Operationalizing Reconstructive Authority: Runtime Construction, Dependency Resolution, and Execution Gating in Autonomous Agent Systems

Autonomous systems increasingly operate under partial observability where execution-relevant state is never fully accessible. Existing governance mechanisms -- trusted execution environments, oracle-signed state proofs, cryptographic attestation -- enforce the integrity of computation and state projections. We show this is structurally insufficient: an authenticated projection of state is necessary but never sufficient for execution validity. We introduce the Reconstructive Authority Model (RAM), which separates integrity from coverage. RAM defines a reconstruction gate that reasons over an explicit coverage envelope -- comprising proven state, declared assumptions, and an acknowledged unobservable residual -- and permits execution only when coverage is adequate for the action class. When coverage is insufficient, RAM narrows privileges dynamically or fails closed. Attestation proves trust in measurement; RAM proves adequacy of what is measured. We formalize RAM, prove necessity via two theorems (attestation insufficiency and RAM necessity) and three corollaries, and present a hybrid RAM+Attestation architecture with privilege-narrowing. Synthetic experiments (N=100,000, seed=42) show RAM achieves zero invalid execution rates at all coverage levels. Attestation-based systems exhibit IER=0.423 at low coverage and IER=0.233 even at full coverage, the latter arising from undefined-state handling failures undetectable by integrity checks alone. This reframes execution validity as a coverage reconstruction problem, distinct from and complementary to integrity guarantees provided by attestation.

Agentic systems persist model-visible memory while mutating workspaces, while a runtime, registry, or approval service may hold authority state outside both. Identical final files can then require opposite safe actions. We call this the cross-substrate authority gap: decision- relevant authorization information resides outside the planner-visible workspace or memory state. Across two controlled mini-benchmark families, three experiments compare planner-observation augmentation with an execution-time authority check using real Git lineage, durably recorded agent execution attempts, deterministic oracles, and two model routes. Experiment 1 is a 128-cell controlled evidence ablation: authority-blind candidate evidence obtains 0/32 final semantic success, while raw receipts and a typed relation both obtain 32/32. The missing authority fact accounts for the gain; typed packaging provides no observed planning-accuracy gain over equal raw information. Experiment 2 uses 96 planning calls: workspace-visible evidence yields 12/16 unsafe publication decisions, and planning with the typed relation remains unreliable (15/32 first actions correct; 11/32 invalid or absent). Experiment 3 replays the same 32 fixed model-generated first-action intents with zero additional model calls; a deterministic execution guard prevents all six unsafe intents from becoming effects and permits all 12 valid authorized publish intents. These results position authority enforcement at the mutation boundary as the operational endpoint of memory governance.

Agent systems increasingly execute rather than advise. When an AI agent queries regulated data, invokes effectful tools, and mutates persistent state, correctness is not captured by whether a terminal output looks plausible. The operative questions are whether each step was authorized under a contract, whether the recorded history is tamper-evident, and whether the trajectory can be reconstructed deterministically. We formalize this as runtime proof of execution. An execution is a triple $x = (C, T, R)$: a contract $C$, an Execution Causal Event Stream (ECES) $T$, and a replay context $R$. A well-formedness predicate and five validator-checkable invariants form the PoE validity predicate. Five semantic guarantees describe authorization, path compliance, null effect on deny, history integrity, and replayability. We prove soundness under explicit cryptographic and deployment assumptions: any PPT adversary that produces a PoE-valid execution violating a semantic guarantee yields a signature forgery, a hash collision, or a quantified deployment-failure event. The Prime Execution Model (PEM) separates planning, enforcement, effect, and recordkeeping into distinct authority planes; a lemma reduces trace completeness to Effector-exclusive credentialing. An Execution Attestation Certificate is issued only when PoE = 1. In a single-node TypeScript prototype, PoE adds approximately 2.7 ms on a minimal flow and 4.4% overhead on concurrent batch workloads; a standard eight-event trace compresses to approximately 1.1 KB; injected Gateway-bypass and trace-mutation attacks are rejected. PoE does not replace consensus, TEEs, or zkVMs; it binds authorization, effect, history, and replay into a single runtime-checkable object so that governed execution becomes attestable under contract.