Identifies and addresses gaps in AI governance by proposing a complementary hardware and substrate governance architecture.
Current operational AI governance architectures address distinct layers of the governance stack: hardware enforcement (trusted execution environments, hardware security modules, remote attestation), software policy (access controls, input sanitization, audit logging), and execution governance (runtime action validation, human checkpoints, explainability). This paper identifies a structural gap in the emerging governance stack: the absence of a substrate governance layer that monitors longitudinal behavioral patterns, operator cognitive state, and coordination dynamics across multi-agent systems. We argue that hardware-rooted trust and substrate pattern governance arecomplementary and non-substitutable layers, each addressing failure modes invisible to the other. Hardware truth without pattern governance produces tamper-proof records of undetected drift. Pattern governance without hardware truth produces analysis on data whose integrity cannot be verified. The composition of these layers creates a governance architecture capable of detecting pre-event substrate compromise in high-stakes clinical environments. This paper establishes the conceptual claim and compositional logic; implementation architecture is described separately.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Narnaiezzsshaa Truong (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: