Establishes a new framework for governance and AI execution in systems, suggesting improved compliance and control.
This paper establishes a public reference formulation of Structural Sovereignty and Execution-Bound Governance as a federated architecture for consequence-bearing AI-supported systems. It defines the Governance-Execution Gap as the set of non-permitted transitions that nevertheless remain reachable inside a declared boundary, and introduces a boundary-relative Federated Permit whose mandatory predicates may include formal admissibility, control feasibility, externalized human or institutional authority, runtime mediation, physical enforcement where required, current actor/device/case/object context, version and freshness, fault-envelope validity, evidence readiness, and remedy. The contribution is not the isolated invention of supervisory control, reference-monitor concepts, runtime assurance, control barrier functions, provenance, human oversight, hardware interlocks, or regulatory risk management. The claimed contribution is their explicit cross-layer federation around a typed reachability invariant; the separation of proposal, permission, human commit, execution, consequence, and evidence; the derivation of authority from operational context external to model confidence; and the rule that composite maturity cannot exceed the weakest mandatory dependency. A bounded KWI-LIAN-Kyber route and a specified downstream CoChip architecture are presented as reference instantiations. Physical silicon validation, complete real-field closure, independent end-to-end reproduction, legal compliance determination, and certification remain outside the claims of this release. Protected implementation details are intentionally excluded.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexanja Senke (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: