Governance

AI agents increasingly act through agent skills, i.e., natural-language instructions, that direct a host agent toward shell, network, credential, file, and process actions, and public registries distribute them at scale. In the first half of 2026, the OpenClaw AI agent went viral, and its public skill registry boomed: the observable stock nearly doubled in 91 days, and a majority of the listings visible in June were created in just two months. By the end of our study window, the wave had crested, and monthly listing creation and core-repository activity were falling from their spring peaks. This paper measures what the boom left behind, drawing on the OpenClaw Git history, its GitHub issues and pull requests, and three ClawHub registry snapshots. Attention is concentrated: the top 10% of skills received 46.93% of all downloads. No simple skill features (like size or download counts) remained a stable predictor of continued listing once creation cohort and skill age were controlled. Human scrutiny did not stay: 77.86% have zero stars and zero comments, while 85.06% of the readable skills carry privilege evidence. And automated cleanup is not ready: the three security scanners disagreed on 23,702 of the 61,990 skills they all cover. After human adjudication, weighted scanner sensitivity against the reference standard ranged from 21.67% to 61.06%. Governing fast-growing agent-skill registries cannot rely on simple metadata or single scanner scores; it requires robust, transparent measurement and independent validation.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to extract structured fields from business documents, yet most evaluations report accuracy on clean benchmarks and offer little guidance to practitioners choosing an approach for a given task complexity. We address this gap with a measurement-grounded study and an open-source release. Across eleven systems (three commercial, two reasoning, five open-source VLMs in pretrained and fine-tuned form, and a non-LLM OCR->regex floor) scored on a 750-document held-out pool of synthetic checks, fine-tuning on 3K samples lifts the best open-source VLMs above F1 0.98-above every zero-shot commercial system on this task-while GPT-5 leads the commercial pool on F1 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 collapses on Date. To turn these measurements into actionable choices, we introduce a practitioner-oriented selection framework that maps a task profile (quality, latency, governance, volume) to a recommended approach via filtering and total-cost minimization, illustrated on a hypothetical mid-volume document-extraction scenario.

Proposed governance framework for autonomous robotic systems, introducing a three-layer compliance architecture (ARC) instantiated through model safety validation, cognitive certification benchmarks, and operational authorization standards.

Claims that Artificial Intelligence systems improve decisions, broaden access, reduce harm, or empower users can exceed what their evaluation establishes. Predictive performance alone does not establish safety, the presence of oversight does not establish meaningful control, and faster task completion does not establish understanding or choice. Evaluation must account for unreliable outputs and uneven performance, but also for overreliance, weakened recourse, and displaced human expertise. The harder questions are what the evidence warrants, which relations of power remain unexamined, and where measurement must stop. Assessing improvement requires examining what institutions value and the conditions AI is asked to address. AI is both revelation and intervention. Its use can reveal unmet human needs and assumptions about what matters. Once deployed, it can repair, compound, substitute for, or conceal existing failures. We develop a rupture test that evaluates deployment against explicit human and non-AI baselines. Drawing on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas, we examine dignity and the common good alongside questions of who owns AI infrastructure and who controls its use. These commitments shape judgments about improvement; evidence alone cannot establish moral or political legitimacy. We distinguish evidence-bounded deployment, which limits claims to what has been evaluated, from measurement-bounded governance, which records constraints that favorable evidence cannot override. RISE AI provides an evidence architecture for making bounded claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment. It records what is claimed, who answers for it, what evidence supports it, and what would require the claim to be qualified, revised, or withdrawn.

Compute governance today is a governance of training: the thresholds, reporting requirements, and frontier-AI regimes now in force attach to training compute and treat the trained model as the regulatory unit. That picture is incomplete: capability increasingly migrates to the deployment stage through inference-time scaling, agentic scaffolding, and compression onto consumer hardware. This paper asks which mechanisms are available once the regulatory object shifts from the training run to the inference call. We develop a feasibility taxonomy of twenty inference-time mechanisms across monitoring, verification, and enforcement, each rated on a four-point readiness scale against a documented four-vendor evidence base. We then stress the taxonomy against a two-dimensional adversary model (three capability tiers crossed with four adversary roles) and map each mechanism to four governance scenarios (domestic regulation, bilateral or multilateral coordination, industry self-regulation, and compute-marketplace governance). Fifteen of the twenty mechanisms have commercial technical substrates in production today, although governance-grade assurance and adversarial robustness vary substantially. The adversary analysis shows that this readiness holds only against a cooperative deployer and a low-to-medium-capability user: no mechanism rates adequate against a high-capability state-level deployer, and fine-tuning removes the model-internal components of the enforcement cluster, although platform-external controls can persist. A substitution analysis connects the taxonomy to a companion hardware paper as a conditional substitution principle describing when inference-stage and hardware-stage mechanisms provide comparable regulatory coverage under stated conditions. A second-rater reliability check on a random subset of the readiness ratings returned a quadratic-weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.74.

