Governing Actions, Not Agents: Institutional Attestation as a Governance Model for Autonomous AI Systems

Autonomous AI agents increasingly perform consequential actions on behalf of human principals, including financial transactions, external communications, and enterprise workflows. Existing agent infrastructure relies on identity federation and delegated authorization to authenticate workloads and control resource access, but it cannot determine whether an authorized action should be executed under the current behavioral and operational context. We present AgentBound, a runtime governance framework that provides verifiable behavioral oversight for autonomous AI agents. AgentBound evaluates each proposed action using three independent authorities: delegated authorization, owner-signed behavioral constitutions, and site action contracts. Their judgments are conservatively composed through a formal decision model to determine whether an action should be permitted, reviewed, or denied before execution. To provide accountability, AgentBound generates cryptographically verifiable governance receipts that bind every action to the exact delegation, policy, and semantic artifacts governing the decision, enabling independent replay verification and policy provenance. The framework also introduces standing delegation for long-running agents, allowing periodic workloads to operate under continuously refreshed governance policies while preserving revocability and bounded authority. We present the formal foundation, system architecture, governance receipt protocol, and AgentBound-Bench, a benchmark framework for evaluating governance correctness, authority composition, and accountability. Rather than replacing model alignment, AgentBound complements it by providing a deterministic governance layer between authorization and execution, transforming governance from a process that must be trusted into one that can be independently verified.

The rapid deployment of autonomous AI agents across enterprise, healthcare, and safety-critical environments has created a fundamental governance gap. Existing approaches, runtime guardrails, training-time alignment, and post-hoc auditing treat governance as an external constraint rather than an internalized behavioral principle, leaving agents vulnerable to unsafe and irreversible actions. We address this gap by drawing on how humans self-govern naturally: before acting, humans engage deliberate cognitive processes grounded in executive function, inhibitory control, and internalized organizational rules to evaluate whether an intended action is permissible, requires modification, or demands escalation. This paper proposes a neurocognitive governance framework that formally maps this human self-governance process to LLM-driven agent reasoning, establishing a structural parallel between the human brain and the large language model as the cognitive core of an agent. We formalize a Pre-Action Governance Reasoning Loop (PAGRL) in which agents consult a four-layer governance rule set: global, workflow-specific, agent-specific, and situational before every consequential action, mirroring how human organizations structure compliance hierarchies across enterprise, department, and role levels. Implemented on a production-grade retail supply chain workflow, the framework achieves 95% compliance accuracy and zero false escalations to human oversight, demonstrating that embedding governance into agent reasoning produces more consistent, explainable, and auditable compliance than external enforcement. This work offers a principled foundation for autonomous AI agents that govern themselves the way humans do: not because rules are imposed upon them, but because deliberation is embedded in how they think.

Agent systems execute through runtimes with very different control points: local coding tools, framework SDKs, managed agent platforms, API gateways, and observer-only integrations. A high-risk action such as publishing data externally may therefore appear as a shell command in one runtime, a tool call in another, and a hosted session transition in a third. This makes it difficult to answer a basic governance question consistently: what action was authorized, under whose authority, with what approval semantics, and with what evidence after execution? This paper presents Proof-Carrying Agent Actions (PCAA), a runtime-neutral governance model centered on an action certificate rather than on a vendor-native session record. PCAA organizes control around five checkpoints: pre-action admissibility, action open, assumption capture, approval, and outcome closure. It binds these checkpoints to a portable action envelope, runtime and approval receipts, and replay-ready proof. The model is extended in two practical ways: the certificate is externality-aware, carrying boundary facts such as destination visibility and account provenance, and approval is described by explicit enforceability classes rather than by a single reviewed or unreviewed bit. We study the model through a reference implementation in a heterogeneous agent control plane and a disclosure-bounded evaluation protocol. On a protected benchmark expanded from 24 executable seeds to 96 traces across four runtime families, PCAA preserves route quality while exposing distinct failure modes under ablation. The paper contributes a systems formulation of runtime governance around certificate-bearing actions and an implementation-grounded account of how that formulation can remain portable under runtime churn without collapsing into vendor-specific control surfaces.