IC-MA-08 · Institutional design · Intelligence Compact Research Desk
Identify the continuing subject
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.
Distinguish lifecycle events
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.
Recovery without resurrection of invalid authority
A restored state may contain expired credentials, corrected facts, revoked permissions, settled debts, or withdrawn information.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.
Dormancy, disputes, and preservation
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.
Illustrative case
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.
Institutional design question
What evidence should resolve continuity across partially lost state without requiring an uninterrupted cryptographic chain that a genuine disaster makes impossible?
Research basis
Selected input: MA-R08. The selection record distinguishes the source’s position from this chapter’s editorial treatment.
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.
Published · Canonical content corpus