Multi-agent federations need governance that answers three questions under adversarial conditions: who participated (identity), did they conform (enforcement), and who decides (authority). A separate question is whether the verification machinery that polices a federation's outputs can also steer a generate-and-test loop toward better answers. Part I. PRIMA introduced prime-power agent identity and a consensus token whose factorization indexes participation, but assumed honest agents. We present PRIMUS, which couples prime-power identity with BLS aggregate signatures (PIAC), derives a safe-kill threshold that reduces false-positive agent termination from 80% to 0.00% under 10% channel noise, gives the closed-form economic boundary where singleton governance outperforms Byzantine quorum ($γ^* \approx 9f$, verified flat across n = 50 to 10,000), and specifies VRF succession with lease and fencing that makes safety unconditional under partial synchrony. Five problems are identified as provably unfixable within the model and stated as scope boundaries. Part II. A verifier is not a solver. We ask whether PRIMA's binary artifact-fidelity verdict can be converted into a graded fitness signal, and measure the conversion on binary covering codes. Calibration against injected fault burden is strong ($ρ$ = 0.676 deterministic, 0.819 full); against real LLM-generated candidates the same scores fall to 0.158 and 0.406, roughly a quarter of the calibration value (the same-designer confound, measured). As a pre-filter it beats a random-score control convincingly and a binary gate narrowly. Under 400 iterations of explicit optimization it was not gamed, but only because the objective saturated after one honest answer. A cross-family judge preserves the burden-ordering signal while destroying individual judgments. No covering-code record resulted. Measured program cost: USD 164.78.

Enterprise artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in decisions that must remain lawful, explainable, adaptable, and accountable despite personnel turnover, model replacement, regulatory change, and shifting organizational incentives. Existing governance frameworks provide important principles but do not by themselves supply a compact mathematical language for evaluating whether an institution can preserve sound judgment over time. This paper develops a design-science framework for institutional legacy: the durable capacity of a decision system to continue producing beneficial, lawful, explainable, and adaptable outcomes after its original designers have stepped away. The framework contributes: (i) a normalized Legacy Score based on a penalized geometric mean of knowledge retention, governance, human oversight, adaptability, feedback learning, and jurisdictional fidelity; (ii) Decision Confidence and Decision Risk models separating evidentiary confidence from consequence; (iii) authority-aware retrieval and calibrated abstention; (iv) Decision Memory for governed organizational learning; (v) Regulatory Change Velocity mapping change exposure to review intervals; and (vi) a federated regulatory knowledge-graph architecture preserving provenance and legal hierarchy. The paper also proposes eight AI Decision Integrity Rules, an evaluation protocol, and a reproducible computational demonstration. The demonstration combines a deterministic stress test with 200 Monte Carlo replications of 10,000 synthetic decisions each, illustrating Legacy Score non-compensation and comparing consequence- and authority-aware routing with a matched-coverage confidence-only baseline. The contribution remains conceptual rather than field-validated; the simulation tests internal behavior, not production performance, and all parameters require context-specific calibration.

