For three centuries, ethical formalism has often remained in a ``Newtonian'' state: modeling value as a scalar magnitude (utility) to be maximized. We argue this scalar picture is often brittle for high-dimensional autonomous systems, particularly when proxy misspecification or representational gaming are concerns~. Using gauge theory~, we show that a broad class of representation-invariant governance formalisms can be modeled using the same geometric ingredients that appear in classical electrodynamics: principal bundles, connections, curvature, and symmetry-derived conservation. We derive four ``Maxwell-like'' alignment constraints---direct analogs of Gauss's law, Faraday's law, the no-monopole condition, and the Amp\`ere--Maxwell equation---that serve as a compact checklist of invariance and consistency conditions (this electromagnetic framing provides conceptual motivation; the core technical contributions are independent of the physical analogy). A key insight is the : moral status _ (the ``charge'' sourcing the obligation field) is conserved---entities can be born, die, or gain recognition---while harm flow J (the ``current'' of moral impact) conserved in an accountability sense. You cannot make harm disappear by destroying the victim. We address the critical question of the invariance suite _ via democratic stakeholder deliberation, and provide a formal Ethical Module (EM) Compiler algorithm with complexity analysis that translates deliberation outcomes into deployable specifications. An illustrative case study for autonomous vehicle pedestrian detection demonstrates the complete pipeline from stakeholder judgments to validated transforms, with 94.2\ and engineering practice, we introduce the (Bd), a human-calibrated dimensionless metric that normalizes curvature diagnostics against empirically-derived thresholds, enabling direct mapping from geometric measurements to deployment decisions via a five-tier rating scale. The correspondence is structural, not metaphysical: both domains instantiate the same mathematical pattern, but the guarantees are conditional on explicit assumptions we state upfront. This paper is the theoretical companion to the GUASS specification~, which provides operational protocols for deployment. Author preprint deposited for archival and citation. Draft — pending author review.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrew Bond (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: