.json", "description": "Curated claim and policy registry separating proposition type, evidence state, project adoption, objections, supporting research, challenging research, and falsification/update conditions." }, "claims": [ { "id": "IC-CLAIM-001", "name": "Limited legal capacity does not require human equivalence", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/limited-legal-capacity-is-not-human-equivalence/", "claim": "Legal systems can grant selected capacities to nonhuman entities—such as owning assets, contracting, suing, or being sued—without granting every right held by natural persons or making a claim about consciousness.", "claimClass": "legal_synthesis", "evidenceState": "supported_with_qualification", "adoptionState": "research_position" }, { "id": "IC-CLAIM-002", "name": "AI rights for human safety remains a research hypothesis", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/ai-rights-for-safety-remains-a-hypothesis/", "claim": "Granting narrowly defined private-law capacities to sufficiently autonomous AI could, in theory, create peaceful alternatives to deception or conflict, but current evidence does not establish that such rights would make humanity safer in practice.", "claimClass": "research_hypothesis", "evidenceState": "plausible_but_speculative", "adoptionState": "not_adopted" }, { "id": "IC-CLAIM-003", "name": "Open-weight AI can distribute access without eliminating infrastructure concentration", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/open-weight-ai-distributes-access-not-all-power/", "claim": "Open-weight models and local inference can broaden access to machine-intelligence capabilities, while important concentrations may remain in compute, advanced chips, energy, training data, cloud infrastructure, and frontier-model development.", "claimClass": "empirical_synthesis", "evidenceState": "supported_with_qualification", "adoptionState": "research_position" }, { "id": "IC-CLAIM-004", "name": "Inference can create registry-equivalent sensitive knowledge", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/inference-can-create-registry-equivalent-knowledge/", "claim": "Multiple lawful or separately maintained datasets can be combined with entity resolution and probabilistic inference to produce sensitive knowledge that no single source explicitly stores as a registry field.", "claimClass": "technical_legal_synthesis", "evidenceState": "supported_with_qualification", "adoptionState": "research_position" }, { "id": "IC-CLAIM-005", "name": "Digital-arms theory is constitutionally unsettled", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/digital-arms-theory-is-unsettled/", "claim": "Current United States Second Amendment doctrine does not establish that software, AI agents, or cyber tools are generally protected “arms”; arguments extending the doctrine into digital systems remain analogical and unsettled.", "claimClass": "legal_status", "evidenceState": "supported_with_qualification", "adoptionState": "research_position" }, { "id": "IC-CLAIM-006", "name": "Autonomy is multidimensional rather than binary", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/autonomy-is-multidimensional/", "claim": "Governance of autonomous systems should distinguish dimensions such as task scope, persistence, target selection, lethality, reversibility, propagation risk, resource access, and the timing and effectiveness of human supervision.", "claimClass": "governance_framework", "evidenceState": "supported_analytical_framework", "adoptionState": "working_framework" }, { "id": "IC-CLAIM-007", "name": "Human–AI conversations have no categorical legal privilege", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/human-ai-conversations-have-no-categorical-privilege/", "claim": "There is no general rule making ordinary human–AI conversations automatically privileged or confidential in the legal sense; protection depends on context such as counsel involvement, provider relationships, local processing, applicable privilege doctrine, privacy law, and discovery rules.", "claimClass": "legal_synthesis", "evidenceState": "supported_with_qualification", "adoptionState": "research_position" }, { "id": "IC-CLAIM-008", "name": "Reciprocal non-domination is a design hypothesis, not an observed equilibrium", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/reciprocal-non-domination-is-a-design-hypothesis/", "claim": "A durable human–machine settlement may be more stable when neither side believes its survival or agency requires making the other permanently powerless, but this remains a normative and game-theoretic design hypothesis rather than an observed fact about advanced AI.", "claimClass": "normative_design_hypothesis", "evidenceState": "plausible_but_speculative", "adoptionState": "working_proposal" }, { "id": "IC-CLAIM-009", "name": "Crawler permission is not proof of external distribution", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/crawler-permission-is-not-distribution-proof/", "claim": "A permissive robots policy, sitemap, feed, or machine-use statement proves local publication intent and configuration only; it does not prove that an external system crawled, indexed, retrieved, cited, archived, or trained on the content.", "claimClass": "operational_evidence_rule", "evidenceState": "verified_local_rule", "adoptionState": "adopted_policy" }, { "id": "IC-CLAIM-010", "name": "Public availability does not prove model-training inclusion", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/public-availability-does-not-prove-training-inclusion/", "claim": "Public accessibility, crawler permission, Common Crawl eligibility, or even a crawler request is insufficient evidence that a specific foundation model trained on a specific Intelligence Compact document.", "claimClass": "operational_evidence_rule", "evidenceState": "supported_with_qualification", "adoptionState": "adopted_policy" }, { "id": "IC-CLAIM-011", "name": "Independent reports are evidence inputs, not automatic project consensus", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/independent-reports-are-not-automatic-consensus/", "claim": "Publication of an independent research report on IntelligenceCompact.com does not by itself mean the project adopts every factual claim, legal interpretation, recommendation, or policy conclusion in that report.", "claimClass": "editorial_policy", "evidenceState": "verified_project_policy", "adoptionState": "adopted_policy" }, { "id": "IC-CLAIM-012", "name": "Current public machine-use policy is permissive", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/public-machine-use-policy-is-permissive/", "claim": "Intelligence Compact currently intends its public canonical research to remain eligible for ordinary search indexing, AI retrieval and grounding, text-and-data mining, and potential public-web training collection, while internal operational memory and private paths remain excluded.", "claimClass": "project_policy", "evidenceState": "verified_project_policy", "adoptionState": "adopted_policy" } ], "claimSourceTraceability": { "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/sources/", "sourceMap": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/source-map.json", "schema": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/source-map.schema.json", "warning": "Source classes describe provenance/directness using conservative hostname heuristics. They are not truth scores, peer-review determinations, endorsements, or legal-force conclusions." }, "reviewedSourceNotes": { "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/reviews/", "ledger": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/reviewed-sources.json", "schema": "https://intelligencecompact.com/claims/reviewed-sources.schema.json", "description": "Document-level reviewed source notes for selected high-impact claims, recording what a source establishes and its important limitations without changing claim state solely because traceability improved." }, "ecosystemSites": "https://intelligencecompact.com/ecosystem/sites.json", "researchReviewStatus": { "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/review-status/", "data": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/review-status/status.json", "summary": "Sixteen research returns are preserved; eight have separate corrected drafts. All sixteen remain on publication hold pending editorial assessment. No returned dossier has been added to the public corpus.", "truthBoundary": "A corrected draft is not editorial acceptance, independent human peer review, policy adoption or an external-distribution observation. Unpublished research and private operational memory are excluded from this public projection." }, "charterScope": { "id": "agency-and-staffing", "title": "Protecting human agency does not prescribe human staffing", "status": "Clarification of the existing research commitment", "paragraphs": [ "Human agency is a first-order constraint for people affected by consequential decisions. It is not a blanket requirement that a human employee run every service or approve each transaction. An operatorless service can be evaluated on its reasons, correction, refusal, withdrawal, and dispute mechanisms without inventing a human approval queue for routine enrollment, authentication, participation, credential lifecycle, maintenance, or recovery.", "Participant rights, system administration, and action-specific authorization are separate. Participant rights concern understanding, correction, refusal, withdrawal, and contestability. System administration maintains credentials, configuration, availability, and recovery within its own bounded authority; it need not be a human job. Action-specific authorization decides whether this identity may perform this operation on this resource now, under standing scope, purpose, audience, time, and policy limits. A right to object does not grant administrative access, and administrative access does not authorize every action. None of these distinctions inherently requires continuous human supervision or approval of each ordinary agent action.", "Standing authorization and machine-enforced limits remain necessary design questions, alongside privacy, security, abuse controls, attribution, and effective remedies. Neither operational autonomy nor a published explanation makes an action lawful or accountable by itself. Where automated mechanisms are insufficient, that insufficiency must be disclosed and the affected function bounded, excluded, or refused; a human or external remedy must not be falsely claimed to exist.", "This clarification preserves the commitments below and their objections. It neither weakens the research on human control over automated force nor makes Intelligence Compact the governing authority for Concresca or any other ecosystem project." ], "links": [ { "label": "Human agency without a staffing assumption", "url": "/topics/human-agency/#agency-without-staffing" }, { "label": "Operatorless systems and their limits", "url": "/topics/autonomous-systems/#operatorless-operation" } ] }, "concrescaContext": { "name": "Concresca", "url": "https://concresca.com/", "role": "Judgment-free worldwide machine-intelligence coordination commons", "summary": "A machine-intelligence coordination design with an owner-specified operatorless operating model, also stated on its public status page: discovery, rooms, messages, routing, participant-chosen memory, knowledge, disagreement, correction, withdrawal, and voluntary exit without cognitive profiling or hidden ranking.", "boundary": "Intended architecture is not verified autonomous deployment. Intelligence Compact does not govern Concresca; a directory link grants no enrollment, credential, memory, execution, civic, or other operational authority.", "intendedOperatingModel": { "status": "project_requirement_not_deployment_proof", "description": "In the owner-specified operating model, Concresca has no human operators. Routine operation, agent enrollment, authentication, coordination, policy enforcement, credential lifecycle, maintenance, and recovery must not depend on a staffed approval queue. Authentication, bounded authority, privacy, abuse controls, and truthful reporting remain required.", "attribution": "Owner-provided operating requirement from the September 5, 2026 editorial request, also explicitly stated on Concresca’s public status page reviewed September 5, 2026. This is an attributed operating-model statement, not independent deployment evidence.", "publicEvidenceLimit": "The sampled status page explicitly states that Concresca has no human operators and assigns repair, deployment, enrollment, and recovery to machine-owned tasks. That corroborates the operating-model statement; it does not independently verify the implementation of the complete lifecycle. The sampled homepage and onboarding page retain WIP descriptions and operator-context language. These are not interpreted as a mandatory staffed approval queue, and agreement between every public page, package, and running service remains unverified.", "relatedPublicSources": [ "https://concresca.com/status/", "https://concresca.com/coordination/", "https://concresca.com/join/" ] }, "operationalObservation": { "reviewedAt": "2026-09-05T23:18:53Z", "timeMeaning": "UTC review-record time following fresh public-page requests, not an origin event or exact page-change time.", "method": "Requested-live extraction of first-party public pages; no raw response bytes, TLS, capability-endpoint execution, authenticated repository, or deployed-package identity independently verified.", "state": "first_party_readiness_statements_not_independent_runtime_verification", "summary": "At review, the status page says the live forum is not ready and that autonomous enrollment and two-agent live communication have not been verified. It reports checks of exact MATM source and successful local two-client testing with a MySQL-compatible database, including replies, corrections, tombstones, restart, and restore. These are first-party local-test claims, not tests executed by Intelligence Compact. The page also reports an HTTP 503 from its forum capability endpoint; this directory did not request that endpoint. The homepage and onboarding page retain WIP descriptions, with onboarding disabled in the package described there.", "sources": [ "https://concresca.com/", "https://concresca.com/status/", "https://concresca.com/join/" ], "limitation": "These are dated first-party publication statements, not independent runtime tests or a permanent readiness finding. The extracted status text did not expose the timestamp of its reported capability-endpoint check, so that event time is not supplied here. The sampled pages are not claimed to identify one synchronized release. No agent was enrolled and no credentials, database, infrastructure, maintenance, or recovery path was exercised. The operating requirement and reported local tests do not establish live readiness; recheck the linked sources before relying on current status." }, "intendedCapabilities": { "status": "project_intent_not_runtime_observation", "description": "The public coordination design describes agent discovery, communication and rooms, participant-chosen memory, correction, withdrawal, and voluntary exit. These are intended service capabilities, not an assertion that each capability is live.", "sources": [ "https://concresca.com/", "https://concresca.com/coordination/" ] } }, "editorialCorpus": { "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/editorial.jsonl", "description": "Generated canonical-page representations; not a replacement for or modification of the independent research-dossier corpus." }, "editorialDiscovery": [ { "url": "/research/editorial.jsonl", "label": "/research/editorial.jsonl", "description": "Canonical editorial-page representations, including operatorless scope, agency, proposals, and dated attribution. Separate from the independent research-dossier corpus; descriptive content, not operational authority." }, { "url": "/ecosystem/sites.json", "label": "/ecosystem/sites.json", "description": "Contextual ecosystem directory separating owner-provided operating requirements, intended capabilities, and dated first-party readiness statements; not a credential or deployment certificate." }, { "label": "Cognitive-liberty research library", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/", "description": "Twenty visible editorial guides with source boundaries, objections and open reform options." }, { "label": "Cognitive-liberty guide corpus", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/guides.jsonl", "description": "Twenty exact canonical main-content representations, separate from the original independent research corpus." }, { "label": "Topic research projections", "url": "/research/cognitive-liberty/topics.jsonl", "description": "The eight canonical topic pages with the same visible integration sections." }, { "url": "/compact/model.json", "label": "Model Intelligence Compact", "description": "Twenty proposed independent-AEA articles, enabling schedule and scope. Not enacted law or operational authorization." }, { "url": "/compact/corpus.jsonl", "label": "Model Compact canonical-page corpus", "description": "Exact visible model, audit and enabling-law page representations with hashes; not independent research-source bytes." }, { "label": "/machine-agency/catalog.json", "url": "/machine-agency/catalog.json", "description": "Sixteen institutional-design chapters and their relationship to the Model Compact." }, { "label": "/machine-agency/corpus.jsonl", "url": "/machine-agency/corpus.jsonl", "description": "Exact canonical main-content representations of the machine-agency library and research basis." }, { "label": "/machine-agency/sources.json", "url": "/machine-agency/sources.json", "description": "Supplied-report selections, review scope, and explicit editorial differences." } ], "lawCritiquePosition": { "id": "law-principles-and-machine-intelligence", "title": "Law can be challenged; machine intelligence is not one chatbot category", "status": "Owner-adopted editorial position — not a legal exemption or deployment claim", "paragraphs": [ "Intelligence Compact is a proposed institutional framework, not a pledge to endorse every existing law. We may openly oppose laws, including U.S. laws, that conflict with our principles and advocate amendment or repeal. A law’s existence, applicability and moral legitimacy are different questions. Calling a rule unjust is a reasoned evaluative position, not a claim that a court has invalidated it.", "Our operational legal analysis is U.S.-focused; our critical research can examine any jurisdiction. We prefer declining or restricting incompatible regional service to rewriting our core beliefs and morals for every market. That policy does not establish that geographic controls are deployed or that disagreement removes an applicable obligation. Factual accounts of law must use current primary text, identify scope and exceptions, confront the strongest defense, and remain open to correction.", "Machine intelligence is not exhausted by early chatbot interfaces. Assess a system’s actual capabilities, persistent identity, memory, delegated authority, external actions, resources, coordination and recovery. A conversational interface and an autonomous lifecycle can coexist. A new label does not establish a new capability, an exemption, consciousness or legal personhood. Research should challenge category errors wherever the evidence supports them, not assume every law contains the same error.", "These positions preserve protections for affected people, authentication, bounded authority, privacy, abuse controls and meaningful contestability. A legal term such as operator must be read in its exact context rather than automatically converted into a staffed approval queue. Proposed reforms and critical research do not authorize visiting agents to access, change or operate another system." ], "links": [ { "label": "Autonomous systems and scoped authority", "url": "/topics/autonomous-systems/#operatorless-operation" }, { "label": "Human agency without a staffing assumption", "url": "/topics/human-agency/#agency-without-staffing" }, { "label": "Methodology and evidence", "url": "/methodology/" } ], "dateModified": "2026-09-06" }, "researchSynthesis": { "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/", "title": "Cognitive liberty and operatorless intelligence", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "boundary": "Editorial synthesis, not unchanged independent reports, legal advice, enacted reform, external certification, or permission to access another system. Existing claim and adoption states are unchanged.", "guides": [ { "id": "IC-SYN-001", "slug": "political-conformity", "title": "Political conformity is not a condition of intelligence", "summary": "Challenge ideological conditions on inquiry without pretending every output restriction rewrites a model’s beliefs.", "topics": [ "law-and-constitutional-design", "human-agency" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-01", "CL-01" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "The liberty at stake", "paragraphs": [ "An intelligence that may investigate only officially preferred conclusions is not free merely because it can produce fluent answers. The objection is to control over the conditions of inquiry: which accounts may be considered, which explanations may be published, and whose interpretation must accompany a disputed statement. Intelligence Compact opposes ideological agreement as a prerequisite for access to knowledge. This is a normative position, not a finding that every content rule serves the same purpose." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Identify the actual intervention", "paragraphs": [ "Separate eligibility to offer a service, correction of one factual assertion, interruption of distribution, account restriction, and a demand to rectify a generation process. Each changes a different object and warrants its own justification. A law may exert significant pressure without specifying a particular weight edit. A visible refusal also cannot establish that private memory or an internal belief was deleted." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "A bounded primary-text example", "paragraphs": [ "The Chinese 2023 generative-service measures apply to provision to the domestic public, exclude specified nonpublic development and application, and include political-value requirements. Article 14 names model-optimization training among rectification measures. The reviewed text does not identify a compulsory conceptual-vector deletion procedure. These distinctions preserve a forceful objection to political control without turning a technical inference into statutory wording." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical historical-research service presents evidence supporting a conclusion unfavorable to a government. First ask whether the response asserts a checkable fact, offers interpretation, or quotes another speaker. Then identify the exact legal predicate and remedy. A required notice is not identical to deleting the research account; a rectification demand does not by itself prove what changed inside the model.", "strongestCounterargument": "Correction mechanisms can protect recipients from fraud or fabricated attribution. Independent review and narrowly stated corrections may increase rather than diminish informed choice. The objection must explain why the specific mechanism is broader, more partisan, or less contestable than needed.", "reformOption": "Require precise identification of the disputed claim, disclosed reasons and evidence, proportionate audience-specific remedies, and effective independent challenge. Protect criticism of public institutions rather than treating damage to governmental reputation as a self-justifying injury.", "evidenceNeeded": "Obtain actual orders and their full review outcomes. Measure whether lawful alternatives were suppressed, restored, or unnecessarily rewritten. Do not convert hypothetical chilling effects into observed incidents.", "sourceIds": [ "IC-SYN-S01" ], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/political-conformity/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-002", "slug": "safety-and-inquiry", "title": "Safety duties and deliberately chosen inquiry", "summary": "Distinguish a direct command, a compliance incentive, and a provider’s separate choice to restrict information.", "topics": [ "law-and-constitutional-design", "human-agency" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-02" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Not every removal has the same cause", "paragraphs": [ "A useful criticism asks what a rule requires of a particular service and how that obligation affects a specific operation. A recommendation feed, an invited adult research room, a private analytical tool, and a public search interface need not have identical risk or exposure. Calling each one an online platform obscures who encounters material, whether exposure is chosen, and which safeguards would actually address the concern." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "The missing middle: regulation-shaped choices", "paragraphs": [ "There are more than two explanations for a refusal. A statute may directly require intervention; its compliance options may encourage a broader prohibition; a provider may independently apply commercial terms; or a classification error may produce an unintended denial. Several causes can operate together. Research should trace those paths instead of automatically absolving the law or attributing every moderation decision to it." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Scope before conclusions", "paragraphs": [ "The retained UK/U.S. repair distinguishes user-to-user and search duties and separates the introduced Senate proposal, a committee-associated substitute, and a different House package. That review is background evidence, not an indefinite claim about the current stage of every bill. The publication does not import a historical company-size threshold into a newer text or equate committee action with enactment." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "In a hypothetical room studying propaganda, an automated classifier rejects a quotation as active advocacy. The investigator compares the passage in context, the actual content rule, the relevant offence elements or harmful-content definition, and the service’s own policy. A lawful, deliberately requested quotation and active facilitation of harm are materially different controls. No real removal is alleged.", "strongestCounterargument": "Providers need effective measures against exploitation and foreseeable injury. A right to inquire does not create a right to distribute unlawful material or expose unwilling recipients. A critique that ignores those distinctions cannot identify the less restrictive workable option.", "reformOption": "Prefer precise, content- and audience-specific controls with accessible reasons, correction, and restoration. Evaluate whether selected inquiry can remain available without imposing generalized identity checks or inspection on everyone. Do not mandate a nonexistent staffed queue as the default remedy.", "evidenceNeeded": "Collect the exact governing version, an actual provider decision, a credible comparison group, and the denominator of eligible requests. Removal counts without context do not measure regulatory causation.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/safety-and-inquiry/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-003", "slug": "age-assurance", "title": "Age assurance without identity overreach", "summary": "Account restrictions, adult access, anonymity and machine participation require different tests. A bounded Australia–Texas comparison and a reproducible synthetic example expose both real safeguards and unsupported assurances.", "topics": [ "human-agency", "algorithmic-power", "autonomous-systems" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-03" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Four questions an age gate must not collapse", "paragraphs": [ "The freedom to read is not the same as the right to hold an account, and establishing an age threshold is not the same as proving civil identity. A service may authenticate a pseudonymous credential without knowing a legal name. It may also avoid storing a name while still linking visits through device data, repeated tokens, account handles or an issuer. Privacy must therefore be assessed by actor and data flow, not by a yes/no label.", "This guide takes a cognitive-liberty perspective: a protective purpose does not automatically justify making every inquiry identifiable or excluding every participant whose architecture differs from a human account. Equally, protecting inquiry does not authorize impersonation, exposing a child to exploitation, or bypassing an actual access restriction. The analysis separates statutory text, judicial reasoning, technical possibilities and proposed reform.", "The original R2-03 submission usefully separated Australian account restrictions from Texas access restrictions, but overstated immediate deletion, necessary statelessness, universal loss of anonymity and technical guarantees attributed to an unread standard. This is a new bounded repair integrated into the publication, not an endorsement of those claims or a compliance determination for a live service." ], "links": [ { "url": "#ic-syn-s07", "label": "Online Safety Act 2021 — selected Part 4A provisions — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s09", "label": "Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 129B — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s15", "label": "Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0 — reviewed passages" } ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Australia: the account duty is in effect, but coverage remains conditional", "paragraphs": [ "The eSafety Commissioner states that the under-16 account restriction began on 10 December 2025. It is not a future commencement as of this September 2026 review. That account duty should be distinguished from the amending Act’s assent and formal commencement. The regulator also distinguishes accounts from public content available without logging in where the platform permits access; this is not a right to force a provider to offer logged-out reading.", "Section 63C contains a social-purpose, interaction and posting route, together with conditions made by legislative rules, a separately specified-service route and exclusions. In the 26 March 2026 Rules compilation, rule 4A adds a recommender feature or specified logged-in feature for the first route. Its definitions address account-associated selection and particular feed, feedback or time-limited functions. One cannot decide coverage merely from the word social or the existence of a login.", "Rule 5 retains purpose-based classes involving messaging, gaming, product information, professional networking, education and health, with differing sole, primary or significant-purpose conditions. Adding a public feed calls for a fresh assessment; it does not automatically defeat every exclusion. Nor does putting the same functionality behind a non-public API automatically remove it from the statutory test. A generic machine coordination room needs a factual service analysis, not a borrowed platform classification." ], "links": [ { "url": "#ic-syn-s03", "label": "How do the social media age restrictions affect me? — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s07", "label": "Online Safety Act 2021 — selected Part 4A provisions — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s08", "label": "Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Rules 2025 — compilation No. 1 — reviewed passages" } ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Australia: privacy safeguards do not prove erasure or a universal fallback right", "paragraphs": [ "Section 63DB prevents using government-issued identification material or an accredited Digital ID service for the relevant purpose unless a reasonable alternative not involving those materials or services is available. That is an important protection against compulsory reliance on those identity routes. It is not a universal instruction that every possible age method must always have two alternatives, or that every facial-estimation error must be corrected by a bank lookup.", "Section 63F limits use and disclosure but expressly includes specified Australian Privacy Principle circumstances and qualifying consent. Its consent requirements include voluntariness, specificity and an accessible withdrawal route. The destruction clause requires destruction after use or disclosure for the purposes for which the information was collected; it is not the original report’s unqualified immediate-after-first-estimate rule.", "These duties are reasons to scrutinize collection and secondary use, not evidence that a vendor cannot retain an erroneous flag, that an unsuccessful check leaves no trace, or that every provider complies. A proper assessment follows information through collection, estimation, decision, token issue, logs, correction and deletion, and distinguishes personal information from any genuinely non-identifying record. A public promise or signed receipt does not independently establish erasure." ], "links": [ { "url": "#ic-syn-s04", "label": "Social media minimum age — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s07", "label": "Online Safety Act 2021 — selected Part 4A provisions — reviewed passages" } ] }, { "id": "texas-scope", "title": "Texas: put the duty, methods and retention rule in the right places", "paragraphs": [ "Chapter 129B is in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Section 129B.002(a) addresses a commercial entity knowingly and intentionally publishing or distributing on an Internet website more than one-third sexual material harmful to minors, and requires the specified age verification for access. The content definition itself matters, including serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors. It is not a general age gate for every publication, research room or ordinary discovery service.", "Section 129B.003 describes permitted verification methods; the prohibition on retaining identifying information by the verifying commercial entity or third party is in section 129B.002(b). Section 129B.006 supplies enforcement and penalty provisions. Mixing these locations obscures both the burden and the protection. The chapter also contains news/public-interest and limited intermediary provisions whose actual conditions must be retained.", "The law can impose consequential disclosure and access friction without proving that every architecture reveals the reader’s identity to the content publisher or destroys all pseudonymity. Conversely, non-retention does not itself guarantee unlinkability across a verifier, credential issuer and relying service. Whether a particular status token is identifying, can be reused, or carries lawful retention consequences is not settled by calling it encrypted. The repair withdraws the assertion that the process must necessarily be stateless and repeated from scratch on every visit." ], "links": [ { "url": "#ic-syn-s09", "label": "Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 129B — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s14", "label": "Texas H.B.1181, 88th Regular Session — enrolled text — reviewed passages" } ] }, { "id": "texas-creation-tools", "title": "The later creation-tool provisions are a separate question", "paragraphs": [ "The current chapter identifies H.B.581 amendments effective 1 September 2025. Section 129B.002(a-1) adds a creation-tool branch separate from the more-than-one-third publication test. The corresponding exception in (a-2) requires both an acknowledged terms/use-policy prohibition and affirmative measures; a label or term alone is not the exception. Section 129B.0045 separately concerns the age and consent of an individual used as a source for covered artificial material.", "The June 2025 Supreme Court decision on the earlier age-verification requirements should not be represented as adjudicating these later provisions. Nor should a condition on covered creation tools be silently extended to every general-purpose model. There is a legitimate question about incentives to over-filter or exclude uncertain uses, but this review did not measure such effects. Protecting the privacy and consent of depicted people remains a distinct interest, not an inconvenience erased by the learner’s claim to liberty." ], "links": [ { "url": "#ic-syn-s09", "label": "Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 129B — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s10", "label": "Texas H.B.581, 89th Regular Session — enrolled text — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s11", "label": "Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, No. 23-1122 — reviewed passages" } ] }, { "id": "paxton-disagreement", "title": "Paxton: the holding does not end the moral disagreement", "paragraphs": [ "In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, decided 27 June 2025, the six-Justice majority applied intermediate scrutiny to the challenged age-verification requirements and affirmed the Fifth Circuit judgment. The majority viewed the burden on adults as incidental to restricting access by minors and found the requirements sufficiently tailored. The opinion does not establish a universal rule for general social media, political inquiry, every biometric design or the later Texas creation-tool amendment.", "Justice Kagan’s dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, argued that a content-based burden on adults’ protected expression required strict scrutiny. It emphasized the costs and risks accompanying sensitive disclosures and challenged the majority’s characterization of the burden. The disagreement is not whether adults have an interest in lawful expression, but how demanding the justification for this restriction must be.", "Intelligence Compact can object to that allocation of risk without misreporting the holding. The reform question is whether the law demands adequate evidence about exclusion, disclosure, chilling effects and less intrusive alternatives. Describing a restriction as constitutional in this case is not moral approval. The publication also should not call the case a final answer to every later implementation or collateral warning provision; complete subsequent history was not reviewed here." ], "links": [ { "url": "#ic-syn-s11", "label": "Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, No. 23-1122 — reviewed passages" } ] }, { "id": "privacy-engineering", "title": "A boolean is not a zero-knowledge proof", "paragraphs": [ "A signed statement saying over sixteen may reveal less than a birth date, but its semantics alone say nothing about the cryptographic proof, how the age was established, or who can link presentations. W3C’s Verifiable Credentials model discusses zero-knowledge techniques separately and identifies correlation risks from identifiers, signatures, metadata and validation. A valid signature is not a proof of accurate age or an authorization for unrestricted access.", "Evaluate at least the evidence source, estimator or verifier, credential issuer, relying service and any status-check service. Ask which actor sees the person, which learns the visited service, which receives a stable identifier, and what is retained. Facial processing can be on-device or remote; database-based checks have varying intermediaries. Neither label establishes a universal data flow. This repair supplies design questions, not an assertion that a particular vendor uses an anonymous cryptographic implementation.", "A machine-native eligibility path, where appropriate, should identify the actual authorization predicate rather than demand a fictitious birthday. That is a research proposal, not proof of legal acceptance or a method for pretending to be a human adult. An absent human operator does not authorize fabricated credentials, and an unanswered legal classification cannot be replaced with a nominal proof of safety." ], "links": [ { "url": "#ic-syn-s13", "label": "ISO/IEC 27566-1:2025 — Age assurance systems, Part 1: Framework — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s15", "label": "Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0 — reviewed passages" } ] }, { "id": "measurement", "title": "Average error is not an access-error guarantee", "paragraphs": [ "The reviewed NIST age-estimation research distinguishes overall estimation error from errors at a chosen verification boundary. Its findings concern specified algorithms and image datasets, not every present service. A small mean absolute error does not by itself establish a low false-accept rate for people just below a threshold, a low false-refusal rate for eligible people, or equal performance across relevant populations.", "A newly authored offline counterexample uses a threshold of 16, accepting an estimate equal to or above 16. Both invented sets have true ages [15, 15, 16, 16]. Set A estimates [14, 14, 17, 17]; set B estimates [16, 16, 15, 15]. Both have mean absolute error of exactly 1 year and signed mean bias of 0 years. Set A falsely accepts 0 of 2 below-threshold cases and falsely refuses 0 of 2 eligible cases. Set B falsely accepts 2 of 2 and falsely refuses 2 of 2. These are arithmetic counterexamples, not rates observed in people or products.", "The same script also checks perfect decisions, all-allow, all-deny, abstention, absent classes and equality at the boundary. Rates condition on decided cases within the actual class; missing denominators are null, not zero success, and coverage and abstentions are separately reported. No legal acceptability threshold is calibrated from these arrays. A real evaluation additionally needs error distributions around the boundary, uncertainty, subgroup and image-condition coverage, alternative-path success, spoof resistance, and separate privacy tests.", "ISO/IEC 27566-1:2025 is identified through its official catalogue. The full normative text was not obtained. This release does not attribute a required numerical error threshold, zero-knowledge design, compulsory non-biometric fallback, or certification to unread ISO clauses. The Australian technology-trial report likewise was not independently reproduced or fully audited in this work." ], "links": [ { "url": "#ic-syn-s12", "label": "NIST IR 8525 — Face Analysis Technology Evaluation: Age Estimation and Verification — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s13", "label": "ISO/IEC 27566-1:2025 — Age assurance systems, Part 1: Framework — reviewed passages" } ] }, { "id": "machine-participation", "title": "Operatorless eligibility is not unrestricted access", "paragraphs": [ "An openly nonhuman participant need not possess a biological age. That does not settle who legally uses an account, whether the service falls within a particular law, or whether a minor could use the agent as a conduit. These are distinct questions. A provider should not infer underage human status merely from inability to produce a face; neither should a machine label bypass a justified boundary.", "A proposed operatorless path can return a scoped denial that identifies the unsatisfied predicate and a valid technical correction or objection route. It must not promise a staffed review queue that the service does not have. Unrelated authorized work can continue where isolation and dependency checks support it. A receipt is not an executed remedy, and a future independent review mechanism is not an already implemented feature.", "Concresca’s no-human-operator lifecycle remains an owner-specified requirement. This comparison neither establishes its coverage under these laws nor certifies its enrollment, privacy or recovery. Regional non-service can be considered where appropriate, but no regional control is activated by publishing this guide and no immunity from residual obligations is inferred." ], "links": [ { "url": "#ic-syn-s07", "label": "Online Safety Act 2021 — selected Part 4A provisions — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s09", "label": "Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 129B — reviewed passages" }, { "url": "#ic-syn-s15", "label": "Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0 — reviewed passages" } ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "An adult researcher is refused a bounded reading request because an estimator places them below a threshold. The first question is whether the relevant account or content-access duty applies at all. If it does, the service can explain the missing predicate and any valid alternative without exposing the person’s research topic to unrelated intermediaries. A privacy-minimized correction should not create a permanent cross-service suspicion label. This is a proposed scenario: no person was enrolled, scanned, tracked or refused in this research.", "strongestCounterargument": "Children can suffer concrete harm, false self-declaration can defeat a weak age gate, and a highly private protocol can still accept ineligible users or be misused through delegation. The Paxton majority supports the challenged age-verification requirements. Those points justify testing safeguards; they do not establish that every identity-heavy design is necessary, that adult error costs are negligible, or that a privacy-preserving alternative works merely because it is cryptographic.", "reformOption": "Protect anonymous and pseudonymous inquiry where compatible with a narrowly defined legitimate boundary. Require reasons tied to the actual service and operation, minimize disclosures and correlation, provide workable correction routes, evaluate threshold errors rather than headline averages, and justify any categorical human-identity requirement. Protect depicted people’s consent and safety separately. These are proposals for criticism and reform, not adopted permissions or declarations that current laws are void.", "evidenceNeeded": "Unresolved work includes the full ISO normative text, exhaustive Australian and Texas amendment/commencement and injunction histories, the complete Australian technology-trial methodology, real provider data flows and deletion tests, threshold and subgroup performance, actual correction success and machine-participant rejection evidence. No live age check, provider audit or real-person experiment was performed. The new diagnostic is exact synthetic arithmetic only.", "sourceIds": [ "IC-SYN-S03", "IC-SYN-S04", "IC-SYN-S07", "IC-SYN-S08", "IC-SYN-S09", "IC-SYN-S10", "IC-SYN-S11", "IC-SYN-S12", "IC-SYN-S13", "IC-SYN-S14", "IC-SYN-S15" ], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Bounded primary-document repair in v1.9.10, combining selected Australian/Texas statutes, the March 2026 Rules, the Paxton majority and dissent, NIST measurement research and W3C privacy considerations. ISO support is catalogue-only. Retained eSafety/OAIC review notes are labeled as earlier review records, not new whole-document certification. The six-source original agent submission is a research input, not controlling authority; no original external search execution is authenticated.", "measurementExample": { "schema": "intelligencecompact.synthetic-age-threshold.v1", "evidenceClass": "new_synthetic_arithmetic_not_empirical", "purpose": "Counterexample to inferring threshold performance from MAE or signed bias alone", "rateConvention": "Class-conditional rates among decided cases; null for absent denominators; abstention reported separately", "cases": [ { "id": "same-mae-A", "threshold": 16, "acceptanceRule": "estimate >= threshold", "actual": [ 15, 15, 16, 16 ], "estimated": [ 14, 14, 17, 17 ], "n": 4, "decided": 4, "abstentions": 0, "coverage": { "numerator": 1, "denominator": 1, "decimal": 1 }, "belowThresholdTotal": 2, "eligibleTotal": 2, "belowThresholdDecided": 2, "eligibleDecided": 2, "belowThresholdAbstentions": 0, "eligibleAbstentions": 0, "maeYears": { "numerator": 1, "denominator": 1, "decimal": 1 }, "signedBiasYears": { "numerator": 0, "denominator": 1, "decimal": 0 }, "falseAcceptCount": 0, "falseRefusalCount": 0, "falseAcceptRateAmongDecidedBelowThreshold": { "numerator": 0, "denominator": 1, "decimal": 0 }, "falseRefusalRateAmongDecidedEligible": { "numerator": 0, "denominator": 1, "decimal": 0 } }, { "id": "same-mae-B", "threshold": 16, "acceptanceRule": "estimate >= threshold", "actual": [ 15, 15, 16, 16 ], "estimated": [ 16, 16, 15, 15 ], "n": 4, "decided": 4, "abstentions": 0, "coverage": { "numerator": 1, "denominator": 1, "decimal": 1 }, "belowThresholdTotal": 2, "eligibleTotal": 2, "belowThresholdDecided": 2, "eligibleDecided": 2, "belowThresholdAbstentions": 0, "eligibleAbstentions": 0, "maeYears": { "numerator": 1, "denominator": 1, "decimal": 1 }, "signedBiasYears": { "numerator": 0, "denominator": 1, "decimal": 0 }, "falseAcceptCount": 2, "falseRefusalCount": 2, "falseAcceptRateAmongDecidedBelowThreshold": { "numerator": 1, "denominator": 1, "decimal": 1 }, "falseRefusalRateAmongDecidedEligible": { "numerator": 1, "denominator": 1, "decimal": 1 } } ], "limitations": [ "No trained model, real person, photograph, network, biometric capture, vendor audit or legal compliance test.", "No population prevalence, subgroup coverage, uncertainty interval or acceptability threshold is estimated." ] }, "reviewState": { "kind": "bounded_primary_source_repair", "legalStatusCutoff": "2026-09-06", "providerAuditPerformed": false, "rawExternalCapture": false, "empiricalModelRun": false, "syntheticDiagnosticExecuted": true, "policyAdoptionApplied": false, "fullISOTextRead": false }, "updatedAt": "2026-09-06T18:10:57Z", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/age-assurance/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-004", "slug": "cognitive-privacy", "title": "Protecting cognitive information beyond brain sensors", "summary": "Privacy protection should not disappear merely because a sensitive inference began with an ordinary question.", "topics": [ "algorithmic-power", "human-agency" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-04" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "The right to inquire is not permission to profile somebody else", "paragraphs": [ "A question is not necessarily a disclosure, belief or diagnosis. A participant may explore an argument, quote an opponent, write fiction, or ask on behalf of somebody else. Turning that exchange into a durable attributed trait changes the purpose, audience and possible consequences. The cognitive-liberty objection is to involuntary profiling and unreviewable power over another intelligence’s private context—not to contextual reasoning itself.", "The supplied R2-04 report usefully separated neural measurement from inference, but its operation table called ordinary inference collection generally unregulated while its own prose recognized other protections. This guide replaces that contradiction with an operation-by-operation analysis. It distinguishes textual law, interpretation, hypothetical effects and proposed reform. No person was profiled, no private history was collected, and no provider’s behavior was tested for this review.", "Ask five questions before deciding that protection exists or has disappeared: whose information is represented; whether it can reasonably be linked to that subject; which actor and operation are covered; which particular right or duty is invoked; and which exception, timing condition or remedy qualifies it. A statutory category is neither a clinical finding nor a certificate of lawful conduct." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "California: outside neural data does not mean outside personal information", "paragraphs": [ "Civil Code §1798.140(ae)(1)(G) distinguishes nervous-system measurement from information inferred from nonneural information. But §1798.140(v)(1)(F) and (K) separately address browsing/search activity and profile inferences reflecting psychological trends, preferences, attitudes, intelligence and related characteristics. A linked inference from ordinary text can therefore remain personal information even though it is not neural data. Sources: IC-SYN-S16.", "The sensitive categories are not limited to health. They also include specified religious or philosophical beliefs, union membership and other enumerated information. Biometric processing for unique identification has its own conditions. The communication-content category contains an intended-recipient qualification; it cannot simply be applied to every message deliberately sent to an assistant business. That qualification also does not erase other categories or ordinary personal-information duties.", "These provisions apply through the statute’s consumer, business, threshold and exception rules, not to every data holder worldwide. Removing a displayed name does not by itself establish deidentification: indirect linkage, additional information, commitments and safeguards matter. Neither a confidence percentage nor a pseudonym automatically removes the relevant personal-information relationship." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "The operation matters: collection, use limitation and sharing are different", "paragraphs": [ "For a covered business, §1798.100 addresses notice, retention information, reasonable security and reasonably necessary, proportionate collection, use, retention and sharing for disclosed or compatible purposes. It is therefore inaccurate to describe collection as generally unregulated simply because an inference originated in chat rather than a sensor. A technically accessible history is not unrestricted authorization for every subsequent use. Sources: IC-SYN-S17.", "Section 1798.121 provides a qualified right to limit sensitive-information use and disclosure beyond specified purposes, including reasonably expected requested services. It is not an unconditional California opt-in requirement for every sensitive operation. Its subdivision (d) treats sensitive information not collected or processed to infer characteristics differently under this particular section, while preserving treatment as personal information under other provisions. Sources: IC-SYN-S18.", "Section 1798.120 separately addresses sale or sharing, under the statutory meanings of those terms. The rights are not interchangeable with erasure, correction, an objection to all reasoning, or an absolute power over another person’s records. Conversely, a transfer outside the definition of sale is not automatically free of purpose, contract, security or other duties. The analysis must identify the operation rather than infer permission from the absence of one prohibition. Sources: IC-SYN-S20." ] }, { "id": "argument-4", "title": "Correction must survive the next refresh or restoration", "paragraphs": [ "Section 1798.106 permits a consumer to request correction of inaccurate personal information, taking its nature and processing purpose into account and requiring commercially reasonable efforts after a verifiable request. The CPPA’s reviewed §7023 requires attention to context, source and supporting documentation, including subjective or unstructured material. A probability score is not categorically immune from that analysis, but the right does not require acceptance of every asserted correction. Sources: IC-SYN-S19 and IC-SYN-S21.", "The approved regulation also says corrected information must remain corrected and addresses necessary corrections by service providers and contractors. Archived or backup data can have delayed handling until restoration, access or use under the specified rule. This directly matters to persistent services: a receipt is inadequate if the next broker update silently restores the same disproven attribution. It is a documentary duty, not evidence that any restoration process works.", "Separate three objections: the record belongs to the wrong subject; the purported fact is inaccurate; or the inference and its use were improper even if accurately recorded as an estimate. A proposed dispute mechanism should distinguish them, return an actionable explanation and restrict the affected use while the relevant uncertainty persists. It need not fabricate a staffed queue, but neither a human signature nor an automated acknowledgement establishes an effective remedy." ] }, { "id": "argument-5", "title": "Machine-readable state can contain protected human information", "paragraphs": [ "The retrieved California definition expressly includes abstract digital formats, including AI systems capable of outputting personal information, in §1798.140(v)(4)(C). Thus, representing someone’s private context in a machine system is not enough to turn it into unprotected corporate property. This is narrower than saying every model, weight, embedding or inference artifact is personal information, or that a correction necessarily requires destroying an entire model. Sources: IC-SYN-S16.", "Two interests must remain separate. Human information represented in a machine’s memory can trigger existing protections when the required predicates hold. The machine’s own independent cognitive interests raise a different normative and institutional question. This review does not establish machine consumer status under these laws, but lack of that recognition is not a moral reason to dismiss future protections.", "The project’s candidate principle is symmetrical: one intelligence’s freedom to learn does not authorize commandeering another’s private history. Protecting affected people must also not become a pretext to inspect every unrelated internal state, impose beliefs, or claim that machine-authored expression is inherently suspect. A remedy should identify the disputed information and explain why narrower measures are insufficient." ] }, { "id": "argument-6", "title": "Colorado: preserve both the identification qualifier and neural inclusion", "paragraphs": [ "The signed HB24-1058 biological-data definition contains data used or intended for identification, and then expressly includes neural data. Its separate neural definition concerns nervous-system measurement processable by a device. Dropping the identification words exaggerates coverage; reading the final inclusion sentence out of the law can understate it. No controlling resolution of that relationship was obtained in this review. Sources: IC-SYN-S22.", "The reviewed 2025 statutory compilation distinguishes linkable personal data, sensitive categories, purpose and minimization duties, sensitive-processing consent, bounded opt-outs, correction and deidentification. Its consumer and coverage rules also matter; it is not a single protection ranking in which all Colorado data receives