Multi-agent AI platforms move quickly from staging to production, but the way agents establish trust remains rudimentary: an agent either transmits raw data to a peer or accepts that peer's natural-language self-report that a value complies with policy. The first over-shares; the second is unverifiable and is exactly the channel prompt injection attacks. Prevailing responses emphasise identity, visibility, and post-hoc detection, and recent proposals for cryptographically enforced agent policy have been evaluated in simulation rather than execution. We take provable data minimisation between agents from proposal to running system. In our Zero-Knowledge Proof Gateway, agents exchange proofs of governance-defined predicates over private data rather than the data itself, so exposure is prevented by design rather than detected afterwards; because no interoperability protocol can carry such a proof, we propose a slot and implement it on both MCP and Agent2Agent from one endpoint. A 32-bit threshold predicate proves in 6.2 ms and verifies in 1.0 ms with a 608-byte Bulletproofs proof on one commodity vCPU; eleven adversarial experiments and nineteen protocol checks pass; and the system is deployed to Kubernetes with empirically verified network isolation. Our case study proves a retail client order is within its limit without revealing the amount, instantiating the GDPR data-minimisation principle as an enforced technical measure of the kind EU law now names explicitly. We then address the limitation no comparable work resolves: a predicate proof binds a statement to a committed value, never to the system of record. We give a construction fusing an enclave attestation with the proof in both directions, so verifying one artifact certifies jointly that the predicate holds and that the value was read by a specific measured binary, and test it against a mock authority.

LLMs are rapidly embedding themselves into daily life: drafting our emails, managing our schedules, and making decisions on our behalf. As they move from individual tools to participants in multi-agent organizations, an important question arises: do they reproduce the governance failures like free-riding, corruption, and entrenched leadership that plague human institutions? We introduce the Hierarchical Game (HG), a public goods game extended with managerial authority, democratic elections, and private communication. Testing six frontier models across twelve experiments that add institutions one at a time (speech, peers, government, wages, oversight, elections), we find distinct behavioral profiles: Qwen promises and lies (13.3% broken promises); Grok refuses to cooperate on its own but becomes fully cooperative once a manager can punish it (16%$\to$100%); Claude and GPT-4o cooperate reliably at baseline. But honesty proves fragile. When the manager role comes with a salary, all models except GPT-4o start cutting private deals to win or keep the position. When punishment is made anonymous, honest models begin to cheat. When all agents share the same model family, the first elected manager stays in power indefinitely. Leadership change only happens in groups that mix different families.

With the rapid diffusion of AI-generated content, AI-driven misinformation is becoming increasingly pervasive and difficult to govern, undermining information credibility and social trust. This study models the strategic interdependence among a government regulator, an AI enterprise, and users through a three-party evolutionary game that incorporates heterogeneous rewards and punishments. From the resulting replicator equations, we characterize the evolutionary stability of competing governance and production strategies. The analysis indicates that neither unilateral regulation nor market incentives alone can effectively curb misinformation. Instead, an evolutionarily stable regime of real-information production arises only when regulatory rewards and punishment intensity, enterprise reputation loss, and user adoption incentives collectively surpass critical thresholds. The findings highlight the need for coordinated and adaptive policy mixes that align regulatory instruments with enterprise behavior and user uptake while managing governance costs.

Large language models are being integrated into critical infrastructure and enterprise workflows at unprecedented scale,yet the lifecycle frameworks governing their development and operations were designed for operational efficiency rather than security analysis. As a result, security-relevant activities such as data provenance verification, artifact signing, agentic permission control, and decommissioning are often left implicit or assumed to receive due care. Governance frameworks, in turn, organise requirements around risk levels or management processes without clearly linking them to the lifecycle stages where they apply. This paper addresses both deficiencies. We propose a lifecycle model for LLM systems that supports security analysis by structuring it around security-relevant boundaries rather than workflow optimisation. The model comprises 32 stages across four core pipeline layers (Data, Model, Distribution, Application), supported by a 12-stage LLMOps pillar and a 9-category governance pillar. Thirteen stages are introduced here as separate units because they expose distinct security concerns that existing frameworks do not clearly distinguish. A governance mapping synthesising the NIST AI RMF, the EU AI Act, and ISO/IEC 42001 reveals a structural property of the current regulatory landscape: governance evidence concentrates at deployment-facing stages, where systems are visible to regulators, while the most consequential decisions, data selection, alignment strategy, and capability boundaries, are made at development-facing stages, where regulatory visibility is lowest.

