Contestable Agents for Data Governance: Recording Human Stewardship of AI-Generated Metadata Across Structured and Unstructured Systems

Dataspace connectors decide whether a transfer may occur, not what the transferred value contains, tolerable for contracted applications, not for LLM agents that compose tool calls. Work on agents that generate governance artifacts evaluates output quality, not who may authorize an artifact for use. A published policy is what the decision point enforces, so publication is a governance event, and agents that are both policy subjects and policy authors write the norms that bind them. We name this the authorship hazard and state one principle: an agent is a subject of the governance plane, never an author of it. Its authorization channel to publication is closed by construction; its influence channel, drafting what humans approve, becomes an enforcement problem. Across 90 preregistered edits to the paper's running agreement, each evaluated on 344,512 requests, the six that only reclassify a field all change authorization and narrow a duty without touching policy text, and a policy-diff classifier passes all six. Read as worded, the privilege-delta conditions also pass 33 of 69 effective policy-text edits; read as covering any relaxation, none. Treating classification as authorship routes all six to review; the registry this requires is not yet built. At the execution boundary, protected fields reach the model in 105 of 105 cases under prompt-stated duties and in 0 of 105 under a compiled tool-call constraint, but values outside named fields are exposed in 7 of 7. At the review share measured, a central approval pool needs one approver per 20 to 138 participants.

AI governance programmes increasingly rely on natural language prompts to constrain and direct AI agent behaviour. These prompts function as executable specifications: they define the agent's mandate, scope, and quality criteria. Despite this role, no systematic framework exists for evaluating whether a governance prompt is structurally complete. We introduce a five-principle evaluation framework grounded in computability theory, proof theory, and Bayesian epistemology, and apply it to an empirical corpus of 34 publicly available AGENTS.md governance files sourced from GitHub. Our evaluation reveals that 37% of evaluated file-model pairs score below the structural completeness threshold, with data classification and assessment rubric criteria most frequently absent. These results suggest that practitioner-authored governance prompts exhibit consistent structural patterns that automated static analysis could detect and remediate. We discuss implications for requirements engineering practice in AI-assisted development contexts, identify a previously undocumented artefact classification gap in the AGENTS.md convention, and propose directions for tool support.

The evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) and the software agents built on them (AI agents) marks a turning point in the transition from a human-centric Web to an ``Agentic Web'' driven by AI agents. However, for AI-Generated Content (AIGC), which is expected to dominate the Web, there is currently no mechanism for agents to verify its reliability, reproducibility, or license compliance during generation. This lack of transparency risks causing chained hallucinations and compliance violations through the reuse of AIGC. Consequently, a framework to manage the provenance and generation conditions of AIGC is essential. In this paper, we present a framework that automatically attaches structured metadata to AIGC at generation time, including modularized prompts, contexts, thoughts, model information, hyperparameters, and confidence. The metadata is enveloped together with verifiable credentials to support the reliable assessment and reuse of AIGC. This framework enables efficient curation of structured AIGC and facilitates its safe use for applications such as fine-tuning and knowledge distillation.