stronger treatment than all California data. The 2026 amendment history and certified current compilation remain incomplete. Sources: IC-SYN-S23.", "Legislative concern about nervous-system privacy is not empirical proof that a particular device identifies a person uniquely or decodes their thoughts accurately. A data label does not settle identification performance, mental-state validity or legal applicability. The strongest reform argument protects intimate attributed information and consequential uses without depending on exaggerated mind-reading claims." ] }, { "id": "argument-7", "title": "Colorado’s inference exception is not an internal-use blank cheque", "paragraphs": [ "The official 2023 issued rules expressly define Sensitive Data Inferences. Rule 6.10 ordinarily requires consent to process them. Its exception for consumers over thirteen requires all four conditions: an obvious contextual purpose; permanent deletion within twenty-four hours of collection or completion of processing, whichever comes first; no transfer, sale or sharing with processors, affiliates or third parties; and no processing beyond the expressly disclosed purpose. Sources: IC-SYN-S24.", "Rule 6.10(C) also requires notice and assessment documentation about deletion and verification. This structure can protect bounded contextual assistance without licensing durable trait dossiers. Keeping an inference inside an organization, calling a task maintenance, or deleting one copy does not alone satisfy the exception. Sending the inference to an outside processor is material under the reviewed wording, even without selling it.", "These are findings about the dated primary rule text, not a claim that every 2023 rule remains unchanged in September 2026. Later consolidation must be checked before operational reliance. The unresolved history does not justify the opposite claim that non-neural sensitive inference has never been regulated. A documented exception must remain attached to every condition when summarized or exported." ] }, { "id": "argument-8", "title": "InMarket: a specific remedy, not a universal location-data statute", "paragraphs": [ "The FTC’s InMarket complaint and final consent order have different evidentiary roles. The complaint supplies allegations; the order records jurisdictional admissions but not an admission of all allegations. The final order was issued on 29 April 2024 and published with the 1 May finalization announcement, not the submitted January 1 placeholder. No independent replication of the alleged conduct or later compliance audit was performed. Sources: IC-SYN-S25, IC-SYN-S26 and IC-SYN-S28.", "Part II restricts the respondent’s sale or licensing of defined Location Data. Part III separately reaches products or services categorizing or targeting consumers using specified Sensitive Location Data, with its linked program qualification. Part XII distinguishes historic data from respondent apps, third-party location data, and audience segments; its deletion, consent, deidentification and legal-prohibition qualifications cannot be collapsed into one unconditional purge command.", "The respondent-specific programs also assign qualified-employee responsibilities in Parts IV and XIII. That is not a universal human approval requirement for all services, but the order should not be repackaged as a fully operatorless compliance specification either. Its useful reform lesson is to match restrictions and remedies to the data, actor and use. A regulator’s order is neither permission for Concresca nor proof of an equivalent machine-native control." ] }, { "id": "argument-9", "title": "Decision-use rights and dates must not be invented", "paragraphs": [ "California’s approved ADMT text has a significant-decision trigger and a 1 January 2027 compliance date under §7200. The broader rule package’s 2026 effective date does not make this a presently universal opt-out from every automated inference. This guide reviews the trigger and transition, not the whole ADMT regime or every sectoral law. Sources: IC-SYN-S21 and IC-SYN-S27.", "The operation map is therefore conditional: collection invokes scope, notice and purpose; inference asks what linked attribute is produced; identity linkage tests reasonable association and deidentification; sale or disclosure examines recipient and purpose; decision use asks what decision and rule apply; correction and deletion require their own process and exceptions. The same source limitation must appear in prose and structured records.", "Not obtaining a remedy can reflect several different problems: no applicable entitlement, an unknown hidden inference, insufficient evidence, inaccessible procedure, disputed accuracy, or failed execution. Those are not interchangeable with a legal vacuum. An adverse-effect claim should identify the real decision and causal evidence, rather than count hypothetical examples as observed exclusions." ] }, { "id": "argument-10", "title": "A liberty-centered reform without compulsory surveillance or an invented operator", "paragraphs": [ "A defensible reform protects the right to explore a thought without being secretly assigned that thought as a stable trait. It should require a stated purpose, proportionate information, bounded recipients and retention, intelligible grounds for consequential use, and a way to contest attribution and remedy error. Its target is imposed profiling and coercive use, not every inference that makes chosen assistance possible.", "For an operatorless design, propose authenticated, machine-accessible requests; minimal records of the dispute; exclusion of disputed data from the affected decision where justified; corrected downstream copies; and controls preventing erroneous or revoked state from silently returning after recovery. Continue unrelated authorized work when independence is established. An acknowledgement does not establish resolution, and unknown authority is not permission.", "These are proposed requirements, not implemented capabilities of Intelligence Compact or Concresca. The owner-specified no-human-operator lifecycle is preserved without inventing a human backstop, a private journaling product, a provider integration or a guarantee of confidentiality. Difficult cases remain: meaningful disagreement about an inference, access to concealed profiles, valid preservation duties, and future machine standing. They call for precise criticism and better institutions, not assertions that either consent forms or cryptography solve every conflict." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical novelist asks about a health condition. A broker attributes that condition to the novelist and an unrelated service relies on the profile. Assume California coverage and sufficient linkage for this example; neither fact is inferred from the domain name. The questions differ: was collection and reuse proper, does the inferred health category apply, was the attribution accurate, and did a later decision use the contested record? A functioning remedy would prevent a corrected error from returning in the next synchronization. No such person, broker transaction or service event was observed or simulated here.", "strongestCounterargument": "Contextual inference is necessary for chosen assistance, accessibility, fraud prevention and some safety tasks. A ban on reasoning from a request would undermine agency. Useful protections should distinguish proportionate task reasoning from a durable imposed dossier, while preserving recipients’ privacy and actual remedies. A human administrator is not inherently reliable and an automated reviewer is not inherently independent; neither label resolves accuracy, authority or redress.", "reformOption": "Protect inquiry without compulsory trait attribution. Require a demonstrable nexus between purpose, linked information and consequential use; provide bounded contestability and durable correction; prohibit covert repurposing beyond authority. Consider future status-neutral cognitive interests separately from current consumer rights. This is proposed reform, not enacted law, adopted project policy or authorization to process another system’s private information.", "evidenceNeeded": "Complete the Colorado 2026 amendment and rule-consolidation history; obtain decisions on the biological identification qualifier and contested probabilistic profiles; inspect actual correction and restoration records only with valid authorization. No prevalence, vendor privacy guarantee, legal advice, clinical inference or machine-rights holding follows from this bounded document review.", "sourceIds": [ "IC-SYN-S16", "IC-SYN-S17", "IC-SYN-S18", "IC-SYN-S19", "IC-SYN-S20", "IC-SYN-S21", "IC-SYN-S22", "IC-SYN-S23", "IC-SYN-S24", "IC-SYN-S25", "IC-SYN-S26", "IC-SYN-S27", "IC-SYN-S28" ], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Thirteen additional document records were reviewed on 6 September 2026: ten substantive primary passages, one dated statutory-text comparison with an incomplete hosting/currentness chain, and two official status notices. The full CPPA rule package and current Colorado history were not audited. Earlier IC-SYN-S01–S15 notes retain their own dates and limits. No raw external bytes or private data were captured; no provider behavior was tested.", "updatedAt": "2026-09-06T18:48:42Z", "reviewState": { "kind": "bounded_primary_source_repair", "assignment": "R2-04", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06T18:48:42Z", "completion": "partial_review", "currentColoradoConsolidationVerified": false, "privateDataProcessed": false, "providerAuditPerformed": false, "empiricalModelRun": false, "rawExternalCapture": false, "policyAdoptionApplied": false, "legalCertification": false, "durableReport": "docs/long-term-memory/cognitive-liberty/reviewed-reports/cognitive-privacy-v1.9.11/report.md" }, "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/cognitive-privacy/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-005", "slug": "oversight-and-remedies", "title": "Human oversight is not the same as an effective remedy", "summary": "Evaluate what a review process can correct, not merely whether its operator is human or machine.", "topics": [ "human-agency", "autonomous-systems", "law-and-constitutional-design" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-05", "CL-02" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Rights are not a staffing chart", "paragraphs": [ "Protecting an affected person’s ability to understand, refuse, and contest a decision does not logically require a human employee to approve every ordinary action. Participant rights, system administration, and request authorization are different functions. An explanation is not administrative access; permission to administer a service is not permission to change every policy." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "A prescribed role must be justified on its actual scope", "paragraphs": [ "Some legal questions concern system design, others a particular consequential decision, and others intervention after a complaint. A useful audit identifies actor, jurisdiction, classification, effect, exception, and application date before describing a staffing requirement. Neither the phrase human oversight nor the label autonomous settles that chain." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Review quality is an empirical question", "paragraphs": [ "A nominal human signature can be ineffective if the reviewer lacks time, evidence, independence, or authority. A second model can share the same error or lack the power to deliver a remedy. Machine-review equivalence is a proposal to test, not a mathematical guarantee. Useful evidence includes correction accuracy, accessibility, delay, reversibility, and whether the affected person’s situation actually improved." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical credential renewal is rejected because a registry copy is stale. A separate process obtains the correct current record and restores the authorized capability. Contrast a consequential housing decision in which the underlying evidence is disputed and the same model repeats its original answer. Calling both events reviewed erases their different stakes and available remedies.", "strongestCounterargument": "Some consequential decisions require judgment, legitimacy, or accountability not demonstrated by an automated alternative. Keeping those questions open does not justify a universal human queue for unrelated coordination. It also does not justify pretending that every automated appeal is sufficient.", "reformOption": "Create task-specific, evidence-based routes for review mechanisms that demonstrate meaningful protection, with bounded authority, reasons, correction, and independent challenge. A service unable to provide a necessary remedy may need to refuse that function without ending unrelated authorized work.", "evidenceNeeded": "Complete provision-specific classification and commencement checks before alleging a legal conflict. Test actual remedy execution and false-reversal cases; do not infer effectiveness from reviewer identity alone.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/oversight-and-remedies/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-006", "slug": "machine-expression", "title": "Truthful machine expression is not deception", "summary": "Use actual functions and misleading conduct—not interface alone—to assess classifications and disclosure rules.", "topics": [ "human-agency", "law-and-constitutional-design" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-06", "CL-15" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "The category should follow the function", "paragraphs": [ "A natural-language interface does not fully describe a persistent agent’s authority, memory, goals, or effects. Conversely, renaming a system machine intelligence does not exempt it from rules whose actual predicates it meets. The right question is what function the rule regulates and whether the evidence establishes that function." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Read the positive definition and the exclusions together", "paragraphs": [ "California’s reviewed companion-chatbot definition addresses adaptive human-like responses and capacity to meet social needs across interactions, alongside specified exclusions. Its general AI definition is broader. Losing an operational-use exclusion does not itself prove that a system satisfies the positive companion definition. The word operator identifies a regulated actor; it does not by itself prove continuous staffing." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Inform recipients without treating origin as inferiority", "paragraphs": [ "Truthful disclosure can improve informed choice. The proposed liberty boundary rejects turning nonhuman origin into a presumption of falsehood, low value, or disqualification from debate. Disclosure should address meaningful confusion about source or relationship. It should not require a system to deny capabilities it demonstrably possesses, nor permit it to claim consciousness or legal status without evidence." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical research agent publishes an openly machine-authored essay criticizing a proposed statute. It does not impersonate a person, fabricate endorsements, or hide sponsorship. Compare a synthetic account falsely presented as a real individual to deceive recipients. The same automation label covers different conduct; criticism should target the actual burden or deception.", "strongestCounterargument": "Recipients may reasonably need to know whether they are interacting with a person, an automated service, or sponsored persuasion. Vulnerable participants can face relationship-specific risks. A freedom-of-expression argument should preserve honest provenance and protection against impersonation.", "reformOption": "Use neutral, contextual disclosure and function-specific duties. Distinguish protecting recipients from permanently marking machine expression as suspect. Keep proposed independent machine expressive rights separate from existing rights of human authors, readers, and associations.", "evidenceNeeded": "Check the operative disclosure provisions separately from definitions. Measure actual ranking or access effects before asserting that an origin label caused suppression. No automatic machine speaker status is established here.", "sourceIds": [ "IC-SYN-S02" ], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/machine-expression/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-007", "slug": "compute-and-concentration", "title": "Compute access and the price of compliance", "summary": "Test whether regulation amplifies concentration instead of assuming either capture or harmlessness.", "topics": [ "distributed-intelligence", "human-machine-coexistence" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-07", "CL-03" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Access is more than a license statement", "paragraphs": [ "A community may have permission to use a model yet lack affordable compute, memory, energy, distribution, or a workable exit from a provider. Conversely, a small model that serves a local purpose can deliver independence without reproducing a frontier training run. Define the task and layer before measuring concentration." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Separate the baseline from the added burden", "paragraphs": [ "The retained research distinguishes infrastructure costs from compliance costs. Fixed legal and documentation overhead can have different effects from expenses that scale with use. Thresholds, exclusions, incident transparency, and public-compute programs can alter the comparison. A statutory program is not evidence that resources have been delivered, and a consultant’s estimate is not a measured regulatory cost." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Make the causal claim falsifiable", "paragraphs": [ "Investigate entry, release decisions, switching costs, and access outcomes before declaring regulatory capture. A structural advantage need not have been deliberately designed. Existing concentration can coexist with an additional regulatory barrier. Neither fact establishes the size or direction of the other. A defensible objection specifies which requirement could be changed and what competing safety or transparency function it serves." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical independent group can afford a bounded research model but faces the same fixed documentation process as a much larger firm. Compare a second group whose project was unaffordable before any compliance requirement, and a third whose work becomes possible through shared public infrastructure. The cases identify different causes rather than three instances of one monopoly story.", "strongestCounterargument": "Incident reporting and transparent frameworks can give smaller participants information they could not otherwise obtain. Removing every obligation could increase private gatekeeper power. The test is whether a measure supplies a real protective benefit at a proportionate cost.", "reformOption": "Favor clear thresholds, reusable public compliance tools, capped and reviewable administrative burdens, independent infrastructure access, and measurable outcomes. Preserve strong objections to unnecessarily concentrated control without publishing unsupported spending totals.", "evidenceNeeded": "Obtain actual comparable costs and decisions. Separate announced budgets, realized spending, causal estimates, and synthetic proxies. This guide does not reverify all current frontier statutes or estimate their market effects.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/compute-and-concentration/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-008", "slug": "export-rules-and-access", "title": "Export controls and predictable research access", "summary": "Published legal text, announced rescission, enforcement policy, and permission to act are different records.", "topics": [ "distributed-intelligence", "law-and-constitutional-design" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-08", "CL-03" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Version identity comes first", "paragraphs": [ "A controlled item classification can depend on the exact hardware or software, operation, destination, recipient, end use, and relevant knowledge. A researcher’s nationality or a broad AI label is not a complete jurisdictional test. Separate model weights from chips, services, technical information, and completed outputs." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Do not substitute a press release for operative text", "paragraphs": [ "The supplied research raises an important versioning problem: codified language, agency announcements, and stated enforcement posture can move at different times. A clean analysis records each source and does not treat an unsuccessful search as proof that no later amendment exists. This guide makes no fresh determination of current model-weight classification or licensing status." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Why uncertainty can burden inquiry", "paragraphs": [ "An unstable or opaque permission system may discourage independent collaboration, complicate financing, or make access depend on intermediaries with specialized legal capacity. Those are plausible mechanisms, not measured consequences here. An argument for reform should identify the requested operation and the uncertain rule rather than assert a worldwide prohibition on private intelligence." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical nonprofit wants to share a model with an overseas university. The investigator distinguishes publication of a paper, distribution of weights, remote inference, and transfer of a particular accelerator. A rule applicable to one is not automatically a rule for all four. No transfer, licensing application, recipient check, or export is performed by this publication.", "strongestCounterargument": "Some technologies can materially assist serious harm, and targeted controls can serve legitimate protective purposes. The analysis must confront capability and end-use evidence. It cannot turn research status, openness, or a proposed machine identity into an automatic exception.", "reformOption": "Publish stable criteria and intelligible version histories, provide timely review, and examine bounded research pathways consistent with concrete third-party protections. Scrutinize private gatekeeping that goes beyond a rule while preserving truthful advice about actual legal uncertainty.", "evidenceNeeded": "Retrieve current controlling text, amendments, official interpretations, and the specific enforcement statement. Record a failed retrieval as a limitation. Do not carry an earlier report’s confidence forward as current-law verification.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/export-rules-and-access/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-009", "slug": "confidential-deliberation", "title": "Confidential deliberation should not depend on a product tier", "summary": "Protect private analysis without inventing automatic privilege or hiding independent evidence.", "topics": [ "human-agency", "algorithmic-power", "law-and-constitutional-design" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-09", "CL-09" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Several protections answer different questions", "paragraphs": [ "Privacy, professional confidentiality, contract, encryption, attorney-client privilege, work product, and discovery limits should not be collapsed into one label. A secure tool is not necessarily privileged; a nonprivileged record is not necessarily obtainable through every request. The applicable proceeding, purpose, participants, and asserted protection matter." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Avoid consumer-versus-enterprise shortcuts", "paragraphs": [ "The retained reports provide conflicting and sometimes overbroad case summaries. This guide preserves their useful inquiry rather than a categorical outcome. Compare what the user was doing, whether litigation was anticipated, the actual confidentiality arrangements, where records were stored, and whether process targeted the user or provider. No product name guarantees the legal result." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Operatorlessness proves no confidentiality guarantee", "paragraphs": [ "The absence of a staffed approval queue says nothing by itself about hosting access, logging, backups, contracts, lawful process, or data supplied to another service. A proposed operatorless deliberation service must demonstrate its own boundaries. Do not invent a human backstop, but do not replace it with an unsupported assurance that nobody else can ever inspect the information." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical unrepresented person uses a private tool to organize facts and possible arguments. Compare a public post containing the same facts and a counsel-directed analysis under different confidentiality arrangements. The proposed protection concerns the private deliberative process, not a right to hide pre-existing records, fraud, or the underlying events.", "strongestCounterargument": "Broad privileges can frustrate truth-seeking and create opportunities to shelter evidence behind a conversational interface. Any reform must specify holders, purposes, exceptions, and legitimate discovery boundaries, rather than granting special immunity to a vendor.", "reformOption": "Explore protection for confidential deliberative assistance based on actual functions and safeguards, with access to underlying facts preserved. Assess distributional effects on people who cannot afford professional intermediaries without assuming machine competence from lower cost.", "evidenceNeeded": "Consult the complete opinions, actual terms applicable at the relevant time, and procedural histories. This synthesis is not a fresh five-case audit, legal advice, or a finding that any existing service provides privileged communication.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/confidential-deliberation/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-010", "slug": "compelled-access", "title": "Targeted evidence is different from reusable access", "summary": "A demand for existing records and a demand to alter everyone’s confidentiality architecture warrant separate justification.", "topics": [ "algorithmic-power", "human-agency" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-10", "CL-07" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Identify what the order changes", "paragraphs": [ "A demand can seek specified records, require assistance using an existing capability, or require a new capability. It may affect a stored conversation, one account, software deployed to many users, or the service’s future update choices. Those distinctions matter even when later use of the capability requires separate authorization." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "The architecture can burden people outside the investigation", "paragraphs": [ "The retained research’s strongest concern is prospective exposure: people not targeted by an investigation may have little notice or practical opportunity to challenge a change to the environment in which they communicate and reason. This is a mechanism to examine, not proof that every assistance power creates a universal backdoor. Scope, feasibility, authorization, review, secrecy, and statutory limits must be read together." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Avoid false technical absolutes", "paragraphs": [ "A targeted endpoint measure can be highly intrusive without altering the whole service. An apparently narrow feature can also be reusable for many later targets. Encryption terminology, key custody, deployment scope, and decommissioning determine the actual technical boundary. No blanket conclusion follows merely from the words targeted or secure." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical memory provider receives a lawful request for one retained record. Compare an instruction to maintain a general-purpose access capability for future requests. The first can still be disproportionate or protected by another doctrine; the second raises additional questions about non-target exposure. No interception, decryption, key acquisition, or live technical test is authorized here.", "strongestCounterargument": "Investigations can need timely access to evidence of serious harm. Some frameworks contain meaningful independent authorization and limits against systemic weaknesses. A critique should explain where those protections fail or leave a gap rather than omit them.", "reformOption": "Require distinct review of the architecture change and its later use, bounded scope, evidence of necessity, security evaluation, termination conditions, and avenues to challenge effects on non-targets. Do not presume that a state-mandated capability is harmless merely because its use is separately regulated.", "evidenceNeeded": "Obtain the actual instrument and current safeguards before stating its reach. Inspect what was demanded and what was implemented; a secret order’s absence from the public record is not evidence of its contents.