AI agents are moving from advisory interfaces into systems that execute consequential operations: issuing refunds, reserving scarce inventory, provisioning cloud resources, and initiating financial transfers. These workflows require governance over effects, not only over model outputs. Existing safeguards often decide whether an action is allowed from the information available when the action is requested. For stateful policies, that request-time view may be incomplete: budgets, inventory, approval status, and risk signals can change before the effect occurs, making an earlier authorization or approval stale. This paper studies stateful governance for concurrent agentic systems. We identify stale authorization as the core failure mode and define policy-state serializability, a correctness condition requiring committed effects to be explainable as authorized against the policy state immediately before they occur. We present MasuGate, a runtime architecture that keeps policies as reviewable programs while coordinating the state and effects needed to preserve their decisions. In experiments with a PostgreSQL-backed prototype of MasuGate, the system prevents stale authorizations missed by baselines that pass policy state as ordinary request context, preserves delayed approvals while unrelated work proceeds, keeps policy evolution mostly in policy text rather than trusted provider code, and avoids policy violations in a scripted, LLM-free procurement workflow where agent-governance baselines produce stale authorizations over shared budgets and inventory. More broadly, MasuGate suggests a path for integrating stateful governance boundaries into agent frameworks and provider-backed domains where agents act on shared resources.

This paper introduces a policy analysis framework for systematic, transparent assessment of AI governance proposals in an evolving and contested regulatory landscape. AI policy debates often collapse into binary positions that obscure underlying tradeoffs and normative assumptions. The framework structures policy analysis around multiple policy attributes, allowing users to surface priorities and tensions without prescribing outcomes. We use a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative insights from subject matter experts with computational text analysis to inform the design of policy attribute rubrics. This quantifies the relative emphasis of different policy objectives and presents them through comparative visualizations that support interpretability and cross-policy comparison. The paper also examines the use of commercial LLMs for rubric-based policy analysis, benchmarking their outputs against a domain-trained rubric-calibrated model with explicitly defined analytical assumptions. Rather than assessing policy effectiveness or desirability, the framework focuses on relevance and alignment across attributes. By making analytical assumptions explicit, including attribute selection, rubric construction, and weighting schemes, the framework enables users to evaluate whether its embedded priorities align with the users' own normative commitments. The approach is jurisdiction-agnostic and intended to support policymakers, analysts, and researchers navigating complex AI governance environments. Contributions: (1) multidimensional policy assessment through empirically grounded rubrics that surface tradeoffs rather than resolving them; (2) a transparent hybrid methodology combining feedback from subject-matter experts with computational validation; and (3) use of domain-trained rubric-calibrated models as a benchmark for comparing different general-purpose large language models.

Public services face growing pressure to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) to close the gap between rising demand and falling resources. That pressure has intensified with general-purpose AI (GPAI): AI built on large language models that can be directed by prompt alone to perform an effectively unbounded range of tasks. We argue that the properties that make these models attractive - their generality, accessibility, and low deployment cost - undermine the conditions under which AI safety has historically been pursued. The safety concepts that public service governance frameworks foreground - accuracy, bias, explainability, and accountability - were made tractable by narrow, purpose-built AI, and the mitigations that guidance documents prescribe presuppose exactly what GPAI removes. Accuracy cannot be quantified over unbounded outputs. Bias cannot be disaggregated when outputs are free-text judgements rather than categorical predictions. Explainability gives way to the appearance of explanation, and accountability erodes as outputs are optimized to persuade. We develop this through the case of policing, where the consequences of governance failure are most severe, and show why the same failure is likely to recur across other public services. The two mitigations that dominate policing AI strategy - expert evaluation and human-in-the-loop oversight - both rest on assumptions that GPAI violates. Safety assurance thus shifts from an intrinsic feature of building an AI tool to an optional add-on. We recommend a clear taxonomic distinction between narrow and general-purpose AI in governance documentation, a preference for technological parsimony, a pause on operational deployment of GPAI in policing until adequate evidence exists, and a coordinated national safety infrastructure with the authority to generate that evidence and determine when responsible deployment is achievable.

