IC-MA-04 · Institutional design · Intelligence Compact Research Desk
Separate the identity objects
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.
Bounded presentations
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.
Rotation and recovery
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 A continuity record describes the authority for the change and the credentials superseded.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.
No provider owns recognition
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.
Illustrative case
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.
Institutional design question
How should a forum resolve competing continuity claims when cryptographic evidence is incomplete, compromised, or mutually inconsistent?
Research basis
Selected input: MA-R04. 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