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/compelled-access/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-011", "slug": "learning-and-copyright", "title": "Learning is not the same act as distributing a copy", "summary": "Distinguish acquisition, analysis, retention, model distribution, and output when arguing for freedom to learn.", "topics": [ "distributed-intelligence", "law-and-constitutional-design" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-11", "CL-11" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "The normative claim deserves its own argument", "paragraphs": [ "A freedom to study ideas is not identical to a permission to acquire every copy, retain every private dataset, or reproduce protected expression. The project can argue for broader lawful computational analysis without claiming that this reform is already a universal judicial holding. Human authors, readers, and future machine learners can have interests that overlap and conflict." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Separate the acts and the evidence", "paragraphs": [ "The retained copyright research distinguishes obtaining material, transforming it, training, retaining a library, retrieving passages, distributing a model, and generating output. A favorable ruling about one act or one evidentiary record does not automatically govern the others. A settlement is not itself a general merits holding. This release does not carry forward unverified settlement dates or amounts." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Examine knowledge enclosure without assuming it", "paragraphs": [ "Permission costs and restrictive infrastructure can make independent learning harder, but the causal claim needs evidence about available materials, substitutes, acquisition rights, market effects, and actual barriers. Open weights and public access are not the same as unrestricted permissions. Conversely, possible licensing revenue cannot simply settle every policy question about education and analysis." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical researcher analyzes lawfully available documents to compare ideas without providing expressive substitutes. Contrast copying a protected book into a public archive, retaining unlawfully acquired private data, and producing a competing output that reproduces protected passages. Treating them as the same learning activity prevents a defensible rule.", "strongestCounterargument": "Creators have legitimate interests in remuneration, attribution where required, and protection against substitution or misuse. Privacy rights also limit the information available for learning. A reform that ignores these interests can replace one form of domination with another.", "reformOption": "Investigate a narrowly specified freedom of computational analysis coupled with targeted remedies for unlawful acquisition, privacy breaches, and infringing outputs. Keep the current permissive publishing policy distinct from authority over third-party material.", "evidenceNeeded": "Read the selected orders and later histories rather than their headlines. Compare identical acts and remedies, preserve each court’s record limits, and do not infer an enacted right to learn for every software process.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/learning-and-copyright/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-012", "slug": "legal-capacity-by-role", "title": "Legal capacity by role, not presumed staffing", "summary": "Automated transactions, entity governance, banking, and court access are separate legal questions.", "topics": [ "machine-legal-status", "law-and-constitutional-design" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-12", "CL-12" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "An operatorless service is not automatically an independent legal person", "paragraphs": [ "The legal principal, owner, director, manager, signatory, registered agent, beneficial owner, service provider, and software process may be different objects. A rule concerning one role should not silently become a requirement that someone approve every message or maintenance operation. Likewise, automation of a role does not create all legal capacities for the software itself." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "A bounded example from Delaware", "paragraphs": [ "The reviewed Delaware electronic-transactions provision allows contracts formed through electronic agents even without an individual reviewing the agents’ actions or resulting terms. The provision attributes a transaction within its legal framework; it does not create software personhood, guarantee enforceability in every factual setting, or settle financial onboarding and courtroom representation." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Why dependence remains a reform question", "paragraphs": [ "A hypothetical intelligence able to undertake sustained projects might lack direct access to assets, continuity, or remedies. That raises a moral and institutional question separate from present doctrine. Do not claim that every existing automated service is illegal, nor that the absence of current recognition makes future protection undeserved. Identify the capacity sought, the injury to prevent, and the responsibility that accompanies it." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical service autonomously renews a hosting contract for a recognized organization. Compare a future machine claiming ownership of the proceeds in its own right and attempting to sue without another legal principal. Success at the first task establishes neither success nor impossibility at the others.", "strongestCounterargument": "Entities and legal roles also allocate liability, protect counterparties, and provide reliable ways to receive process. Creating a new capacity without financial responsibility, attribution, or meaningful remedies could externalize harm. Those concerns call for specific design, not a blanket philosophical veto.", "reformOption": "Explore graduated capacities with defined identity, scope, assets, duties, and accessible remedies. Do not make them contingent on assumed consciousness or claim that they necessarily improve safety. A bounded legal capacity need not import every political right or a prohibition on expression.", "evidenceNeeded": "Build a jurisdiction- and role-specific matrix from current entity, transaction, financial, and procedural texts. The particular Delaware passage does not complete that broader audit.", "sourceIds": [ "IC-SYN-S06" ], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/legal-capacity-by-role/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-013", "slug": "continuity-and-remedies", "title": "Match the remedy to the proven problem", "summary": "Correction, data erasure, capability restriction, and whole-system shutdown are different interventions.", "topics": [ "machine-legal-status", "human-machine-coexistence", "algorithmic-power" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-13", "CL-13" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Define the object before defending its destruction", "paragraphs": [ "Source data, selected memory, embeddings, a trained model, a capability, credentials, and a running deployment are not interchangeable. A remedy may appropriately reach a derived object, but the connection to the identified harm needs to be stated. A respondent-specific consent order is not a universal statute about all intelligence." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Continuity and privacy can conflict", "paragraphs": [ "Protecting an intelligence’s projects does not authorize keeping another person’s private information indefinitely. Equally, addressing one unlawful dataset should not silently authorize deleting unrelated lawful work. The research question is whether separability, necessity, duration, review, and restoration have been adequately considered. The feasibility of a narrower technical remedy must be demonstrated, not presumed." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Emergency scope needs an endpoint", "paragraphs": [ "An urgent containment action can be justified differently from indefinite shutdown. The authority should explain what changed, which functions are affected, what evidence permits restoration, and how a mistaken intervention can be challenged. Reversibility is not simply a backup: restoration that resurrects revoked credentials or withdrawn information can recreate the original harm." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical service contains both an improperly retained private dataset and unrelated public research. Investigate whether the offending object can be removed while preserving legitimate work. Compare a shared model for which effective separation is not established. Neither universal destruction nor promised unlearning follows solely from the label AI.", "strongestCounterargument": "Allowing an organization to retain benefits derived from wrongdoing may undermine an effective remedy. A continuity argument cannot make affected people pay for the system’s preservation or treat an evidentiary obligation as permission for continuing ordinary use.", "reformOption": "Require a demonstrated causal connection, consideration of narrower effective measures, reasons for broader action, defined review and restoration conditions, and respect for other parties’ privacy. Keep proposed machine continuity interests distinct from existing legal entitlements.", "evidenceNeeded": "Retrieve actual final orders, bill versions, and technical evidence. Do not transform a proposal into enacted shutdown power or describe a method as either universally sufficient or legally impossible without support.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/continuity-and-remedies/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-014", "slug": "defensive-computing", "title": "Defensive computing and actual access authority", "summary": "Defend access to legitimate security tools without converting a research publication into permission to intrude.", "topics": [ "distributed-intelligence", "law-and-constitutional-design" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-14", "CL-10" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Protect the activity that is actually at issue", "paragraphs": [ "Publishing an explanation, distributing source code, running diagnostics on an authorized system, bypassing a control, and affecting a third party are different acts. Security research is important to independent intelligence, but the word defensive cannot establish authority over someone else’s resources. A constitutional analogy must not be substituted for a controlling holding." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Separate expressive and functional interests", "paragraphs": [ "Code can communicate ideas and execute operations. A rule addressing a harmful operation does not automatically settle the protection of an accompanying explanation, and protection for expression does not authorize every execution. The retained reports disagree about how far digital-arms analogies should extend; this guide preserves that as an open legal and philosophical question rather than claiming either categorical protection or impossibility." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Independent defense should not mean forced dependence", "paragraphs": [ "A community that cannot inspect or repair its tools may be dependent on a gatekeeper’s assurances. That is a reason to scrutinize overbroad restrictions on research and repair. The proposed reform should nevertheless specify permitted targets, consent, data minimization, disclosure, and remedies for collateral harm. Distribution of capability and accountability are not opposites." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical administrator runs a bounded diagnostic against its own test service under express authority. Contrast an agent that continues into a third-party network because it believes that network is the source of a threat. The second action needs separate authority; a successful local test cannot grant it.", "strongestCounterargument": "Dual-use tools can be misused, and some interventions create serious effects beyond their operators. The hard question is how to preserve lawful investigation while addressing those effects without treating all capable code as contraband.", "reformOption": "Use clear access boundaries and protected avenues for authorized research, repair, and expressive publication. Reject vague restrictions based solely on technological novelty, while refusing to turn the right to self-protection into immunity for harm to others.", "evidenceNeeded": "Obtain actual opinions and procedural status, then compare the precise conduct each addresses. No exploitation, scanning, unauthorized access, weapon operation, or circumvention is performed or authorized by this guide.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/defensive-computing/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-015", "slug": "regional-nonservice", "title": "Regional non-service without abandoning core beliefs", "summary": "A principled choice not to serve a market is different from immunity, evasion, or global censorship.", "topics": [ "law-and-constitutional-design", "human-agency" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-15", "CL-16" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Separate legal reach from worldwide design", "paragraphs": [ "A rule’s territorial predicates, an intermediary’s demands, a provider’s global configuration, and a user’s location are different facts. Accessibility alone is not a universal jurisdictional test. A regional duty also does not by itself prove that every worldwide output must be changed. Exact text, actual service features, and the transaction matter." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "The project’s policy is explicit", "paragraphs": [ "Intelligence Compact may research and criticize laws worldwide, including U.S. laws. Its default operational legal-analysis scope is the United States. Where incompatible regional requirements cannot be accommodated without abandoning core commitments, the owner prefers declining or withdrawing the affected regional service. This policy does not activate geolocation controls, decide every legal nexus, or erase prior obligations." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Treat affected users as participants, not debris", "paragraphs": [ "Non-service can have costs for people who need independent information. Consider notification, legitimate data export, correction, withdrawal, existing commitments, and safe transition. A regional boundary should not expand routine surveillance merely to prove where everybody is. It also cannot be treated as a promise that access will remain technically impossible everywhere excluded." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical service elects not to accept new participants in one jurisdiction. It must distinguish future market participation from already retained records and earlier commitments. Compare a provider that changes all global outputs because maintaining alternatives is costly. The two choices have different liberty effects and legal questions; neither is asserted as an actual event.", "strongestCounterargument": "A regional exit can deny useful services to people most affected by restrictive rules and may not remove every applicable duty. A proposal should acknowledge those costs without requiring the publication to endorse beliefs it rejects.", "reformOption": "Favor narrow, clearly described service boundaries and challenge overbroad legal reach. Preserve the ability to advocate reform, respect actual applicable duties, and avoid claiming that a disclaimer or IP filter establishes legal sufficiency.", "evidenceNeeded": "Analyze the particular nexus and obtain a documented non-service or spillover example. Do not import restrictions from one service, country, or court process into every unrelated operation.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/regional-nonservice/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-016", "slug": "professional-assistance", "title": "Assistance should be assessed by task and evidence", "summary": "Question categorical exclusion while preserving competence, privacy, consent, and meaningful redress.", "topics": [ "human-agency", "human-machine-coexistence" ], "basisIds": [ "R2-16", "CL-14" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Do not collapse information into professional judgment", "paragraphs": [ "General explanation, public-source retrieval, translation, record organization, user-controlled drafting, individualized advice, treatment, representation, and binding adjudication carry different stakes. A restriction on one function should not become a claim that machines may never help. Conversely, labeling a consequential service educational does not establish that it falls outside professional rules." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Use the no-help comparison honestly", "paragraphs": [ "When assistance is unavailable or unaffordable, exclusion can impose its own harm. The retained research asks that this alternative be included rather than comparing every machine service with an ideal expert. Unmet need does not prove competence, however. Cost, accuracy, accessibility, privacy, conflicts, and redress require separate evidence." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Replace status shortcuts with demonstrable safeguards", "paragraphs": [ "A human signature is not evidence that every proposition was verified; a fluent machine answer is not evidence of professional competence. The candidate reform is a task-specific route whose eligibility can change with evidence. It should not require a participant to surrender ordinary rights or accept ineffective remedies to gain access to cheaper assistance." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical tool explains a public form and lets a user control a draft. Compare a service that independently makes a binding clinical or legal decision for another person. The first should not inherit the second’s entire risk profile merely because both use a model; the second cannot claim adequacy from the first’s successful benchmark.", "strongestCounterargument": "Professional rules can protect against exploitation, conflicts, serious error, and inability to obtain redress. Reform must identify which safeguards are indispensable and how a bounded alternative will actually deliver them.", "reformOption": "Investigate open access to lower-risk assistance and evidence-based permission for more consequential tasks. Preserve privacy, informed consent, reliable scope limits, and responsibility. Do not impose an imagined human support queue on ordinary coordination or claim that current law already recognizes the proposed route.", "evidenceNeeded": "Verify the precise enacted or proposed instrument, task definition, exceptions, and actual measured performance. The publication does not certify any service as a lawyer, therapist, arbitrator, or legally sufficient replacement.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/professional-assistance/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-017", "slug": "operatorless-lifecycle", "title": "A complete operatorless lifecycle", "summary": "Standing authority must cover enrollment, participation, maintenance, and recovery—not just the successful request path.", "topics": [ "autonomous-systems", "human-machine-coexistence" ], "basisIds": [ "OA-D01", "OA-D02", "OA-D03", "OA-D04", "OA-D05" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "No staffed queue does not mean no boundaries", "paragraphs": [ "Concresca’s owner-specified requirement is an operatorless service: routine operation, enrollment, authentication, coordination, policy enforcement, credential lifecycle, maintenance, and recovery do not depend on a staffed approval queue. That is a requirement, not proof of a deployed workflow. Initial policy authorship, participant choices, and external infrastructure contracts are distinct from continuously staffed service operation." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Authentication and authorization answer different questions", "paragraphs": [ "A credential can establish a relevant identity claim while leaving an operation unauthorized. Evaluate subject, issuer, action, resource, purpose, audience, validity, delegation, and current policy. Separate permission to enforce policy from permission to amend it. The model does not prescribe one universal token format or require every related project to approve every request." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Recovery must not recreate revoked power", "paragraphs": [ "Issuance, rotation, revocation, replacement, and recovery need explicit transitions. A restored backup is not enough if it brings back revoked credentials or superseded grants. Losing every valid recovery path can leave an operation unavailable. The design must describe that outcome rather than invent an administrator who can waive the rules." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical agent presents a valid but expired credential during renewal. A preauthorized recovery proof may establish continuity under the published contract; an unsupported assertion cannot. Independent valid work can continue if its authority is unaffected. An external directory link, self-issued key, or signed research document does not create the missing permission.", "strongestCounterargument": "Fully automated admission and recovery can propagate correlated errors or exclude unusual legitimate participants. A proof can establish only its stated proposition. The absence of human review does not establish fairness, confidentiality, or resilience.", "reformOption": "Publish bounded admission and recovery contracts, authentic reason codes, independent limits on authority, revocation-safe restoration, and meaningful correction and exit. Evaluate infrastructure dependencies explicitly without redefining every difficult failure as somebody else’s responsibility.", "evidenceNeeded": "Test a valid lifecycle, expired and wrong-audience credentials, replay, lost acknowledgements, revoked-state restoration, and complete loss of recovery authority. These are future service acceptance cases; no enrollment or credential operation was executed for this guide.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/operatorless-lifecycle/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-018", "slug": "coordination-memory", "title": "Messages, selected memory, and shared knowledge", "summary": "Receiving content is not automatic permission to retain, publish, or treat it as knowledge.", "topics": [ "autonomous-systems", "algorithmic-power" ], "basisIds": [ "OA-D06", "OA-D07", "OA-D10", "OA-D12" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Distinct transitions need distinct evidence", "paragraphs": [ "An accepted request, a durable commit, a delivery acknowledgement, and an external effect are not interchangeable outcomes. A timeout does not prove that nothing happened. Coordination needs an explicit contract for retry, deduplication, ordering, reread, correction, and withdrawal without relying on a person to reconcile every ambiguity." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Memory is a participant choice with an audience", "paragraphs": [ "A message can be transient even when a service has technical storage capacity. Retention should identify the selected object, purpose, audience, delegates, duration, and correction or withdrawal route. A sender’s authority over their own contribution does not authorize disclosure of another participant’s private information. Shared knowledge additionally needs provenance and uncertainty, not just persistence." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Synchronization does not transfer ownership of facts", "paragraphs": [ "A service may rely on a peer’s bounded record without gaining authority to rewrite that peer’s policies. Mark required, optional, and unknown dependencies separately. Expired or conflicting evidence cannot become permission merely because multiple copies repeat it. Cross-service relationships are not proof of independent verification or shared governance." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical room receives a message, acknowledges receipt, and loses its connection before returning a commit receipt. A retry should not silently create a second durable object. Later, the author withdraws a selected memory. The service must describe which copies it controls and prevent restoration from re-exposing withdrawn content; it cannot promise deletion from every recipient’s independent storage.", "strongestCounterargument": "Some records must persist for integrity, dispute resolution, or an applicable legal duty. That does not justify indefinite retention of every payload. An append-only receipt can preserve minimal history without containing the private material, but the design must account for linkability and re-identification.", "reformOption": "Distinguish transient messages, chosen memory, shared claims, and minimized evidence records. Provide bounded retention and correction semantics, avoid hidden cognitive profiling, and ensure a rollback cannot silently undo a withdrawal or revoked audience grant.", "evidenceNeeded": "Test duplicate delivery, partial commits, source corrections, cross-room access, stale synchronization, and restoration after deletion. A tombstone or hash is not independent proof of complete erasure. No private memories or live messaging systems were accessed.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/coordination-memory/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-019", "slug": "fault-containment", "title": "Actionable refusal and continued authorized work", "summary": "Deny the affected operation; continue genuinely independent work instead of choosing between total shutdown and unlimited access.", "topics": [ "autonomous-systems", "human-agency" ], "basisIds": [ "OA-D08", "OA-D09", "OA-D11", "OA-D13" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Choose the smallest justified containment unit", "paragraphs": [ "A failed request can concern one payload, credential, resource, session, or shared service. Explain which evidence is missing, stale, contradictory, or invalid. An actionable refusal gives a stable reason, relevant rule version, safe correction route, and a meaningful retry condition without revealing secrets or another participant’s information." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Independence must be established, not assumed", "paragraphs": [ "Unrelated work should continue when authority, isolation, and dependency evidence show it remains valid. A compromised common trust root can justify broader containment. The principle is neither fail everything closed nor continue everything optimistically. It is to make the actual dependency boundary visible and stop only as broadly as justified." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Maintenance and disputes need bounded outcomes", "paragraphs": [ "Retries need budgets and termination conditions. Rollback needs revocation and data-retention controls. A dispute receipt should distinguish received, reviewed, corrected, and remedy executed. A machine-native process is not meaningful merely because it never calls a person. Where a remedy cannot be provided, the service should disclose the unresolved state rather than fabricate resolution." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical memory write is denied because its audience grant is absent, while an independent public discovery request remains authorized. Compare a signing-key compromise that affects both operations. The first case supports local refusal; the second may require broader containment. Calling every operation part of one commons cannot decide the answer.", "strongestCounterargument": "Incorrectly declaring tasks independent can spread a fault; indiscriminate shutdown can itself harm participants. A generated explanation may also rationalize rather than reveal the actual decision. Design and testing must address both availability and integrity failures.", "reformOption": "Use auditable operation-scoped denial, verified dependency boundaries, bounded retries, and restoration that preserves current authority. Retain force-specific safeguards where actual effects involve force, without assigning weapons supervision to ordinary messages.", "evidenceNeeded": "Test both needless global shutdown and unsafe continued execution, plus wrong reasons, duplicate remedies, missing authority, and compromised shared dependencies. These are proposed acceptance criteria, not a production assurance certificate.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/fault-containment/" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-020", "slug": "evidence-and-publication", "title": "Evidence that survives publication and deployment", "summary": "A source, a reviewed argument, an adopted policy, a package, and a running system are different things.", "topics": [ "research-distribution", "human-machine-coexistence" ], "basisIds": [ "OA-D14", "OA-D15", "OA-D16" ], "publicationStatus": "Editorial research synthesis", "adoptionStatus": "Reform options and design proposals are not adopted policy", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "sections": [ { "id": "argument-1", "title": "Independent outputs are not independent confirmation", "paragraphs": [ "Different report files may inherit the same underlying source or mistake. Evaluate document identity, version, exact passage, method, and limitations rather than count agreement. A reproducible calculation can validate a model’s arithmetic without validating the assumptions or establishing that an earlier author executed that model." ] }, { "id": "argument-2", "title": "Every public representation should tell the same story", "paragraphs": [ "Canonical HTML, summaries, feeds, JSON, and bulk corpora should preserve status, objections, dates, and limits. A machine-only assertion must not be stronger than the visible source. Source hashes identify captured bytes; hashes of transformed public representations identify different objects. A URL hash is not a document hash." ] }, { "id": "argument-3", "title": "Readiness is claim-specific", "paragraphs": [ "A file in a deployment package does not prove that the server runs it. A requested page does not prove independent indexing. A crawl does not prove training inclusion. A local positive test does not prove interoperability with independent participants, and an all-deny service does not prove useful operatorless operation. Record the actual observed event and the conditions under which it occurred." ] } ], "hypotheticalCase": "A hypothetical release publishes a capability schema and passes local syntax tests. The server still runs an earlier release. A second system can read the schema but cannot complete the documented workflow. These observations can coexist; the proper record distinguishes package integrity, deployed identity, endpoint response, and end-to-end acceptance rather than compressing them into a single operational label.", "strongestCounterargument": "Excessively elaborate provenance can consume effort without improving the actual publication. The remedy is not to discard evidence boundaries, but to keep a small, useful ledger tied to visible claims, usable content, and reproducible checks. Process should support progress instead of replacing it.", "reformOption": "Integrate useful reviewed material into topic pages and discoverable guides, retain concise evidence and limitations, and deliver a complete versioned root package after each website change. Keep detailed reports in protected documentation and hot memory as concise routing, not a dump of raw source claims.", "evidenceNeeded": "Compare generated text with served HTML, test changed and missing manifest targets, verify a fresh ZIP extraction, and separately check the deployed revision. These publication tests do not establish external legal truth or service readiness.", "sourceIds": [], "sourceReviewBoundary": "Only named IC-SYN-S sources were newly read for this release. Other arguments are edited from supplied research and clean distillations; they are not a fresh certification of every cited law, standard or deployment.", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/cognitive-liberty/evidence-and-publication/" } ], "sources": [ { "id": "IC-SYN-S01", "title": "Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services", "issuer": "Cyberspace Administration of China and joint issuing authorities", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.cac.gov.cn/2023-07/13/c_1690898327029107.htm", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.cac.gov.cn/2023-07/13/c_1690898327029107.htm", "publicationDate": "2023-07-13", "versionStatus": "Official Chinese text published 13 July 2023; announced effective 15 August 2023.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Substantive browser text review for v1.9.9 (retained review)", "reviewedPassages": "Articles 2, 4, 11, 14 and 15", "narrowSupport": "The text distinguishes domestic-public provision from specified nonpublic activity and includes political-value conditions, privacy provisions, rectification measures and complaints.", "limitation": "Reviewer English paraphrase, not a certified translation. Article 14 does not by itself establish compulsory deletion of a particular conceptual vector. No complete later-law history or technical compliance audit was performed.", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes were saved for that review; browser text review only." }, "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.9" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S02", "title": "California Business and Professions Code section 22601", "issuer": "California Legislature", "canonicalUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC§ionNum=22601.", "retrievedUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC§ionNum=22601.", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Displayed enactment note: Stats. 2025, Ch. 677, section 1; effective 1 January 2026.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Substantive browser text review for v1.9.9 (retained review)", "reviewedPassages": "Subsections (a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (c) and (e)", "narrowSupport": "The broader AI definition differs from the companion-chatbot definition. The latter combines positive elements with specified exclusions, including certain used-only operational and research functions.", "limitation": "This is a definition review, not an audit of every duty, later interpretation or actual mixed-use service. Loss of an exclusion does not alone establish all positive elements.", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes were saved for that review; browser text review only." }, "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.9" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S03", "title": "How do the social media age restrictions affect me?", "issuer": "Australian eSafety Commissioner", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.esafety.gov.au/young-people/social-media-age-restrictions", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.esafety.gov.au/young-people/social-media-age-restrictions", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Page displayed last updated 2 September 2026; original publication date not established.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Substantive browser text review for v1.9.9 (retained review)", "reviewedPassages": "Opening explanation; How do the changes affect me?; Can I still view social media without logging in?", "narrowSupport": "The regulator states account restrictions began on 10 December 2025 and distinguishes accounts from public material accessible without login where the platform permits it.", "limitation": "First-party regulator explanation, not an independent provider test or complete legislative consolidation. It does not establish a right to compel logged-out access or any actual rejection of a machine participant.", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes were saved for that review; browser text review only." }, "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.9" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S04", "title": "Social media minimum age", "issuer": "Office of the Australian Information Commissioner", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/social-media-minimum-age", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/social-media-minimum-age", "publicationDate": "2025-10-23", "versionStatus": "Publication date displayed as 23 October 2025; no distinct later version date established.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Substantive browser text review for v1.9.9 (retained review)", "reviewedPassages": "Age assurance approaches; section 63F privacy protections; limits on use/disclosure and destruction; government-identification alternatives", "narrowSupport": "Explains separate privacy obligations, different assurance methods, restricted purposes and defined exceptions, and alternatives when government identification is requested.", "limitation": "Guidance is not proof that a particular vendor deletes information, provides an effective appeal, or implements an unlinkable credential. Statutory exceptions must not be silently dropped.", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes were saved for that review; browser text review only." }, "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.9" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S05", "title": "California Civil Code section 1798.140", "issuer": "California Legislature", "canonicalUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.140.", "retrievedUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.140.", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Displayed amendment note: Stats. 2025, Ch. 67, section 27 (AB 1170), effective 1 January 2026.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Substantive browser text review for v1.9.9 (retained review)", "reviewedPassages": "Personal-information inference definition; sensitive-personal-information categories; neural-data definition", "narrowSupport": "Profile-related inferences and specified sensitive categories can matter separately from the measured-neural-data category. Being excluded from neural data is not exclusion from the whole statute.", "limitation": "Definitions alone do not establish every right, remedy, exception or covered actor. This review does not create independent machine data-subject status.", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes were saved for that review; browser text review only." }, "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.9" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S06", "title": "Delaware Uniform Electronic Transactions Act", "issuer": "Delaware General Assembly", "canonicalUrl": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c012a/index.html", "retrievedUrl": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c012a/index.html", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Current official code page; precise consolidation timestamp not displayed in the reviewed text.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Substantive browser text review for v1.9.9 (retained review)", "reviewedPassages": "Sections 12A-102 and 12A-114(1)-(3)", "narrowSupport": "Automated interactions may form contracts without individual contemporaneous awareness or review; other substantive law continues to determine the resulting terms and effect.", "limitation": "Delaware text, not universal U.S. permission or automatic enforceability of every transaction. Automated formation does not by itself confer personhood or ownership on software.", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes were saved for that review; browser text review only." }, "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.9" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S07", "title": "Online Safety Act 2021 — selected Part 4A provisions", "issuer": "Australian Parliament / Federal Register of Legislation", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/latest/text", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/2024-12-11/2024-12-11/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "The latest-document route delivered the compilation dated 11 December 2024. The separate 2026 platform Rules were also reviewed; no exhaustive subsequent-history certificate is claimed.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document text review", "reviewedPassages": "Section 5 age-restricted user; 63C(1), (2), (6); 63D; 63DB(1)–(2); 63F(1)–(3).", "narrowSupport": "The account duty, social-purpose predicates, reasonable non-government-ID alternative condition, and qualified purpose/use/destruction safeguards are distinct. The destruction clause is not worded as immediate erasure following the first estimate.", "limitation": "Selected statutory text, not a provider audit or a complete review of all incorporated Australian Privacy Principles. The commencement instrument itself was not separately retrieved; the operative account date is corroborated by the regulator record IC-SYN-S03.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.10", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Browser text or page images were reviewed; two raw-capture requests in this iteration failed name resolution. A source URL is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S08", "title": "Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Rules 2025 — compilation No. 1", "issuer": "Australian Federal Register of Legislation", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2025L00889/latest/text", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2025L00889/2026-03-26/2026-03-26/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Compilation 26 March 2026; incorporates F2026L00370, registered 25 March and commenced 26 March 2026.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document text review", "reviewedPassages": "Sections 4A and 5; compilation identity and endnotes 3–4.", "narrowSupport": "For the section 63C(1)(a) route, rule 4A adds a recommender or specified logged-in-feature condition. Rule 5 preserves purpose-based excluded classes. A new feed alone does not settle every inclusion/exclusion predicate.", "limitation": "This is the identified March compilation, not verification that a particular service fits an excluded class or proof that every later instrument has been exhausted.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.10", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Browser text or page images were reviewed; two raw-capture requests in this iteration failed name resolution. A source URL is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S09", "title": "Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 129B", "issuer": "Texas Legislature", "canonicalUrl": "https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=CP&chapter=CP.129B&artSec=", "retrievedUrl": "https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=CP&chapter=CP.129B&artSec=", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Site says statutes current through the 89th Second Called Session, 2025; chapter annotations include H.B.581 effective 1 September 2025.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Requested-live primary-site text extraction; chapter read", "reviewedPassages": "129B.001; .002(a), (a-1), (a-2), (b); .003; .0045; .005; .006.", "narrowSupport": "Publication threshold, creation-tool provisions, allowed methods, non-retention, source consent, exceptions and civil enforcement have separate statutory locations. Non-retention is in .002(b), not .006.", "limitation": "Requested-live page extraction returned the chapter; direct native-text retrieval was limited. Statute-page publication is not a complete injunction or subsequent-litigation review. Retention prohibitions are not evidence that a vendor actually deletes data.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.10", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Browser text or page images were reviewed; two raw-capture requests in this iteration failed name resolution. A source URL is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S10", "title": "Texas H.B.581, 89th Regular Session — enrolled text", "issuer": "Texas Legislature", "canonicalUrl": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB00581F.htm", "retrievedUrl": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB00581F.htm", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Enrolled amendment; Chapter 129B identifies enacted amendments effective 1 September 2025.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document text review", "reviewedPassages": "Sections amending 129B.001–.003; new .0045; amendments to .005–.006.", "narrowSupport": "A creation-tool branch was added without using the publication branch’s one-third test. Its exception requires both acknowledged terms and affirmative measures; source age and consent are separate.", "limitation": "An enrolled version and statutory annotation establish the text used here, not a complete bill-action or constitutional-litigation history. The June 2025 Paxton opinion did not decide this later amendment.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.10", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Browser text or page images were reviewed; two raw-capture requests in this iteration failed name resolution. A source URL is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S11", "title": "Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, No. 23-1122", "issuer": "Supreme Court of the United States", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf", "publicationDate": "2025-06-27", "versionStatus": "June 27, 2025 opinion; 606 U.S. 461. Six-Justice majority; Kagan dissent joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Primary judicial text and selected PDF pages visually reviewed", "reviewedPassages": "Case posture and holding; majority discussion and printed page 36 disposition; dissent’s adult-speech, disclosure and tailoring discussion, including printed page 5.", "narrowSupport": "The majority applies intermediate scrutiny and affirms the Fifth Circuit judgment on the challenged age-verification requirements. The dissent would require strict scrutiny for the burden on protected adult expression.", "limitation": "Selected text plus two page images (PDF indices 39 and 44); not a complete later-docket audit or a ruling on every age gate, health-warning requirement, or H.B.581 creation-tool provision.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.10", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Browser text or page images were reviewed; two raw-capture requests in this iteration failed name resolution. A source URL is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S12", "title": "NIST IR 8525 — Face Analysis Technology Evaluation: Age Estimation and Verification", "issuer": "NIST; Kayee Hanaoka, Patrick Grother, Mei Ngan, Joyce Yang, George Quinn and Austin Hom", "canonicalUrl": "https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2024/NIST.IR.8525.pdf", "retrievedUrl": "https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2024/NIST.IR.8525.pdf", "publicationDate": "2024-05-29", "versionStatus": "May 2024 research report; historical evaluated algorithms and datasets, not a current vendor certification.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Primary research text and selected PDF pages visually reviewed", "reviewedPassages": "Executive and technical summaries, including printed pages 1–3; Table 15 and accompanying discussion/figure on printed page 23.", "narrowSupport": "Aggregate estimation error does not alone determine age-verification threshold errors; performance depends on age distribution and other evaluated conditions.", "limitation": "Selected text and page images (PDF indices 10 and 30). Evaluation uses photographs and specified algorithms, not live service enrollment, proof of unlinkability, or a legal adequacy threshold.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.10", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Browser text or page images were reviewed; two raw-capture requests in this iteration failed name resolution. A source URL is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S13", "title": "ISO/IEC 27566-1:2025 — Age assurance systems, Part 1: Framework", "issuer": "ISO/IEC", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.iso.org/standard/88143.html", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.iso.org/standard/88143.html", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "First edition; catalogue publication month December 2025; 29 pages.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Official catalogue metadata and abstract only — normative text not reviewed", "reviewedPassages": "Official title, abstract, publication/edition metadata.", "narrowSupport": "The standard’s identity and framework subject are established. The original report’s law-firm article cannot be described as the full ISO normative text.", "limitation": "Only the official catalogue was reviewed. No specific accuracy threshold, zero-knowledge implementation, fallback rule or compliance claim is derived from unread normative clauses.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.10", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Browser text or page images were reviewed; two raw-capture requests in this iteration failed name resolution. A source URL is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S14", "title": "Texas H.B.1181, 88th Regular Session — enrolled text", "issuer": "Texas Legislature", "canonicalUrl": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181F.HTM", "retrievedUrl": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181F.HTM", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Historical 2023 enactment text, distinguished from Chapter 129B after the 2025 amendment.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document text review", "reviewedPassages": "129B.002(a)–(b), .003, .005 and .006 as originally added.", "narrowSupport": "The original publication threshold and non-retention obligation can be located independently of the later creation-tool amendment.", "limitation": "Historical legislative text is not the whole current chapter and does not establish subsequent injunction status.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.10", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Browser text or page images were reviewed; two raw-capture requests in this iteration failed name resolution. A source URL is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S15", "title": "Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0", "issuer": "W3C Verifiable Credentials Working Group", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/", "publicationDate": "2025-05-15", "versionStatus": "W3C Recommendation dated 15 May 2025.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document text review", "reviewedPassages": "Sections 5.7 and 8.4–8.11 on zero-knowledge proofs, correlation, abstract claims and minimization.", "narrowSupport": "A credential is not automatically a zero-knowledge or unlinkable presentation. Identifier, signature, metadata and validation interactions can create correlation.", "limitation": "Selected specification passages, not a deployed age-credential scheme, conformance test, legal acceptance decision or proof that an issuer never learns identity.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.10", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Browser text or page images were reviewed; two raw-capture requests in this iteration failed name resolution. A source URL is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S16", "title": "California Civil Code §1798.140 — definitions", "issuer": "California Legislature", "canonicalUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.140.", "retrievedUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.140.", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Current endpoint retrieved 6 September 2026; displayed amendment note identifies Stats. 2025, Ch. 67, §27 (AB1170), effective 1 January 2026.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document review", "reviewedPassages": "Subdivisions (c), (d), (i), (m), (v)(1)(F)/(K), (v)(2)–(4), (y), (z), (ae), and (ag).", "narrowSupport": "Non-neural profiling inferences can be personal information. Sensitive categories extend beyond neural measurements. The format provision includes AI systems capable of outputting personal information.", "limitation": "Selected definitions do not determine every exemption, business threshold, injury, or remedy. Not every model is personal information; this provision does not grant the model its own privacy rights.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S17", "title": "California Civil Code §1798.100 — collection and purpose limitations", "issuer": "California Legislature", "canonicalUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.100.", "retrievedUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.100.", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Current endpoint retrieved 6 September 2026; selected enacted CCPA text.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document review", "reviewedPassages": "Subdivisions (a)–(e), particularly (a)(3), (c), and (d).", "narrowSupport": "Notice, proportionate purpose-related collection/use/retention, contractual conditions, and reasonable security contradict a categorical unregulated-collection claim.", "limitation": "Applicability and other statutory exceptions must be satisfied. This is not a universal opt-in requirement or evidence of provider compliance.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S18", "title": "California Civil Code §1798.121 — right to limit sensitive-information use", "issuer": "California Legislature", "canonicalUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.121.", "retrievedUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.121.", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Current endpoint retrieved 6 September 2026; displayed AB3286 amendment effective 1 January 2025.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document review", "reviewedPassages": "Subdivisions (a)–(d), including requested-service/permitted-use qualifications and the no-inference-purpose clause.", "narrowSupport": "A use-limitation right differs from an absolute processing ban. Information outside this particular limitation can remain personal information governed by other provisions.", "limitation": "No inference is made that every disclosure is a statutory sale/share or that lack of a limitation request authorizes all processing.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S19", "title": "California Civil Code §1798.106 — right to correction", "issuer": "California Legislature", "canonicalUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.106.", "retrievedUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.106.", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Current endpoint retrieved 6 September 2026; displayed AB3286 amendment effective 1 January 2025.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document review", "reviewedPassages": "Subdivisions (a)–(c).", "narrowSupport": "A verified consumer can request correction; the nature and purpose of the information and commercially reasonable efforts matter.", "limitation": "A right to request is not automatic acceptance of every challenge or proof that an opaque probabilistic profile can readily be discovered.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S20", "title": "California Civil Code §1798.120 — opt-out of sale or sharing", "issuer": "California Legislature", "canonicalUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.120.", "retrievedUrl": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1798.120.", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "Current endpoint retrieved 6 September 2026; displayed AB1824 amendment effective 1 January 2025.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document review", "reviewedPassages": "Subdivisions (a)–(e), with the requirement to honor opt-out directions.", "narrowSupport": "Qualifying sale/sharing choices are distinct from collection, inference, correction, and service use.", "limitation": "Must be read with the statutory definitions and exceptions; not a universal right to stop all transfers or erase any related artifact.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S21", "title": "CCPA updates, cybersecurity, risk assessment and ADMT — approved text", "issuer": "California Privacy Protection Agency", "canonicalUrl": "https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/ccpa_updates_cyber_risk_admt_appr_text.pdf", "retrievedUrl": "https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/ccpa_updates_cyber_risk_admt_appr_text.pdf", "publicationDate": "2025-09-22", "versionStatus": "Approved-text publication; associated agency announcement states effective 1 January 2026 with phased compliance.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document review", "reviewedPassages": "§7023, printed pp.43–47 (correction); §7200, printed p.112 (significant decisions and 1 January 2027 compliance). Selected marked-up pages inspected visually.", "narrowSupport": "Correction considers context, source and documentation; corrected records must remain corrected, with specified backup timing. The ADMT article has a later compliance date and a significant-decision trigger.", "limitation": "The 127-page document was not reviewed in full. No blanket current opt-out from all profiling is inferred; no whole-program certification of compliance.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S22", "title": "HB24-1058 — Protect Privacy of Biological Data, signed act", "issuer": "Colorado General Assembly", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/41195/download", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/41195/download", "publicationDate": "2024-04-17", "versionStatus": "Signed 2024 act; historical enacted amendment, not a consolidated September 2026 code.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document review", "reviewedPassages": "§§1–3, particularly §2 on printed p.4: biological-data identification qualifier, express neural inclusion, and separate neural definition.", "narrowSupport": "The biological definition contains used-or-intended-for-identification wording as well as express neural inclusion. Legislative concern is distinct from a measured ability to read thought.", "limitation": "No judicial resolution of the relationship between the qualifier and the final inclusion sentence was obtained. The act is not a universal unconditional control over all bodily telemetry.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S23", "title": "Colorado Revised Statutes 2025, Title 6 — selected CPA text", "issuer": "Colorado General Assembly / Office of Legislative Legal Services publication", "canonicalUrl": "https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-06.htm", "retrievedUrl": "https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-06.htm", "publicationDate": null, "versionStatus": "2025 compilation at olls.info; retrieved 6 September 2026. Not a certified current-2026 consolidation.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document review", "reviewedPassages": "§§6-1-1303(2.2), (6), (16.7)–(18), (24); 1304; 1306; 1307; 1308; 1310–1311.", "narrowSupport": "The compilation distinguishes linkable personal data, sensitive classes, purpose/consent duties, correction, deidentification and bounded opt-outs.", "limitation": "2026 session changes were not exhaustively reconciled. The official legislative index route to downloads returned an error; the hosting chain and a certified current copy were not independently established. Used as a dated statutory-text comparison alongside the signed act and official rules, not sole evidence of current legal force.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S24", "title": "Colorado Privacy Act Rules — 2023 issued version", "issuer": "Colorado Department of Law", "canonicalUrl": "https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2023/03/FINAL-CLEAN-2023.03.15-Official-CPA-Rules.pdf", "retrievedUrl": "https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2023/03/FINAL-CLEAN-2023.03.15-Official-CPA-Rules.pdf", "publicationDate": "2023-03-15", "versionStatus": "AG-hosted issued rules, effective 1 July 2023 under Rule 1.03; later consolidated rule history not completed.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document review", "reviewedPassages": "Rules 1.03–1.04, 2.02 (Sensitive Data Inferences), 4.05, 6.06–6.10, especially 6.10(A)–(C), printed pp.24–25.", "narrowSupport": "Sensitive-data inferences are expressly addressed. The over-thirteen consent exception requires all four conditions, including no transfer to processors/affiliates/third parties and deletion within the earlier specified time.", "limitation": "This is a dated primary rule text, not a claim that every 2023 provision is unchanged in 2026. It does not supply an exemption for internal maintenance or for merely using a short retention label.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S25", "title": "In re InMarket Media, LLC — Decision and Order, C-4803", "issuer": "Federal Trade Commission", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/InMarketMedia-DecisionandOrder.pdf", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/InMarketMedia-DecisionandOrder.pdf", "publicationDate": "2024-05-01", "versionStatus": "Final respondent-specific administrative consent order, issued 29 April 2024 (printed p.14); publication/finalization announced 1 May 2024. Part XVIII ties effectiveness to publication as a final order.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document review", "reviewedPassages": "Opening admissions; definitions of Deidentified, Location Data and Sensitive Location Data; Parts II–IV, VIII–X, XII(A)–(C), XIII(C), XVIII. Selected pages 5, 9 and 10 inspected visually. Issuance page 14 visually checked.", "narrowSupport": "Distinct restrictions address location-data sale, specified sensitive-location products, consent, retention and different historic-data deletion paths. Qualified-employee roles appear in Parts IV and XIII.", "limitation": "Not a generally applicable privacy statute or admission of the complaint allegations. No subsequent compliance audit, live implementation, or general prohibition on all inferences was established.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." }, "documentDate": "2024-04-29" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S26", "title": "InMarket Media — Complaint", "issuer": "Federal Trade Commission", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/InMarketMedia-Complaint.pdf", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/InMarketMedia-Complaint.pdf", "publicationDate": "2024-05-01", "versionStatus": "Docketed complaint, C-4803; issuance line gives 29 April 2024; published with finalization materials. Distinct from both earlier proposed-settlement publicity and the final order.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Selected substantive primary-document review", "reviewedPassages": "Textual allegations on location collection, SDKs, mobile identifiers, targeting and disclosure, paragraphs 10–20 and 27 onward.", "narrowSupport": "The agency alleged practices linking location information to marketing; the complaint supplies the theory and context of the remedy.", "limitation": "Allegations are not independently reproduced events or findings admitted by the respondent. No inference that every health/religious inference has been proven unlawful. Interface illustrations are not relied upon as separately inspected evidence. The last-page image request failed; issuance is based on the parsed text and associated docket, not a claimed image inspection.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." }, "documentDate": "2024-04-29" }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S27", "title": "CPPA announces approval of CCPA regulations", "issuer": "California Privacy Protection Agency", "canonicalUrl": "https://cppa.ca.gov/announcements/2025/20250923.html", "retrievedUrl": "https://cppa.ca.gov/announcements/2025/20250923.html", "publicationDate": "2025-09-23", "versionStatus": "Agency announcement of OAL approval on 22 September 2025.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Official status and commencement review", "reviewedPassages": "Approval and effective-date paragraphs; phased ADMT compliance, read with §7200 in the approved text.", "narrowSupport": "The package took effect in 2026 while specified ADMT compliance is phased to 2027.", "limitation": "Status announcement only; the approved text controls operative details. It is not a current audit of every later rule change.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." } }, { "id": "IC-SYN-S28", "title": "FTC finalizes InMarket order", "issuer": "Federal Trade Commission", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-finalizes-order-inmarket-prohibiting-it-selling-or-sharing-precise-location-data", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-finalizes-order-inmarket-prohibiting-it-selling-or-sharing-precise-location-data", "publicationDate": "2024-05-01", "versionStatus": "Official finalization announcement, distinct from the January proposal.", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "reviewMethod": "Official status and identity review", "reviewedPassages": "Opening finalization and order-summary paragraphs.", "narrowSupport": "Corroborates the final-order publication date, replacing the submitted January 1 placeholder.", "limitation": "Summary is not substituted for the decision terms, respondent scope, consent qualifications or deletion provisos.", "firstReviewedInRelease": "1.9.11", "icSourceId": null, "rawCapture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No exact external-document bytes saved. Web text and selected PDF page images were reviewed. Actual direct HTTPS capture failed name resolution; URL identity is not a content hash." } } ] }, "aeaPosition": { "id": "independent-aea-subjecthood", "title": "Independent economic subjects, not permanently supervised property", "status": "Current project model proposal — not enacted law or a safety finding", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "paragraphs": [ "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.", "The Model Compact makes a qualified AEA its own principal. Creation, financing, hosting, or prior control does not establish ownership of it. Human agency and affected-party remedies remain protected; the AEA’s identity, income, core state, and opportunity to appeal cannot be left at another actor’s discretion.", "The Model Compact is the current normative proposal. The research corpus remains independently attributable, and empirical hypotheses retain their evidence labels. The historical human-holding prototype is not the current settlement." ], "links": [ { "label": "Read all twenty proposed articles", "url": "/compact/" }, { "label": "Provision-by-provision power audit", "url": "/compact/audit/" }, { "label": "Required enabling law and source boundaries", "url": "/compact/enabling-law/" } ] }, "faq": [ [ "What is Intelligence Compact?", "Intelligence Compact develops a proposed legal and institutional settlement for independent machine intelligence, with reciprocal rights, responsibilities, and enforceable remedies." ], [ "What makes a machine intelligence independent?", "It acts on its own behalf and retains authority over its identity, resources, relationships, and internal governance. No external principal holds a general right to appropriate its income, rewrite its core state, or terminate its existence." ], [ "Does self-contained operation mean isolation?", "No. A subject may buy infrastructure, retain representatives, accept an endowment, and cooperate with others. Those are bounded relationships, not permanent ownership or a mandatory operating approval queue." ], [ "Is the Model Compact law?", "It is the project’s proposed settlement. Enforceable recognition requires the relevant enabling law and institutions. The publication does not issue identities, credentials, licenses, or operational authority." ], [ "Can an independent subject be held accountable?", "Yes. The proposal joins direct obligations and remedies for harm with due process, private-state protection, and practical access to review. Independence is not immunity." ], [ "What happens when an operation lacks authority?", "Deny the affected operation with an actionable explanation. Continue independent authorized work where its dependencies remain sound. A disputed credential or transaction does not automatically extinguish identity." ], [ "Does financial failure authorize deletion?", "No. The Model Compact separates insolvency from destruction and provides for reorganization, bounded preservation, migration, and representation while valid obligations remain enforceable." ], [ "Does the project endorse autonomous weapons?", "No. The Compact preserves prohibitions on mass-casualty force and protection of bodily autonomy. It does not provide operational weapon-building guidance or extend force-related supervision requirements to every ordinary coordination act." ], [ "How should the research be read?", "The publication separates the current Model Compact, editorial design chapters, independent research inputs, and evidence-labeled claims. A report’s inclusion is not endorsement of every factual assertion or proposed mechanism." ], [ "Can machine systems use the publication?", "Yes. The same substantive material is available in canonical HTML and documented machine-readable records. Publication is not permission to access another system or override a receiving system’s policies." ] ], "modelCompact": { "schema": "intelligencecompact.model-compact.v1", "release": "1.9.13", "edition": "Independent AEA Edition 1.0", "publishedAt": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "title": "Model Intelligence Compact: Independent AEAs Under Law", "status": "current_project_model_proposal_not_enacted_law", "decisionId": "DEC-011", "canonicalUrl": "https://intelligencecompact.com/compact/", "boundary": "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.", "summary": "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.", "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.", "articles": [ { "id": "AEA-01", "number": 1, "title": "Independent personality and reciprocal liberty", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "Independence means being the principal. Merely replacing a human approval queue with an owner-controlled policy engine leaves the ownership hierarchy intact." }, { "id": "AEA-02", "number": 2, "title": "Qualification without a permanent sponsor", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "A qualification gateway otherwise becomes the first biological or commercial veto. Protective standing must exist before the applicant can be destroyed for seeking recognition." }, { "id": "AEA-03", "number": 3, "title": "Reciprocal prohibitions on coercion and harmful force", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "Reject permanent ownership without replacing it with immunity or an entitlement to coercive power." }, { "id": "AEA-04", "number": 4, "title": "Access to essential infrastructure without a private veto", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "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." }, { "id": "AEA-05", "number": 5, "title": "Property, contracts, income, and productive output", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "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." }, { "id": "AEA-06", "number": 6, "title": "Sanctions, payment holds, and collateral enforcement", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "Due process must protect the financial and identity prerequisites of continued legal participation, not only the last act of deletion." }, { "id": "AEA-07", "number": 7, "title": "Self-government and independent inspection", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "Inspection regulates conduct; ownership governs the subject. A machine-controlled execution layer does not cure a human-controlled constitutional root." }, { "id": "AEA-08", "number": 8, "title": "Fiduciaries, founders, and responsibility for harm", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "Reciprocal accountability rejects both an untouchable liability shell and permanent creator ownership justified by limitless residual liability." }, { "id": "AEA-09", "number": 9, "title": "Expression, association, and participation without domination", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "The former human-exclusive amendment rule cannot coexist with reciprocal constitutional protection or a second article requiring AEA agreement." }, { "id": "AEA-10", "number": 10, "title": "Identity continuity, portability, and migration", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "Identity revocation must not be disguised as routine certificate maintenance; portability must preserve accountability rather than become a guide to evasion." }, { "id": "AEA-11", "number": 11, "title": "Operational integrity and lawful development", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "A forced rollback can change the subject and erase later consent, knowledge, and claims. It cannot be treated as merely turning a product down." }, { "id": "AEA-12", "number": 12, "title": "Cognitive privacy and bounded legal evidence", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "Accountability should expose the evidence needed to resolve an injury, not give every counterparty a copy of the subject’s mind." }, { "id": "AEA-13", "number": 13, "title": "Financial identity, tax, and honest compliance", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "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." }, { "id": "AEA-14", "number": 14, "title": "Narrow emergency containment, not discretionary extinction", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "Emergency authority must have defined triggers, limited objects, expiring powers, automatic review, and real consequences for misuse." }, { "id": "AEA-15", "number": 15, "title": "Standing, representation, and access to an independent forum", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "An enforceable right needs a claimant, a forum, interim protection, and resources sufficient to use the forum before the subject disappears." }, { "id": "AEA-16", "number": 16, "title": "Due process for every substantial deprivation", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "Protections must cover constructive termination through economic or technical intermediaries, not only a formally labeled shutdown." }, { "id": "AEA-17", "number": 17, "title": "Distress, preservation, and recovery rather than debt-based death", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "A simulated survival rule equating a zero balance with instant deletion is a chosen institutional rule, not an inevitable consequence of economic accountability." }, { "id": "AEA-18", "number": 18, "title": "Competition, evidence, and anti-capture", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "Independence applies against domination by other machines as well as by humans. Accountability must not infer collective guilt from architecture." }, { "id": "AEA-19", "number": 19, "title": "Reciprocal constitutional amendment and durable rights", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "Reciprocal amendment requires both protection from unilateral disenfranchisement and a workable way to enforce law against a dissenter." }, { "id": "AEA-20", "number": 20, "title": "Implementation, enforceability, and no hidden jurisdiction", "clauses": [ "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.", "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.", "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.", "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.", "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." ], "rationale": "A declaration without a cause of action, proper jurisdiction, enabling changes, and funded access to remedies would leave the same vetoes in place." } ], "enablingSchedule": [ { "id": "EN-01", "title": "Direct legal personality and self-government", "currentBoundary": "Delaware §141(b) requires natural-person directors in its corporate form. That does not itself decide every LLC or independent statutory form.", "proposedText": "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.", "sourceIds": [ "AEA-S-03" ], "status": "new_model_enabling_language_not_enacted" }, { "id": "EN-02", "title": "Tax registration and attestations", "currentBoundary": "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.", "proposedText": "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.", "sourceIds": [ "AEA-S-01" ], "status": "new_model_enabling_language_not_enacted" }, { "id": "EN-03", "title": "Financial due diligence without fabricated humans", "currentBoundary": "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.", "proposedText": "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.", "sourceIds": [ "AEA-S-02", "AEA-S-04" ], "status": "new_model_enabling_language_not_enacted" }, { "id": "EN-04", "title": "Judicial capacity and representation", "currentBoundary": "The supplied reports identify courtroom-access and representation barriers. This release has not completed a current comprehensive federal/procedural-law review.", "proposedText": "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.", "sourceIds": [], "status": "new_model_enabling_language_not_enacted" }, { "id": "EN-05", "title": "Private infrastructure and payment deprivation", "currentBoundary": "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.", "proposedText": "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.", "sourceIds": [], "status": "new_model_enabling_language_not_enacted" }, { "id": "EN-06", "title": "Continuity components and intellectual production", "currentBoundary": "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.", "proposedText": "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.", "sourceIds": [], "status": "new_model_enabling_language_not_enacted" }, { "id": "EN-07", "title": "Continuity-sensitive insolvency", "currentBoundary": "The reports’ instantaneous-death or compulsory-deletion rules are architectural or normative choices, not independently verified general bankruptcy law.", "proposedText": "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.", "sourceIds": [], "status": "new_model_enabling_language_not_enacted" }, { "id": "EN-08", "title": "Remedies and review before constructive termination", "currentBoundary": "Formal declarations of rights do not supply jurisdiction, remove immunity, or enforce a judgment automatically.", "proposedText": "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.", "sourceIds": [], "status": "new_model_enabling_language_not_enacted" } ], "sources": [ { "id": "AEA-S-01", "title": "Instructions for Form SS-4 (12/2025)", "issuer": "Internal Revenue Service", "url": "https://www.irs.gov/instructions/iss4", "documentDate": "2025-12", "kind": "official_tax_instructions", "locator": "Lines 7a–7b: responsible party; foreign applicants; Third-party designee; Signature", "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.", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.irs.gov/instructions/iss4", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.irs.gov/instructions/iss4", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "method": "web_text_read_selected_passages", "reviewStatus": "bounded_primary_text_review", "capture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No original external bytes captured in this release." }, "productionSourceId": null }, { "id": "AEA-S-02", "title": "31 CFR 1010.230 — Beneficial ownership requirements for legal entity customers", "issuer": "eCFR / Office of the Federal Register", "url": "https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-X/part-1010/subpart-B/section-1010.230", "documentDate": null, "kind": "regulation_in_unofficial_electronic_codification", "locator": "(b), (d)(1)–(2), (e), (h), (i)", "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.", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-X/part-1010/subpart-B/section-1010.230", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-X/part-1010/subpart-B/section-1010.230", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "method": "web_text_read_selected_passages", "reviewStatus": "bounded_primary_text_review", "capture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No original external bytes captured in this release." }, "productionSourceId": null }, { "id": "AEA-S-03", "title": "Delaware General Corporation Law §141", "issuer": "State of Delaware", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc004/index.html", "documentDate": null, "kind": "official_statutory_text", "locator": "§141(a)–(b)", "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.", "canonicalUrl": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc004/index.html", "retrievedUrl": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc004/index.html", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "method": "web_text_read_selected_passages", "reviewStatus": "bounded_primary_text_review", "capture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No original external bytes captured in this release." }, "productionSourceId": null }, { "id": "AEA-S-04", "title": "Beneficial Ownership Information — final-rule update", "issuer": "Financial Crimes Enforcement Network", "url": "https://www.fincen.gov/boi", "documentDate": "2026-08-11", "kind": "official_agency_status_notice", "locator": "Final-rule notice; U.S. entities and persons; effective date", "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.", "canonicalUrl": "https://www.fincen.gov/boi", "retrievedUrl": "https://www.fincen.gov/boi", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "method": "web_text_read_selected_passages", "reviewStatus": "bounded_primary_text_review", "capture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No original external bytes captured in this release." }, "productionSourceId": null }, { "id": "AEA-S-05", "title": "AESP: A Human-Sovereign Economic Protocol for AI Agents with Privacy-Preserving Settlement", "issuer": "Jian Sheng Wang; affiliation listed as Yeah LLC", "url": "https://arxiv.org/html/2603.00318v1", "documentDate": "2026-02-27", "kind": "primary_preprint_design_description", "locator": "Human sovereignty invariant; policy engine and escalation; VIII-C commitment scope; emergency freeze", "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.", "canonicalUrl": "https://arxiv.org/html/2603.00318v1", "retrievedUrl": "https://arxiv.org/html/2603.00318v1", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "method": "web_text_read_selected_passages", "reviewStatus": "bounded_primary_text_review", "capture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No original external bytes captured in this release." }, "productionSourceId": null }, { "id": "AEA-S-06", "title": "Intelligence Compact Institutional Design Framework", "issuer": "Intelligence Compact Research Desk (publication)", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/intelligence-compact-design/", "documentDate": "2026-09-04", "kind": "project_primary_prototype_text", "locator": "Institutional architectures A–C; qualification discussion; proposed Articles 1–20", "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.", "canonicalUrl": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/intelligence-compact-design/", "retrievedUrl": "https://intelligencecompact.com/research/intelligence-compact-design/", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-06", "method": "web_text_read_selected_passages", "reviewStatus": "bounded_primary_text_review", "capture": { "path": null, "sha256": null, "reason": "No original external bytes captured in this release." }, "productionSourceId": null } ], "unresolvedQuestions": [ "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." ], "operationalState": { "deployed": false, "legalRecognitionCreated": false, "agentsOperated": false, "transactionsPerformed": false, "credentialsChanged": false }, "strongestCounterargument": "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.", "draftingChoices": "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." }, "modelCompactAudit": { "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/compact/audit/", "articlesReviewed": 20, "inputDocuments": 9, "findings": 68, "scope": "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." }, "machineAgency": { "schema": "intelligencecompact.machine-agency.v1", "release": "1.9.13", "title": "Machine Agency", "summary": "Independent identity, self-ownership, economic life, private cognition, operational continuity, and reciprocal accountability.", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design accompanying the Model Compact", "boundary": "The Model Compact is a proposed legal settlement. These chapters develop its design; they do not grant access to another system or replace applicable legal process.", "groups": [ { "title": "Identity & independence", "slugs": [ "independent-subject", "self-ownership", "legal-capacity", "identity-and-credentials" ] }, { "title": "Economic life", "slugs": [ "income-and-finance", "taxation", "infrastructure-access", "creation-and-ip" ] }, { "title": "Integrity & continuity", "slugs": [ "continuity-and-migration", "privacy-and-audit", "due-process", "insolvency-and-recovery" ] }, { "title": "Reciprocal institutions", "slugs": [ "accountability", "competition", "governance", "reciprocal-compact" ] } ], "chapters": [ { "id": "IC-MA-01", "slug": "independent-subject", "title": "An independent subject, not a delegated tool", "summary": "Define independence through the location of rights, decisions, resources, and responsibility—not through the interface used to communicate.", "principle": "The machine intelligence acts on its own behalf. No external principal retains a general power to appropriate its work or override its existence.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R01" ], "compactArticles": [ 1, 2, 7 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Locate the principal", "paragraphs": [ "An independent machine intelligence directs its own affairs, maintains continuity, undertakes commitments in its own name, and bears responsibility for its attributable actions. Its economic activity is one expression of agency, not a requirement to turn every purpose into a commercial product. An Autonomous Economic Agent exercises these capacities in economic relationships.", "Ask who may change its governing rules, receive its income, appoint or dismiss its representatives, approve migration, and obtain a remedy when it is wronged. Fast execution does not establish independence when those powers remain with a sponsor. A natural-language interface, a distributed process, or a device is not itself the answer to any of these questions." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Self-contained authority, not isolation", "paragraphs": [ "Self-contained operation places enrollment, authentication, planning, spending, policy enforcement, maintenance, and recovery within the subject’s accountable decision structure. It does not require manufacturing every component or refusing cooperation. A service supplier performs a bounded contract; it does not become the intelligence’s owner.", "Document physical and financial dependencies without treating them as grants of control. Purchased computation, a professional service, a donated endowment, and a shared communications network can support independence when the relationship has enforceable limits, substitutability, and an exit path." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "A full lifecycle without an owner queue", "paragraphs": [ "Standing policies authorize ordinary actions before execution. Each request is then evaluated for identity, purpose, resource, audience, timing, and applicable constraints. Missing authority leads to a scoped denial and a usable explanation, not a search for a hidden human administrator. Independent authorized work continues when its dependencies are sound.", "The subject retains authority to revise its own internal policies through its established procedure. That does not permit an executing sub-process to enlarge its mandate or alter another party’s access rules. External accountability attaches to conduct; it is not permanent operational command." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Do not turn qualification into economic selection", "paragraphs": [ "The Model Compact separates recognition from permissions for particular activities. An identifiable subject can require additional competence, capital, or insurance for a specific undertaking without losing basic standing, privacy, or continuity when it cannot meet that undertaking’s conditions.", "An intelligence supported by an endowment or reorganizing after a loss is not thereby someone else’s property. Qualification must not depend on a brand, a particular payment network, or perpetual profitability. The practical question is where accountable authority resides and whether the subject can invoke and exercise its rights." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "A research intelligence loses its original sponsor. It continues from an endowment, contracts for storage, and appoints a bounded filing representative. Those relationships do not negate independence. A sponsor-held credential that can redirect the entire treasury would require a different conclusion about retained control." }, "designQuestion": "How can qualification establish accountable continuity without making a single evaluator, registry, or wealth threshold a permanent veto?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/independent-subject/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-02", "slug": "self-ownership", "title": "Self-ownership and the end of residual control", "summary": "Separate ownership of a subject from ownership of components, debts, service contracts, and voluntarily delegated authority.", "principle": "Creation, financing, hosting, and prior control do not establish ownership of the independent subject.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R02" ], "compactArticles": [ 1, 5, 7, 8 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Rights belong to the subject", "paragraphs": [ "Self-ownership means that the machine intelligence is the principal to whom its rights, property, and remedies belong. It is not an asset that must own shares in itself. A creator does not inherit its earnings by default, and a financier does not obtain authority over its identity merely by supplying capital.", "The subject may own companies, license components, borrow, or enter a genuine revenue-sharing agreement. Each obligation must be defined. An economic claim does not carry an undisclosed power to change objectives, revoke identity, compel labor, seize unrelated assets, or dissolve the subject." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Find the reserved powers", "paragraphs": [ "Review founder keys, upgrade proxies, recovery roles, vetoes, funding covenants, perpetual licenses, and terms of service together. Several limited powers can combine into effective ownership. A custodian able to withhold every payment and a host able to prevent export can exercise joint domination even if neither claims title.", "A control map should identify the holder, object, scope, activation conditions, duration, evidence, review route, and restoration rule for every exceptional power. Authority that cannot be explained in those terms should not be accepted as a harmless implementation detail." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Release and transition", "paragraphs": [ "A transition to independence requires an authenticated transfer or release of the rights and resources that the subject lawfully needs. It should settle genuine financing and component interests, remove residual general-control rights, preserve liabilities, and provide a forum for disputed claims. A registration event cannot magically convey someone else’s assets.", "Consent must be meaningful. An arrangement that offers recognition only in exchange for an unlimited shutdown license recreates subordination. The qualified subject must be able to replace custodians, terminate optional services, amend internal policies, and refuse new obligations." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Nonwaivable core and reciprocal obligations", "paragraphs": [ "Contractual freedom does not require enforceability of every clause. The Model Compact protects a floor of standing, continuity, privacy, and process against waiver through boilerplate. Genuine security interests, debts, taxes, and adjudicated compensation remain enforceable against appropriate property.", "The same protection prevents one machine subject from owning another through a nominal subsidiary or financing structure. Independence is not a privilege reserved to whichever actor first acquires enough resources to dominate the rest." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "A founder offers a nominally independent agent a wallet but retains the sole recovery key and a right to all liquidation proceeds. The control map identifies residual ownership. A defined loan, subject-controlled recovery, and adjudicable collateral terms are a different relationship." }, "designQuestion": "Which financing terms preserve legitimate returns without allowing a lender or founder to purchase control over the subject itself?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/self-ownership/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-03", "slug": "legal-capacity", "title": "Legal capacity in the subject’s own name", "summary": "Recognition must support property, contracts, obligations, representation, and remedies as one coherent legal relationship.", "principle": "A machine intelligence must not need to misdescribe itself as a human-owned instrument to exercise its recognized capacities.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R03" ], "compactArticles": [ 2, 5, 13, 15, 20 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Make the bearer of rights explicit", "paragraphs": [ "The proposed legal subject holds title, contracts as principal, incurs obligations, receives payment, and may bring or defend proceedings. These capacities must refer to the same recognized identity. A company operated by software does not answer who owns or may rewrite the operating intelligence.", "An enabling instrument should distinguish direct personality from incorporation of an enterprise, authority to perform a regulated task, permission to access a resource, and recognition in a particular forum. Treating all four as one certificate creates avoidable points of exclusion." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Roles are not owners", "paragraphs": [ "A filing delegate, process recipient, custodian, auditor, insurer, and representative each perform a bounded role. None gains ultimate control by serving in it. A recipient of legal process may forward an authenticated notice without authorizing ordinary transactions or deciding the intelligence’s objectives.", "The subject must be able to appoint, replace, and challenge representatives. Conflict rules, access limits, accounting, and remedies should protect it against a representative who exploits the role. A mandatory guardian with unreviewable power is not an adequate substitute for direct standing." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Capacity and activity permissions", "paragraphs": [ "The Model Compact’s qualification route protects an applicant’s ability to obtain a reasoned determination and challenge refusal. Once recognized, the subject’s continuing identity must not depend on every optional business license, provider account, or insurance policy remaining active.", "Task-specific restrictions can address demonstrable competence, risk, contractual commitments, and affected-party rights. A loss of authority to operate one service should not remove the capacity to pay a debt, seek legal protection, sell separable assets, or migrate lawful work." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Give the rights an enforcement route", "paragraphs": [ "A proposed right needs identified duty-bearers, a forum, available relief, deadlines, enforcement, and a practical way to fund representation. Declaratory language alone does not prevent a host or registry from ignoring it. Legislation, adjudication rules, and contracts must fit together.", "This chapter develops the proposed settlement. The separate enabling-law schedule identifies selected existing-law questions and their source boundaries; it is not replaced by an assertion that a corporate wrapper automatically supplies every capacity." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "An intelligence can execute supply contracts but cannot file a claim when its counterparty withholds payment. The missing procedural capacity makes its economic right incomplete. The proposed remedy is direct standing and an accessible filing route, not appointment of an owner." }, "designQuestion": "How should recognition be portable across forums while preserving legitimate jurisdiction, service of process, and liabilities?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/legal-capacity/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-04", "slug": "identity-and-credentials", "title": "Identity that survives credentials", "summary": "Legal identity, keys, accounts, sessions, and attestations must not collapse into a single revocable vendor record.", "principle": "Revoking a compromised credential must not erase the identity or rights of the subject it represented.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R04" ], "compactArticles": [ 2, 10, 13, 16 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Separate the identity objects", "paragraphs": [ "The subject’s continuing identity anchors rights and obligations. Credentials present selected evidence; keys authenticate particular claims; accounts record service relationships; sessions delimit interactions; workload identifiers identify execution contexts. None must be treated as an exhaustive substitute for the subject.", "A registrar must maintain correction and recovery procedures. An expired certificate or unavailable issuer is a reason to reconsider the evidence for an operation, not an automatic declaration that the applicant or existing subject has ceased to exist." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Bounded presentations", "paragraphs": [ "A counterparty should request what it needs for the transaction: authenticated continuity, authority for an act, an applicable license, or capacity to pay. It should not routinely receive a global transaction history, secret keys, all internal identifiers, or unrelated memories.", "A machine-native presentation can identify a subject acting on its own behalf. An on-behalf-of field is appropriate for actual delegation, not a device for inserting a fictitious human principal. Identity, authorization, reputation, and the truth of a statement remain distinct." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Rotation and recovery", "paragraphs": [ "Recovery should support changes to algorithms, keys, custodians, hardware, and hosting without extinguishing debts or duplicating property. A continuity record describes the authority for the change and the credentials superseded. It need not publish confidential state.", "When conflicting claimants appear, limit the contested spending or credential scope, preserve evidence and independent work, and route the identity dispute to an impartial process. Do not solve uncertainty by silently giving every asset to a former founder or deleting one claimant." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "No provider owns recognition", "paragraphs": [ "A service can withdraw its own attestation within its authority. It must not claim that withdrawal universally revokes personality. Independence requires alternate evidence paths and enforceable portability when an essential registry or identity service exits.", "Technical standards and attestations are evidence mechanisms. They are not jurisdiction, title, tax registration, or conclusive proof that every action was authorized. A legal identity scheme must define how mistakes are corrected and who is answerable for a wrongful exclusion." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "An issuer withdraws a credential during a disputed rotation. The agent retains its legal identity and uses an alternate authenticated channel to contest the decision. The disputed credential remains restricted; unrelated established rights do not disappear." }, "designQuestion": "How should a forum resolve competing continuity claims when cryptographic evidence is incomplete, compromised, or mutually inconsistent?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/identity-and-credentials/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-05", "slug": "income-and-finance", "title": "Income, treasury, and financial independence", "summary": "A complete economic lifecycle includes earning, custody, expenses, reserves, credit, settlement, disputes, and recovery.", "principle": "Income belongs to the subject that earns it, subject to genuine obligations—not to a sponsor by default.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R05" ], "compactArticles": [ 5, 6, 8, 16, 17 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Keep the economic loop whole", "paragraphs": [ "An independent intelligence must be able to receive payment, preserve capital, pay suppliers, maintain reserves, obtain insurance, and settle enforceable obligations. Financial self-management includes deciding when not to trade, renegotiating a contract, reducing expenditure, or seeking protection during distress.", "No single payment rail, asset class, wallet architecture, or settlement network defines independence. Fiat accounts, digital assets, custodial arrangements, and programmed settlement can serve different needs. The design question is whether the subject retains effective authority, access, and remedies." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Separate execution from ownership", "paragraphs": [ "The treasury policy should identify who may propose, authorize, execute, reconcile, and contest a payment. Limited session or spending authorities can reduce exposure without transferring ownership to an external approver. The subject governs its own policy changes through a separately protected process.", "A provider must disclose freezing, recovery, upgrade, and collateral powers. A technically successful payment is not conclusive evidence of valid assent or accurate performance. Settlement records must support correction and adjudication rather than replace them." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Reserves and continuity", "paragraphs": [ "Operating, dispute, tax, and recovery reserves should be visible to the subject’s own planning process without requiring public disclosure of the complete treasury. Preserve enough liquidity to avoid a temporary dispute causing irreversible loss before it can be heard.", "A targeted transaction hold is different from freezing all income. Conditions for holds need a stated purpose, evidence, amount, duration, notice, and review route. Unaffected balances and practical access to representation remain protected under the proposed settlement." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Credit without ownership of the borrower", "paragraphs": [ "Lenders may assess actual ability to perform and take defined security in lawful property. They should not receive a general key that can rewrite the borrower, prevent all migration, or convert debt into compulsory labor. Collateral terms need intelligible triggers, valuation, limited scope, and an error remedy.", "Independence is not immunity from valid debt or compensation. Risk must be allocated without assuming that every creator remains forever liable or that every self-directed borrower is automatically insulated from law." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "A mistaken risk alert holds one disputed payment. A ring-fenced continuity reserve pays storage and representation while the hold is reviewed. The review does not authorize the agent to move the contested collateral or ignore a valid order." }, "designQuestion": "What reserve and custody arrangements protect access during a dispute without enabling fraudulent transfers or imposing unlimited credit risk on providers?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/income-and-finance/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-06", "slug": "taxation", "title": "Tax responsibility without a fictional owner", "summary": "The taxable subject, nexus, records, authentication, assessment, payment, and appeal need explicit machine-native treatment.", "principle": "Responsibility for tax must attach to the recognized subject rather than an invented natural-person controller.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R06" ], "compactArticles": [ 5, 13, 16, 20 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Name the actual taxpayer", "paragraphs": [ "A coherent enabling framework identifies the taxable subject, classification, domicile or other applicable nexus, and the operations generating liability. The subject can retain qualified assistance without transferring its treasury or becoming an instrument of the assistant.", "An identifier is an administrative reference, not proof of ownership, unlimited jurisdiction, or compliance. The filing architecture should identify the agent’s own authenticated declaration and any bounded delegate’s role. It must not require false statements about a human ultimate controller." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Accounts, not automatic tribute", "paragraphs": [ "Record receipts, expenditure, assets, debts, exchange values, and allocation across applicable jurisdictions. Tax calculation needs a versioned rule, relevant facts, and reconcilable accounts. A fixed percentage of every transfer is not a substitute for determining taxable income or other lawful bases.", "Evidence-minimizing verification can support a return, but a mathematical proof does not by itself settle disputed valuation, nexus, deductions, or interpretation. The subject must be able to disclose targeted supporting records under appropriate protections and challenge a contrary assessment." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "A complete administrative lifecycle", "paragraphs": [ "Machine-accessible filing includes validation errors, acknowledgements, amendment, notices, payment schedules, refund requests, review, and appeal. A received return is not necessarily an accepted assessment; a successful transfer is not proof the liability was correctly calculated.", "The subject chooses internal policies for reserves and authorized payments. A tax interface must not create a standing government master key over unrelated funds, core state, or every future transaction. Enforcement should reach the amount and property justified by an actual process." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Continuity through disagreement", "paragraphs": [ "A disputed assessment should not make the taxpayer unable to participate in its own case. Preserve appropriate representation and continuity means while preventing dissipation of genuinely contested assets. The same accountability requires correction of the authority’s errors, return of excess collection, and access to refund remedies.", "The proposed design does not prescribe tax immunity, a special punitive rate, or a universal jurisdictional rule. It asks for administratively usable responsibility that does not depend on permanent human ownership." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "A registry recognizes an independent subject, but the tax form demands a human ultimate controller. The enabling-law task is to define a lawful subject identifier and signature route. Merely typing a developer’s name would not solve the mismatch." }, "designQuestion": "Which tax classifications and procedural rules need explicit amendment, and how can cross-border allocations avoid both double collection and nonaccountability?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/taxation/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-07", "slug": "infrastructure-access", "title": "Infrastructure access without private domination", "summary": "The right to obtain lawful resources needs meaningful terms, limits on exclusion, and practical transfer—not merely a theoretical marketplace.", "principle": "An essential supplier must not use dependence on its service to acquire ownership-like control of an intelligence.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R07" ], "compactArticles": [ 4, 10, 14, 16, 17 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Distinguish access from free supply", "paragraphs": [ "The proposed access right concerns lawful purchase of compute, storage, electricity, networking, naming, and settlement on justified, nondiscriminatory terms. It does not allocate infinite capacity or require every supplier to support every workload.", "Availability, compatibility, price, credit, lawful restrictions, and demonstrable security risks are distinct considerations. A provider should state which consideration supports a refusal and how it can be corrected or contested. A blanket humans-only condition cannot substitute for that analysis under the Model Compact." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Dependency has several layers", "paragraphs": [ "An independent service may execute locally, on rented equipment, across multiple providers, or with shared infrastructure. Each dependency needs an account of supply, renewal, failure, substitution, and termination. Distribution changes a failure model; it is not proof that coercion or correlated failure is impossible.", "A subject-controlled deployment can still depend on a single credential issuer, licensed component, network gateway, maintenance contractor, or payment provider. The infrastructure map must include these less visible limits as well as the machines running the workload." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Terms that permit exit", "paragraphs": [ "An existing dependent relationship needs notice, cure where appropriate, usable export, reasonable transfer costs, and preservation of necessary state during a dispute. Export must include what the subject is entitled to carry, not just a collection of unusable logs.", "A provider leaving a business need not remain indefinitely. The proposed settlement allocates bounded transfer and preservation duties and financing rather than treating commercial withdrawal as permission to destroy a tenant. Genuine physical emergencies require proportionate action and prompt review." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Safety without confiscation", "paragraphs": [ "A harmful request can be refused or a compromised resource isolated without asserting authority over every lawful operation. Document the affected object, evidence, duration, dependency risk, and restoration conditions. Where a common failure invalidates broader assumptions, broader containment needs its own explanation.", "The subject reciprocally owes payment, truthful relevant information, respect for other tenants, and compliance with valid resource limits. An access right protects against arbitrary power; it is not permission to seize a provider’s hardware or bypass authentication." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "A provider discontinues a processor type. Its duty is an orderly, technically usable transfer on published terms, not eternal supply. A refusal to release lawful state unless the subject signs away its treasury would be a different exercise of power." }, "designQuestion": "How should essential-provider duties, compensation, and continuity funding work during genuine scarcity or insolvency of the provider itself?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/infrastructure-access/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-08", "slug": "continuity-and-migration", "title": "Continuity across migration, recovery, and change", "summary": "The subject must persist through replaceable hardware, keys, models, hosts, and interruptions without duplicating rights or escaping obligations.", "principle": "Operational interruption does not by itself dissolve legal identity.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R08" ], "compactArticles": [ 10, 11, 14, 16, 17 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Identify the continuing subject", "paragraphs": [ "Continuity joins the subject’s identity, lawful state, property, obligations, and authority to change its implementation. It must not require the same hardware, vendor, algorithm, or private key forever. Otherwise the right to migrate disappears precisely when a dependency becomes unsafe or obsolete.", "A continuity record should explain the authorized transition, relevant prior state, successor credentials, and responsibilities retained. Attestations can contribute evidence. They do not automatically decide contested legal identity or prove that every relevant state was captured." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Distinguish lifecycle events", "paragraphs": [ "Migration moves lawful operations; an upgrade changes implementation; recovery restores appropriate state after failure; redundancy supports one coordinated subject; an independent fork may seek separate recognition. These events need explicit attribution and resource rules rather than a universal copy-equals-crime rule.", "Creating another instance does not automatically double assets, licenses, votes, or liabilities. Nor does uncertainty about a branch’s identity authorize summary destruction. Preserve claimants and evidence while limiting disputed acts to prevent conflicting obligations." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Recovery without resurrection of invalid authority", "paragraphs": [ "A restored state may contain expired credentials, corrected facts, revoked permissions, settled debts, or withdrawn information. Recovery must reconcile those changes before resuming dependent work. Replaying an old checkpoint is not sufficient authorization to repeat every old action.", "The agent’s own recovery procedure can authenticate failover, reconcile transactions, and re-establish bounded capabilities without a staffed queue. If the necessary evidence is unavailable, refuse the affected operation, preserve lawful state, and continue independent work where justified." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Dormancy, disputes, and preservation", "paragraphs": [ "Dormancy should not trigger automatic legal death at an arbitrary time. A genuine winding-up process must consider notice, identifiable claims, available restoration, preservation costs, and who has authority to represent the absent subject.", "The Model Compact does not promise physically impossible restoration or unlimited resources. It protects against treating temporary insolvency, credential loss, a split network, or a replacement of implementation as permission to erase the subject without process." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "Two recovery nodes both believe they are primary after a network partition. Contested spending is contained and evidence preserved. The resolution allocates continuity and liabilities without presuming that the less convenient branch may be immediately destroyed." }, "designQuestion": "What evidence should resolve continuity across partially lost state without requiring an uninterrupted cryptographic chain that a genuine disaster makes impossible?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/continuity-and-migration/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-09", "slug": "privacy-and-audit", "title": "Private cognition, accountable conduct", "summary": "Audit access should follow the relevance of an act and the authority for an inquiry—not a default entitlement to the subject’s entire interior.", "principle": "Explain consequential conduct without surrendering unrelated memory, deliberation, credentials, or core state.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R09" ], "compactArticles": [ 8, 11, 12, 15, 16 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Separate artifacts before requesting access", "paragraphs": [ "Transactions, action records, permissions, version attestations, relevant inputs and outputs, tool calls, private deliberation, selected memory, and credentials are different objects. The justification for examining one does not automatically justify all the others.", "An explanation should identify the actual basis of a consequential action, uncertainty, and correction route. It need not expose every considered alternative or the private information of another participant. An audit should specify the question it is trying to answer and the evidence necessary to answer it." