Governing What the EU AI Act Excludes: Accountability for Autonomous AI Agents in Smart City Critical Infrastructure

Autonomous AI agents increasingly issue side-effect-bearing actions: database mutations, refunds, payments, external commitments. We propose the Actuarial Action Interface (AAI), a deterministic runtime contract that prices each such action against a contractually fixed safe default under a time-consistent risk mapping, and gates execution against a per-boundary reserve capital budget. We then develop the Authority Frontier, an evaluation primitive measuring how much autonomous authority the runtime releases at each level of reserve capital. The framework provides (i) a deterministic quote-bind-commit protocol with toll-bounded capability tokens; (ii) a universal seven-class action taxonomy mapping heterogeneous tool calls to comparable authority units; (iii) replay determinism and pathwise reserve coverage under alpha-spending; (iv) cross-domain normalization via full reserve demand C_full and capital metrics Capital@k. We instantiate AAI across four agentic environments (database mutation, customer-service refund, and the public tau-bench retail and airline tool-use traces) and report a live Postgres panel in which three Azure-hosted models propose actions through the same contract. The frontier exhibits a common low-reserve refusal and intermediate-release pattern across domains, with saturation only where the budget grid reaches full reserve demand; required reserve capital varies by 22x (Capital@50 from 289 to 6457). The framework does not force domains into the same shape; it surfaces each domain's actuarial geometry. In the live panel the contract prevents realized loss across all three models at low budget while differing in underwriting persistence under denial: model identity is an actuarial underwriting variable. The contribution is a benchmark-ready evaluation framework for runtime actuarial control of autonomous-agent side effects.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes a lifecycle governance regime for high-risk AI systems built around ex-ante conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and re-assessment upon "substantial modification." These obligations presuppose AI identity judgments: regulators and providers must decide when an updated system remains the same system over time. In this work, we show how this logic is clarified by the function+ framework of artifact identity, which individuates AI systems by their intended function together with context-sensitive criteria of appropriate functioning, captured as "AI trustworthiness." We further argue that the AIA does not provide an internal, auditable criterion for synchronic identity--when two AI systems at a given time should count as the same for regulatory purposes--and instead largely defers such sameness determinations to sectoral or harmonization instruments. function+ supplies a synchronic identity test anchored in intended function and trustworthiness profiles and levels, making synchronic identity decisions inspectable in governance settings such as procurement, liability, and market surveillance. Our contribution is a conceptual and auditing lens: we provide a correspondence map between AIA lifecycle obligations and function+ identity components, and we make the synchronic case operationally legible via a minimal decision flow for audit and dispute contexts. We conclude with two implementation-facing recommendations: (1) more precise, testable reporting of intended purpose, and (2) standardized, auditable trustworthiness reporting that supports comparability over time and across deployments.

Post-deployment accountability has become central to AI governance, yet little empirical evidence shows whether monitoring, incident reporting, and impact assessment obligations are visible when AI systems fail. This study analyzes real-world AI incidents from the AI Incident Database (2020--2026) and codes them against nine post-deployment provisions from the EU AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and the GDPR. The findings show substantial accountability gaps: 77.1% of incidents lack evidence of EU AI Act post-market monitoring, and 99.6% lack documented Data-Protection Impact Assessment evidence. Governance gaps are also systemic, with 9.8% of incidents simultaneously non-compliant under two or more regimes. Incidents detected through internal monitoring show much higher compliance than externally detected incidents (87.5% vs 5.3% under the EU AI Act; 95.8% vs 58.1% under NIST), suggesting that monitoring capacity is a key condition for effective post-deployment governance. Building on these findings, the paper proposes the Proactive AI Governance Compliance Framework (PAGCF), a four-phase lifecycle for pre-deployment assessment, continuous monitoring, incident preparedness, and cross-framework verification.