A conformance-testing methodology validates payment authorization in autonomous systems, highlighting implications for security and compliance.
Autonomous agents now authorize and execute payments without a human approving each transaction. Existing payment protocols verify identity, cryptography, and settlement, yet they leave one question unanswered: can a verifier prove that an executed payment is the one the principal actually authorized? This paper isolates that question as the distinction between a payment parameter being present on the wire and being provable at the boundary, and it introduces a conformance-testing methodology for the authority layer where the answer is decided. The methodology uses fail-closed differential vectors executed against a reference verifier, together with distinct constructions for three attack classes a tampered-input test does not capture: liveness at settlement finality, adversarial interposition by an intermediary that mutates a well-formed request in transit, and binding-scope drift across a multi-leg payment route. We ground the central requirement in an existing regulatory precedent, PSD2 Strong Customer Authentication dynamic linking, and we validate the methodology through an open-source implementation of 540 conformance tests, including fail-open defects the methodology surfaced in its own reference verifier. Part of the series: Machine-Verifiable Governance for Autonomous Systems.Version 2 (2026-07-08): incorporates external technical review. Scopes the authority claim as execution ⊆ mandate(t) ⊆ intent(t) (intent-capture out of scope; mandate-liveness at execution in scope); adds a binding-oracle independence (separation-of-duties) precondition; a multi-leg integrity-with-authorized-mutation construction; and separates authentication-time (gate) from receipt (forensic) verification. Central property and validation results unchanged.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael K. Saleme (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: