This paper provides an action-relative method for deriving which trust-domain coalitions are sufficient to cause protected execution, defined as the occurrence of a designated protected state transition.
Abstract
High-risk automated systems distribute control across services, credentials, protected components, and lifecycle mechanisms. Labels such as authorized, approved, privileged, or protected therefore do not answer a basic causal question: which actors can actually make a consequential action occur? This paper provides an action-relative method for deriving which trust-domain coalitions are sufficient to cause protected execution, defined as the occurrence of a designated protected state transition. The framework models components, powers, resources, boundaries, and alternative realization structures; includes update, recovery, override, disablement, and alternative invocation; and separates causal control over execution from control over the authoritative account of an operation. It derives inclusion-minimal sufficient coalitions and tests whether claimed execution boundaries remain independent of designated upstream domains. Cross-domain analytical cases illustrate the method. In a split-control, release-intended, open-state, source-bounded Havenlon protocol model, the ordinary witness requires five trust domains, while certificate replacement yields a three-domain inclusion-minimal known requirement set among source-enumerated protocol witnesses; the Linux domain remains insufficient for the complete transition. Deployed global non-bypassability and boundary-bound veto coverage remain unresolved. The framework is a conceptual and analytical tool. It does not certify implementations, establish deployment security, guarantee complete discovery of hidden powers, or define evidence-verification semantics.
A policy algebra is proposed that defines the reliability envelope within which agent capability may be exercised and provides researchers and practitioners with formal correctness conditions, executable decision semantics, and trace evidence for building agents that are not only capable, but reliably capable.
Bhaskar Tripathi, Anurag Kumar, R. Kumar et al.· 0 citations
It is proved, under stated conditions, that the policy plan is order-independent and agent policy cannot widen the ceiling, and it is shown that write controls, durable approval, and temporal and aggregate policies lie outside this evaluation.
Marc Millstone, Tyler Akidau, Johannes Brüderl et al.· 0 citations
SAGE-Fin is presented, a finance-specific authority-handoff contract that makes the proposed effect, not merely its text, the object of runtime control, and its results establish executable conformance, not independent safety accuracy.
Rui Tang, Qiang Liu, Yi-Chi Zhang et al.· 1 citation
The results show that TraceGrant provides a unified governance layer that connects trusted user intent, runtime evidence, concrete tool execution, and verified task completion.
Bohao Liao, Jing-Chao Wang, Qi-Peng Song et al.· 1 citation
Results support Proof-or-Stop as a model-agnostic, host-neutral control layer for deciding which autonomous-agent claims a lifecycle may act on, and limited to one model family, 24 ablation tasks, and a self-hosted corpus.
Jek Huang, Jeffery Hsia, Jiayi Sun et al.· arXiv.org· 3 citations
Proof-of-Continuity is introduced, a minimal authority-propagation discipline for the Provenance Identity Continuity (PIC) model, in which each execution step must be causally linked to the previous step and may only propagate a non-expansive subset of the authority received from the origin.
N. Gallo· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.