Preserving Decision Sovereignty in Military AI: A Trade-Secret-Safe Architectural Framework for Model Replaceability, Human Authority, and State Control
Organizations: College of Plant Protection The Institute of Energetic Paradigm Southwest University, China
Abstract
Recent events surrounding the relationship between frontier AI suppliers and national-security customers have made a structural problem newly visible: once a privately governed model becomes embedded in military workflows, the supplier can influence not only technical performance but also the operational boundary conditions under which the system may be used. This paper argues that the central strategic issue is not merely access to capable models, but preservation of decision sovereignty: the state's ability to retain authority over decision policy, version control, fallback behavior, auditability, and final action approval even when analytical modules are sourced from commercial vendors. Using the public Anthropic--Pentagon dispute of 2026, the broader history of Project Maven, and recent U.S., NATO, U.K., and intelligence-community guidance as a motivating context, the paper develops a trade-secret-safe architectural formulation of the Energetic Paradigm as a layered, model-agnostic command-support design. In this formulation, supplier models remain replaceable analytical components, while routing, constraints, logging, escalation, and action authorization remain state-owned functions. The paper contributes three things: a definition of decision sovereignty for military AI; a threat model for supplier-induced boundary control; and a public architectural specification showing how model replaceability, human authority, and sovereign orchestration can reduce strategic dependency without requiring disclosure of proprietary implementation details. The argument is conceptual rather than experimental, but it yields concrete implications for procurement, governance, and alliance interoperability.
Figures & tables
| Dimension | Model-centric integration | Sovereignty-centric integration |
|---|---|---|
| Primary source of operational boundary | Supplier model policies and service conditions influence behavior | State-owned orchestration and policy layers govern admissibility and action |
| Model substitution | Difficult if workflow is deeply coupled to one provider | Designed for replaceability across providers or internal models |
| Failure mode under vendor withdrawal | Operational degradation may be severe | Structured substitution and degraded-mode operation possible |
| Version governance | Provider cadence dominates unless separately negotiated | Version pinning, rollback, and replacement embedded in architecture |
| Auditability | Partially dependent on vendor disclosure | Logging and escalation governed by operator |
| Human authority | Vulnerable to automation drift under speed pressure | Explicit checkpoints preserved at policy-defined stages |
AI Governance
Artificial intelligence governance studies how laws, institutions, and technical controls shape AI development, deployment, accountability, and social effects.
See all 384 papers