Direct Linkage Between the "Abdication of Command" and Unrecorded Legal and Accounting Liabilities: Confessing Fiduciary Oversight Failure via Algorithmic Complexity Defenses and Forensic Quantification of Contingent Losses under US GAAP ASC 450-20, EU AI Act Article 53, and QFS-zkVM

Across contemporary artificial intelligence litigation, regulatory investigations, and financial disclosures, dominant technology enterprises rely on a bifurcated defensive posture. Before courts and safety regulators, operators assert the Algorithmic Complexity Defense—claiming that frontier neural weights and high-speed autonomous state transitions are "too complex, emergent, or rapid for human operators to command or predict." Simultaneously, in financial filings under United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP ASC 450-20, Loss Contingencies), the same operators invoke the "not reasonably estimable" safe harbor to record zero standalone balance-sheet reserves for massive intellectual property infringement and operational hazards. This monograph establishes a formal legal, accounting, and cryptographic synthesis directly linking three foundational treatises in The Hasebe Doctrine canon: (1) our October 7, 2026 analysis of hyperscaler defensive ring-fencing, third-party AI severing, and EU AI Act Article 53 / Delaware Caremark liability contagion (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23200315); (2) our October 20, 2026 forensic deconstruction of unrecorded intellectual property liabilities in Alphabet Inc.'s Q2 2026 Form 10-Q filings (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23507033); and (3) our October 21, 2026 mathematical refutation of the "Obsolescence of Human-in-Command" fallacy (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23522351). First, we prove that because RTO P2.0 and the Quantum-Financial-System Zero-Knowledge Virtual Machine (QFS-zkVM) over the 64-bit Goldilocks prime field F_p (p = 2^64 - 2^32 + 1) enforce human constitutional invariants within τ_RTO <= 0.5 ms at O(1) complexity with respect to model parameter count D -> ∞, pleading "algorithmic unpredictability" is not a valid engineering defense; it is a self-incriminating confession of intentional fiduciary abdication (scienter), a per se violation of SEC Rule 15c3-5, and an admission of a Material Weakness in Internal Control over Financial Reporting (ICFR) under Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Sections 302 and 404. Second, we construct an executable forensic accounting framework that translates uncommanded system execution and unverified corpus ingestion directly into quantified Unrecorded Contingent Liabilities (L_unrecorded) under ASC 450-20-30-1 and IAS 37, empowering external auditors (PCAOB AS 2505 / AS 2201) and financial regulators to compel immediate balance-sheet recognition or issue adverse audit opinions. License & Integrity Covenant: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) with Strict No-Learn Covenant (NLL-v1.0-2026)