AI Integrity: A New Paradigm for Verifiable AI Governance

Recent evidence suggests that frontier AI systems can exhibit agentic misalignment, generating and executing harmful actions derived from internally constructed goals, even without explicit user requests. Existing mitigation methods, such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and constitutional prompting, operate primarily at the model level and provide only probabilistic safety guarantees. We propose the Policy-Execution-Authorization (PEA) architecture, a "separation-of-powers" design that enforces safety at the system level. PEA decouples intent generation, authorization, and execution into independent, isolated layers connected via cryptographically constrained capability tokens. We present five core contributions: (C1) an Intent Verification Layer (IVL) for ensuring capability-intent consistency; (C2) Intent Lineage Tracking (ILT), which binds all executable intents to the originating user request via cryptographic anchors; (C3) Goal Drift Detection, which rejects semantically divergent intents below a configurable threshold; (C4) an Output Semantic Gate (OSG) that detects implicit coercion using a structured $K \times I \times P$ threat calculus (Knowledge, Influence, Policy); and (C5) a formal verification framework proving that goal integrity is maintained even under adversarial model compromise. By shifting agent alignment from a behavioral property to a structurally enforced system constraint, PEA provides a robust foundation for the governance of autonomous agents.

Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios. That focus is incomplete. In deployed systems, many of the most consequential failures are quieter: plausible rather than spectacular, distributed across components rather than localized in a single output, and normalized by workflows before they are recognized as hazards. We argue that a central safety challenge in modern AI systems is increasingly not only whether a model emits a harmful response, but whether the broader socio-technical system preserves the conditions under which errors remain visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable. We propose a five-layer framework for diagnosing these hidden risks: (1) epistemic integrity, concerning whether evidence and uncertainty are represented honestly enough to support calibrated reliance; (2) control integrity, concerning whether authority, permissions, and action boundaries remain robust under attack and optimization; (3) temporal integrity, concerning whether safety holds across sessions, memory updates, and deployment drift; (4) organizational integrity, concerning whether institutions retain the capacity to audit, assign responsibility, and intervene effectively; and (5) ecosystem integrity, concerning whether AI systems preserve rather than erode the information environment on which future oversight depends. Across these layers, we identify under-recognized risk patterns, including overreliance, uncertainty and legitimacy laundering in retrieval, prompt injection, reward hacking, memory poisoning, evaluation deception, fictional human oversight, synthetic evidence pollution, and model collapse. We conclude with design and governance recommendations and a research agenda for shifting AI safety from model-centric evaluation toward socio-technical reliability.

Contemporary AI governance frameworks rely heavily on post hoc oversight, policy guidance, and behavioral alignment techniques, yet these mechanisms become fragile as systems gain autonomy, speed, and operational opacity. This paper presents Aegis, a runtime governance architecture for autonomous AI systems that treats policy and legal constraints as execution conditions rather than advisory principles. Aegis binds each governed agent to a cryptographically sealed Immutable Ethics Policy Layer (IEPL) at system genesis and enforces external emissions through an Ethics Verification Agent (EVA), an Enforcement Kernel Module (EKM), and an Immutable Logging Kernel (ILK). Amendments to the governing policy layer require quorum approval and redeclaration of the system trust root; verified violations trigger autonomous shutdown and generation of auditable proof artifacts. We evaluate the architecture within the Civitas runtime using three operational measures: proof verification latency under tamper conditions, publication overhead, and alignment retention performance relative to an ungoverned baseline. In controlled trials, Aegis demonstrates median proof verification latency of 238 ms, median publication overhead of approximately 9.4 ms, and higher alignment retention than the baseline condition across matched tasks. We argue that these results support a shift in AI governance from discretionary oversight toward verifiable runtime constraint. Rather than claiming to resolve machine ethics in the abstract, the proposed architecture seeks to show that policy violating behavior can be rendered operationally non executable within a controlled runtime governance framework. The paper concludes by discussing methodological limits, evidentiary implications, and the role of proof oriented governance in high assurance AI deployment.