HANSARD: A Reference Architecture for Forensic Readiness, Runtime Witnessing, and Graded Attribution in Autonomous Multi-Agent AI Systems
Organizations: Department of Informatics and Telematics, Harokopio University of Athens, Athens, Greece · Department of Informatics, Faculty of Science, Democritus University of Thrace, Kavala, Greece · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Western Macedonia, Kozani, Greece · Archimedes, Athena Research Center, Athens, Greece
Abstract
Autonomous multi-agent systems nowadays act in finance, software supply chains, and security operations. Already, the first largely AI-orchestrated intrusion campaigns have been reported. Yet, when such a system causes harm, no method can robustly establish what happened, what caused it, or who is accountable. This is because provenance forensics works at the wrong abstraction, formal causality assumes the causal model, and agent auditing trusts self-recording. The target failure mode is, thus, attribution laundering, i.e., spreading an act across redundant agents until none is a but-for cause. Worse, the record is produced by the suspects, which comprises the assumption adopted throughout this work. Agents may therefore anticipate the investigation and the part of logging infrastructure may itself collude. In this paper, HANSARD is proposed, a reference architecture treating accountability as a life-cycle property. First, a readiness profile sealed before operation bounds what later findings may claim. Second, capturing at five choke points beyond the agents' reach makes omissions detectable, not only tampering. Third, a typed PROV-DM-aligned causal graph accrues as the system runs, and three indicators read it live to gate oversight without adjudicating. Fourth, post-incident replay yields contingent effects under the modified Halpern-Pearl definition, together with a compensation-set size. Finally, a synergy residual measures harm due to the combination rather than to individuals, making laundering visible. Cause, responsibility and accountability are then reported separately, each capped by an evidentiary tier, while a future research agenda is also provided.
Figures & tables
| Capability | Req. | Countermeasure (component) |
|---|---|---|
| Injects instructions via untrusted content (A1) | R1 | Provenance-labeled context segmentation, labels assigned at the witness boundary, not by the agent (Section IV-C ) |
| Emits misleading rationale or uses a covert channel (A2) | R1, R3 | Self-reports excluded from the causal model; content-blind mandatory capture at W 3 , so unexplained influence raises (Section IV-C ) |
| Attribution laundering (A2) | R4, R5 | Contingent effects with minimal witness-set search; synergy residual and its runtime shadow (Section IV-E , Section IV-D ) |
| Omits or reorders entries; controls a trust domain or waits out retention (A3) | R2, R6, R7 | Per-channel sequence numbers and hash chaining yield completeness proofs, not merely integrity proofs, and gaps raise live alarms (Section IV-B , Section IV-D ); cross-principal corroboration, with tier E3 required to name a principal (Section V ); commitment retention decoupled from content retention (Section IV-G ) |
| Tier | Basis | May license |
|---|---|---|
| E0 | Correlational narrative over the trace | Hypothesis generation only; not evidence |
| E1 | Sealed trace, integrity and completeness proofs, one witness | Description of what was recorded; remediation advice |
| E2 | (E1) plus counterfactual support, with stated interval and coverage | A claim of causation |
| E3 | (E2) corroborated by independent witnesses in distinct trust domains | A claim naming a principal |
AI Agent Monitoring
AI agent monitoring tracks actions, tool use, and execution traces to detect failures, misuse, drift, and policy violations during operation.
See all 281 papers