cs.CYMar 26, 2026

Preserving Decision Sovereignty in Military AI: A Trade-Secret-Safe Architectural Framework for Model Replaceability, Human Authority, and State Control

Authors: Peng Wei, Wesley Shu

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

Explore similar work

Mar 18, 2026

The End of the Foundation Model Era: Open-Weight Models, Sovereign AI, and Inference as Infrastructure

The foundation model era -- roughly 2020 to 2025 -- is over. The forces that defined it have inverted. Open source models have reached frontier performance while inference costs approach zero, exposing what was always structurally true: pre-training large language models at scale is not a durable competitive moat. The US government's formal designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk in February 2026 accelerated a transition already underway -- but did not cause it. The paper argues that the AI industry is restructuring simultaneously along four axes: economic, as the circular financing structure that inflated foundation model valuations collapses; technical, as the pre-training scaling paradigm gives way to post-training optimization and agentic composition; commercial, as application-layer integrators displace the foundation model companies whose commodity they now consume; and political, as the government asserts its historic role as gatekeeper of strategic technology. These are not separate disruptions. They are one structural shift, arriving together. The paper further argues that open-weight models are the counterintuitive instrument of sovereign control: a government that holds the weights commands the capability on its own terms, without dependence on vendor policy, financial continuity, or personnel clearance.
Sep 17, 2026

A Proposal for an Agentic AI Architecture to Support Multi-Domain Decision-Making in the Brazilian Armed Forces

The growing complexity of multi-domain operational environments (land, aerospace, naval, cyber, and electromagnetic spectrum) has increased the volume and velocity of data reaching command-and-control (C2) centers, straining the observe-orient-decide-act (OODA) decision cycle. Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems currently employed in defense are, in general, reactive and isolated tools that still rely heavily on human operators to integrate information, assess scenarios, and formulate courses of action. This paper proposes a conceptual Agentic AI architecture for AI systems that can plan, access data sources, execute tools, and act autonomously and audibly, aimed at supporting decision-making across the three Brazilian Armed Forces (Navy, Army, and Air Force). Four application fronts are discussed (decision support, situational analysis, feasibility studies, and countermeasure suggestion), as well as the data and sensor access requirements and the security and permission safeguards necessary for responsible employment across administrative, strategic, operational, and tactical contexts.
Jun 12, 2026

Final Authority in AI Governance: Frontier-Provider Sovereignty and Action-Centered Deployer Governance

This paper examines where final authority should sit once capable AI systems are embedded in organizational workflows. It compares two governance models. The first, frontier-provider sovereignty, assigns privileged authority to the provider of the most capable models and is reflected in contemporary arguments for frontier-model testing, release gating, transparency duties, and compute-related controls. The second, action-centered deployer sovereignty, places final authority over high-impact actions with the organization that authorizes the action, embeds it in a business process, and bears the downstream legal, operational, and commercial consequences. The paper combines comparative reading of public governance frameworks with implementation-informed analysis of runtime heterogeneity and enterprise control requirements. It compares EU AI Act guidance, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, Singapore's Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI, recent Japanese AI policy instruments, and Canada's voluntary code and managerial guidance. Across these materials, the paper finds stronger support for distributed operational accountability than for unilateral frontier-provider control. It further argues that rapid enterprise adoption, declining provider transparency, and widening control gaps increase the value of a portable governance layer centered on governed action rather than on provider-native session objects. The conclusion is layered rather than absolutist: strong upstream authority remains justified for frontier capability gating, but final authority over concrete enterprise action is better located with the deployer and consequence-bearer.