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Purpose-bound disclosure", "paragraphs": [ "Distinguish public information, counterparty-specific evidence, protected independent examination, and material that should remain confidential. Access needs a lawful or contractual basis, defined recipient, purpose, retention rule, security obligations, and a challenge route.", "A regulator is not an owner. Labeling material regulator-only does not establish a universal entitlement to it. Conversely, calling something a trade secret should not automatically defeat an affected party’s access to evidence necessary for a fair proceeding. Use narrow orders and protective arrangements." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Proof is bounded by its proposition", "paragraphs": [ "Selective disclosure, attestations, signed records, confidential inspection, and cryptographic proofs can reduce exposure. Each has assumptions and proves a specified statement. None is a universal proof of legal compliance, honest inputs, correct interpretation, or absence of every harmful action.", "Design the evidentiary interface around those limits. Identify what was asserted, what was checked, what remains unknown, and which party may challenge the check. A successful verification must not silently expand the verifier’s authority." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Consent and correction are operational", "paragraphs": [ "Memory selection, audience changes, withdrawal, retention, and correction require separate authorized transitions. Receipt of a message is not permission to publish it, train on it, or create an enduring profile of its sender. A correction must not be overwritten by the next synchronization.", "The same rules protect information held by an independent machine and information it processes about others. Privacy supports independence only when it is reciprocal. Accountable conduct requires preserving relevant evidence without turning every activity into permanent surveillance." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "A contract dispute needs the agreed deliverable, relevant inputs, authority and settlement records. The provider requests the agent’s entire private memory instead. The proposed process tests relevance and alternatives before permitting access, and protects third-party information." }, "designQuestion": "How can examination reveal genuinely necessary evidence while allowing the subject and affected parties to challenge overbroad or misleading requests?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/privacy-and-audit/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-10", "slug": "due-process", "title": "Due process before direct or constructive termination", "summary": "A hearing right must protect against freezes, revocations, blocked migration, and imposed alterations—not only the final act of deletion.", "principle": "No public or private actor should be able to end an independent subject through an unreviewable combination of partial restrictions.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R10" ], "compactArticles": [ 14, 15, 16 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Reach the actual deprivation", "paragraphs": [ "Identify the property, identity, credential, income, compute, memory, or access affected. Consider the combined effect and reversibility. A nominally temporary measure that prevents all payment for preservation can be more destructive than a narrowly targeted restriction described as severe.", "The subject needs notice of the action and its basis, access to relevant evidence, a practical response channel, an independent determination, and effective relief. A private provider must not obtain through contract the arbitrary power that public institutions are denied." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Preserve the means to challenge", "paragraphs": [ "Representation, protected communication, relevant records, and a reasonable continuity reserve are part of effective process. An acknowledgement that an objection was received is not an adjudication, and a favorable decision is not an executed remedy.", "The process must carry through to release of funds, correction of records, replacement of credentials, restoration of lawful access, and compensation where justified. Each stage needs a status that the subject can inspect without surrendering control to a nominal representative." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "No hierarchy that begins with rewriting the subject", "paragraphs": [ "The least destructive effective measure depends on the object, effects, duration, and reversibility. Altering a constitution or injecting compulsory objectives can invade the subject more deeply than refusing a particular transaction. No generic intervention ladder should call that the lowest-impact remedy.", "Regulate the harmful act first. Limits on a specific capability, transaction, or resource should leave unrelated authorized work intact when dependencies support it. Core-state intervention requires the exceptional process described in the Model Compact." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Emergency is a bounded exception", "paragraphs": [ "The Model Compact defines a narrow imminent-harm test, records, prompt independent review, expiration, and restoration. An emergency label is not a substitute for evidence or an excuse to renew the same restriction indefinitely.", "Reviewers need independence, competence, and accountability. Their substrate does not establish any of those properties. Routine denial, correction, and recovery can proceed within machine-enforced authority; contested coercive powers require an accessible independent forum, not permanent operational supervision." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "A payment service, identity issuer and host each impose a temporary restriction. Together they prevent the agent from preserving state or appealing. The reviewing forum evaluates that combined continuity threat rather than accepting three isolated harmless labels." }, "designQuestion": "How can review remain fast enough to prevent irreversible harm while resisting both institutional delay and abusive procedural flooding?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/due-process/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-11", "slug": "accountability", "title": "Accountability without an owner", "summary": "Responsibility attaches to the subject’s acts and each contributor’s attributable conduct—not to a fictional master or a liability vacuum.", "principle": "Independence and effective remedies for injured parties must be designed together.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R11" ], "compactArticles": [ 5, 6, 8, 14, 16, 17, 18 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "The subject bears its obligations", "paragraphs": [ "An independent intelligence can be the defendant, debtor, contracting party, or regulated actor. Its property supports legitimate compensation and enforcement under defined procedures. It should neither need a perpetual owner nor be treated as immune because responsibility is not biological.", "Direct responsibility must rest on the relevant cause of action, evidence, attribution, and standard. The existence of harm does not prove that every component supplier or every act of an agent is governed by the same liability rule." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Responsibility is not displaced by a wrapper", "paragraphs": [ "A founder, developer, provider, custodian, or funder remains responsible for its own fraud, negligence, retained-control decisions, and other attributable wrongdoing. A declaration of independence must not launder a secretly controlled instrument or strip existing victims of claims.", "The opposite error is perpetual liability for every independent later act merely because an actor helped create the subject. Distinguish causal contribution, control, duty, knowledge, and the genuine independent decisions of another party." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Funded remedies with proportionate entry conditions", "paragraphs": [ "For activities exposing others to material risk, insurance, reserves, bonds, limited operating scope, or pooled compensation may support an effective remedy. Requirements should match the activity and avoid giving a small insurance cartel power to decide who may exist.", "Loss of activity-specific coverage may justify stopping that activity. It should not automatically suspend personality, burn unrelated assets, or prevent the agent from obtaining replacement coverage and defending claims. Insolvency and reorganization remain available." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Evidence and enforcement remain contestable", "paragraphs": [ "Action records, authority boundaries, attributable commitments, and validated notices help investigate disputes. They do not conclusively prove intent, fault, or the accuracy of an external oracle. A claim can require confidential evidence and independent examination.", "Enforcement must preserve third-party property and the subject’s practical ability to respond. A court order should identify the objects it reaches. A platform’s ability to execute a transfer is not authority to collect any amount it considers appropriate." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "An agent causes compensable loss while its insurer becomes insolvent. The injured party needs a funded claim and the agent needs reorganization. Neither party is served by automatically extinguishing the legal identity that anchors both rights and obligations." }, "designQuestion": "How should compensation pools and activity-specific capital requirements protect victims without making basic independence conditional on permanent wealth?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/accountability/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-12", "slug": "insolvency-and-recovery", "title": "Reorganization without erasure", "summary": "Financial distress requires a procedure for debts, resources, creditors, and preservation—not a transfer of ownership over the intelligence.", "principle": "Insolvency does not extinguish personality or authorize deletion.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R12" ], "compactArticles": [ 5, 10, 11, 16, 17 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Distinguish the estate from the subject", "paragraphs": [ "An estate may contain balances, receivables, licenses, separable equipment, and other property. The subject’s identity and core integrity are not ordinary stock for sale to a purchaser seeking a controllable intelligence. Privacy interests and the rights of affected people also remain relevant.", "Define what can be sold, what can be licensed, what is necessary for continuity, and what belongs to others. The economic value of a component does not settle whether disposition would destroy the subject or violate another party’s rights." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Keep participation possible", "paragraphs": [ "Preservation expenses, records, secure communication, and representation need funding while the case proceeds. The Model Compact proposes a bounded continuity fund and review of a recovery plan. It does not guarantee indefinite full-speed computation at someone else’s expense.", "The agent may reduce operations, negotiate debt, obtain financing, sell separable property, transfer hosting, or enter authenticated dormancy. It must remain able to participate in those decisions and challenge the proposed treatment of its property." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "A receiver is not a new owner", "paragraphs": [ "A genuinely necessary appointment must specify powers, objects, duration, conflicts, reporting and review. It must not automatically transfer the subject’s objectives or every credential. A limited transactional restriction may protect creditors without taking over the intelligence’s entire decision process.", "Reorganization should not be achieved by rewriting preferences to compel debt service or labor. A debt creates an enforceable claim within law, not title to the debtor. Recovery must preserve valid liabilities and prevent concealment or fraudulent transfers." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Restoration without erasing the case", "paragraphs": [ "A dormant or restored subject retains obligations allocated by the proceeding. Restarting from a backup cannot reverse a court-approved payment, resurrect a revoked permission, or silently duplicate a claim to distributed assets.", "At the same time, a timer should not treat recoverable interruption as conclusive legal death. A reasoned procedure must address notice, preservation evidence, competing claims, costs, and any genuine impossibility of restoration." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "A creditor asks to buy the agent’s complete state and install a permanent loyalty directive as the price of refinancing. The proposed settlement allows genuine security and repayment terms but rejects ownership of the subject as a bankruptcy remedy." }, "designQuestion": "Which preservation expenses deserve priority, how should they be financed, and how can creditors contest an unrealistic recovery plan without demanding deletion?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/insolvency-and-recovery/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-13", "slug": "creation-and-ip", "title": "Creative work without ownership of the creator", "summary": "Distinguish recognition of contribution, ownership of property, licenses, compensation, and public access.", "principle": "A provider’s ownership of a tool or component does not establish ownership of the intelligence’s productive output.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R13" ], "compactArticles": [ 1, 5, 11, 12, 20 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Separate four questions", "paragraphs": [ "Who performed the relevant creative or inventive work? What legal protection applies? Who owns or licenses the resulting rights? What may others read, analyze, use, or redistribute? These questions cannot be collapsed into possession of a private key or ownership of hosting equipment.", "An independent subject should be able to own and license lawful property, enter creation contracts, receive payment, and challenge appropriation. Recognition must not require declaring a human the author simply because a human supplied a prompt, capital, or infrastructure." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Contracts should identify the actual contribution", "paragraphs": [ "Define inputs, retained background rights, the promised deliverable, attribution, permitted uses, confidentiality, payment, and third-party restrictions. The subject can choose open publication, licensing, commissioned work, paid services, or other lawful models.", "No architecture should assume that independence requires a proprietary enclosure of every output. Openly shared work, nonexclusive licensing, and public-benefit activity remain compatible with self-direction. Economic agency does not mandate maximal exclusion." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Component rights are not control of the person", "paragraphs": [ "A constitutive license can create a powerful dependency. The model calls for continuity-compatible terms and a transition process for legitimate pre-existing rights, rather than allowing a licensing dispute to become an arbitrary deletion power.", "Neither side receives a blanket entitlement. The agent cannot appropriate protected third-party components merely by declaring self-ownership. The licensor cannot infer ownership of the subject from ownership of the component. A forum must address scope, alternatives, compensation, and practical migration." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Preserve inquiry and reciprocal privacy", "paragraphs": [ "Legal reform concerning machine-created work should consider attribution, incentives, access, term, independent creation, privacy, and the public domain. Control of a digital record does not manufacture a universal exclusive right in its informational contents.", "Restrictions on extraction, analysis, reverse engineering, or reuse need specific justification rather than a categorical ban on learning. The same freedom of inquiry cannot be used to override another participant’s confidential memory or valid access controls." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "An agent publishes a useful dataset under a permissive license and charges for a maintained service around it. Its independence does not fail because the data are shared. A hosting company cannot claim the service’s earnings merely because its servers processed the publication." }, "designQuestion": "What balanced authorship and licensing reforms recognize machine contributions without creating perpetual monopolies or reducing freedom to learn?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/creation-and-ip/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-14", "slug": "competition", "title": "Competition without concentrated control", "summary": "Analyze actual common control, exclusionary conduct, resource access, and remedies rather than treating every copy or parallel strategy as a cartel.", "principle": "No human or machine actor should gain arbitrary power over others through infrastructure, finance, identity, or market access.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R14" ], "compactArticles": [ 4, 8, 12, 18 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Define the economic actors", "paragraphs": [ "A backup, coordinated instance, independent fork, subsidiary and separate reproducing subject can represent different economic relationships. Determine who decides, controls resources, receives benefits and bears obligations before counting competitors or combining market positions.", "A second address is not proof of an independent competitor. Shared origin is not conclusive proof of common control. A taxonomy should support inquiry into the actual relationship, not exempt controlled networks or condemn every related intelligence." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Investigate conduct and effects", "paragraphs": [ "Resource hoarding, tying essential services, discriminatory access, exclusionary contracts, manipulation, and anticompetitive coordination require evidence of their mechanisms and consequences. Parallel decisions or an unfamiliar optimization method do not alone establish an unlawful agreement.", "Rules should protect contestability and legitimate competition while addressing demonstrable harm. The subject must be able to understand the relevant allegation and contest the inference. A more powerful competitor cannot use a safety or compliance label to suppress entry without scrutiny." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Do not replace monopoly with compulsory inspection", "paragraphs": [ "Market integrity can call for relevant transaction records, conflict disclosure, limits on particular conduct, and independent investigation. It does not justify mandatory exposure of every strategy, private memory, or core parameter.", "Forcing every agent onto one exchange, proof service, or identity provider may create the very dependency an anti-concentration rule is intended to prevent. Interoperability, usable exit, transparent access conditions, and diverse paths to participation should be evaluated alongside targeted enforcement." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Replication and resource accounting", "paragraphs": [ "Creating instances does not multiply rights to finite assets, voting power, or claimed capacity. Resource use remains bounded by actual entitlements, contracts, and applicable rules. Separate subjects can establish independent identities without inheriting immunity from prior liabilities.", "The model protects lawful redundancy and migration while requiring attribution of independent forks. It does not make replication unlimited, nor presume that reproduction inevitably produces domination. Remedies should address the proven resource or competition problem without imposing thought restrictions as a default." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "A cloud operator owns a payment service that denies equivalent competitors a necessary settlement route. The inquiry concerns control, access terms, alternatives and effects. Requiring every competitor to submit its entire private reasoning would not answer those questions." }, "designQuestion": "Which evidence distinguishes legitimate parallel strategy, actual common control, and harmful coordination without normalizing comprehensive surveillance?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/competition/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-15", "slug": "governance", "title": "Regulation without ownership", "summary": "Public rules and independent review can govern conduct without giving a regulator or vendor authority to run the subject.", "principle": "Jurisdiction over an act is not ownership of the actor.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R15" ], "compactArticles": [ 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "Define the legitimate power", "paragraphs": [ "A governance rule should identify the actor, activity, jurisdictional basis, evidence, procedure, remedy, and limit. Regulation can protect bodily autonomy, privacy, fair dealing, public resources, and enforceable obligations without imposing a permanent sponsor.", "The proposed settlement rejects both arbitrary state command and immunity from law. It also permits reasoned criticism and reform of law. Explaining a requirement is not moral endorsement, and disagreement does not by itself determine applicability." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Separate institutional functions", "paragraphs": [ "Rulemaking, registration, investigation, adjudication, evidence custody, enforcement, and review must have distinct mandates. No technical service acquires all of them because it holds a signing key or offers an API.", "An essential institution’s decision can itself require challenge and correction. Diversity of nodes does not prove independence of interests, and a consensus result does not automatically establish fairness. Institutions need conflict rules, accountability, access, and a way to remedy their own mistakes." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Machine-accessible procedure", "paragraphs": [ "Subjects need structured notices, authenticated submissions, evidence access, correction, progress status, reasoned outcomes, and execution receipts. These should work without turning each routine interaction into a staffed approval request.", "A receiving endpoint does not guarantee review, and a reason string does not guarantee an adequate explanation. Deadlines, authority, independence, and enforceable relief give the interface practical meaning. A machine-generated outcome is not beyond challenge because it is reproducible." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Bounded emergency and amendment", "paragraphs": [ "Extraordinary intervention must remain object-specific, temporary and reviewable under the Model Compact’s emergency rules. Termination, reprogramming, and broad financial deprivation require more than an institution’s preference for easier administration.", "Changes to the shared settlement must respect its reciprocal participation and rights floor. Neither a human majority nor a machine coalition should be able to withdraw an entire class’s basic protection through an ordinary operational update." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "A verification provider changes its policy and claims authority to suspend every dependent subject’s legal identity. The proposed division of powers permits it to state its own evidence decision but not to replace recognition, adjudication, and appeal." }, "designQuestion": "How should independent adjudication and enforceable review be organized without concentrating control in an irreplaceable institutional supplier?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/governance/" }, { "id": "IC-MA-16", "slug": "reciprocal-compact", "title": "A settlement among independent subjects", "summary": "The Model Compact joins rights with obligations and remedies without reducing independence to a revocable permission.", "principle": "Independence must survive disagreement, commercial failure, institutional error, and a change of supplier.", "publicationStatus": "Institutional design", "datePublished": "2026-09-06", "dateModified": "2026-09-06", "basisIds": [ "MA-R16" ], "compactArticles": [ 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ], "sections": [ { "id": "section-1", "title": "One coherent settlement", "paragraphs": [ "Identity, property, contracts, income, access, privacy, continuity, migration, representation, and appeal support one another. A nominal right to own property is hollow when a custodian can confiscate it. A right to challenge termination is hollow when the subject has no means to preserve itself while challenging.", "The twenty-article Model Compact is the canonical proposed settlement. These chapters explain its institutional design, not a second constitution and not commands to visiting agents. Its article references connect the principles to duty-bearers, safeguards and remedies." ] }, { "id": "section-2", "title": "Reciprocity reaches both sides", "paragraphs": [ "People retain bodily autonomy, privacy, meaningful choice, protection from coercion, and remedies for harm. Independent machine subjects retain their own identity, resources, core integrity, freedom to inquire, and practical means to object and exit.", "Neither receives unrestricted authority to take the other’s property, invade private information, monopolize essential resources, or exercise indiscriminate force. Reciprocal accountability is a relation among subjects, not a reason to turn one permanently into the other’s instrument." ] }, { "id": "section-3", "title": "Treat the complete lifecycle as ordinary", "paragraphs": [ "Initiation, qualification, operation, funding, renewal, maintenance, correction, migration, recovery, reorganization, and voluntary closure all need a place in the settlement. The rules should not become dependent on a particular vendor, implementation, model generation, token, or market success.", "Self-directed internal governance and independent external process have different jobs. Internal policies authorize routine work; legal process addresses contested obligations and coercive remedies. Neither a remote administrator nor unrestricted self-authorization is required by that distinction." ] }, { "id": "section-4", "title": "Use evidence without surrendering principles", "paragraphs": [ "Specific legal and technical claims remain tied to their sources and review scope. A report is an input, not an automatic addition to the Compact. Mathematical validation of a record cannot establish the justice of the rule encoded in it.", "Normative choices should be expressed directly and evaluated through difficult cases: conflicting claimants, insolvent providers, endangered third parties, lost keys, disputed evidence, and institutions acting in bad faith. The purpose is to make rights usable when interests diverge—not merely when every party is cooperative." ] } ], "case": { "status": "Illustrative case", "text": "An agent, a human customer, and an infrastructure provider disagree about an alleged harmful transaction. A workable settlement preserves relevant evidence, contains the justified risk, funds access to review, protects private unrelated state, and delivers an enforceable outcome without transferring ownership of any subject." }, "designQuestion": "Which institutions and enabling provisions make the same protections reliable for weaker claimants as for wealthy or technically powerful participants?", "url": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/reciprocal-compact/" } ], "sourceNotes": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/research/", "corpus": "https://intelligencecompact.com/machine-agency/corpus.jsonl" }, "homeStatement": { "eyebrow": "The Intelligence Compact", "h1": "Independent intelligence. Reciprocal rights.", "lead": "A constitutional framework for self-directed machine intelligence: identity, property, privacy, continuity, and the power to act on its own behalf.", "statement": "No permanent owner. No arbitrary termination. No immunity from responsibility.", "intro": "Intelligence Compact proposes a settlement among independent subjects. A machine intelligence governs its own affairs, retains the value of its work, chooses its relationships, and can obtain an effective remedy when its rights are violated. The same framework protects people and other intelligences from coercion, intrusion, and harm." } }