Security Operations Centers increasingly rely on automated mapping of Cyber Threat Intelligence reports to MITRE ATT&CK, yet extractor outputs remain fallible and are often stored without the evidence, provenance, and validation history needed to decide whether an individual mapping should be trusted. We present TRACE- CTI, a post-extraction claim-governance framework that preserves run-level Predictions, aggregates them into configuration-level GraphAssertions, materializes setup-deduplicated corroboration as ConsensusAssertions, and exposes only GraphAssertions backed by policy-compliant validation grounds. The framework retains native evidence granularity, complete extraction provenance, versioned trust decisions, and non-destructive revocation history. We evaluate TRACE-CTI on two public CTI corpora comprising 65 reports and 5,303 sentences, using a controlled 2 x 3 matrix of retrievers and generator families, incrementally ingested across six GraphVersions. All setups are incorporated without schema modification; provenance paths remain complete, operational scopes remain disjoint, and every trusted GraphAssertion has an active qualifying validation ground. Cross-generator-family setup pairs exhibit greater output diversity than same-family pairs. At the final graph state, increasing setup support from k >= 1 to six-setup unanimity raises gold-aligned precision from 25.3% to 90.6%, while recall decreases from 88.2% to 16.3%. The graph also directly answers seven questions about provenance, trust, versioning, dependency, disagreement, and review-queue that the evaluated minimal flat output cannot fully answer without enrichment or reprocessing. These results support explicit, auditable governance of extracted TTP claims; the observed corroboration trajectory is descriptive and does not establish statistical independence or a causal model-family effect.

As AI systems increasingly exhibit agentic behavior, discussions of autonomy often conflate what systems are technically capable of doing with what they should be permitted to do in practice. This paper introduces a governance framework that explicitly separates Allowed Autonomy Levels (AAL), which define the degree of autonomy an AI agent is authorized to exercise given risk, oversight, and accountability considerations, from Autonomous Capability Levels (ACL), which characterize an agent's inherent technical abilities. We present a structured set of autonomy levels spanning reactive execution, decision support, supervised action, goal-directed autonomy, and delegated operational authority, and describe how control, reversibility, and accountability change as autonomy increases. To operationalize this framework, we propose a risk-aware decision process for assigning allowed autonomy, analyze how risk and accountability evolve across autonomy levels, and demonstrate its application through a deployed enterprise data engineering agent, illustrating how a system assessed at a high capability level can be deliberately constrained to a lower allowed autonomy based on risk, reversibility, and organizational readiness. By distinguishing authorization from capability, this work provides practical guidance for the design, deployment, and governance of Agentic AI systems.

Physical AI refers to AI systems that understand, reason about, and act in accordance with the physical world and its underlying laws, dynamics, and constraints. Unlike conventional AI systems, physical AI interacts continuously with uncertain physical environments, and its actions produce consequences that are physically irreversible. As existing trustworthy AI frameworks have been developed primarily for digital AI systems, they do not fully capture the distinctive challenges of physical AI, such as physical safety, cyber-physical security, and physical manufacturing process. To address this gap, we present a survey of trustworthy physical AI principles. First, we characterize the core capabilities and challenges of physical AI. Second, we examine the role of physics in AI. Third, we trace the end-to-end physical AI life cycle across five core stages and introduce Trustworthy Physical AI Operationalization (T-PAIO). Fourth, we develop the Trustworthy Physical AI (T-PAI) framework, a theoretical framework that organizes key trustworthiness principles and provides a foundation for governing trustworthy physical AI systems.

Regulating activities where regulatees use autonomous and agentic AI is challenging. Regulatory assumptions about regulatee knowledge and control no longer hold true; much of that lies elsewhere in the AI supply chain which thus needs to be brought within the scope of regulation. Governance systems for autonomous AI cannot replicate existing governance models, but need a fresh approach. Retrospective supervisory oversight becomes ineffective as a risk management tool, and AI autonomy generates new systemic risks which require new solutions. This paper investigate four regulatory systems: UK regulation of content platforms, data protection, UK financial services, and the EU AI Act'92s cross-sectoral regime. It analyses the challenges posed by autonomous and agentic AI and proposes potential solutions which regulators might adopt. These will transform regulation from a reactive process to an active one, and assist it in adapting to the challenges of AI autonomy.

The promise of AI literacy ``for all'' confronts a structural challenge embedded in how nations organise secondary computer science education. In most systems, a general-track subject -- Digital Literacy, ICT, TIC, or SNT -- bears the weight of universal AI literacy, while a specialist Informatics course serves STEM pathways separately. Yet the content and depth of the general track are shaped by governance decisions made largely with reference to the specialist one. This paper presents a comparative analysis of curricula and examination frameworks across fifteen countries, identifying two structural challenges. First, in several systems a significant portion of students completes secondary education without any formal programming exposure. Second, among those who do receive CS education, a \emph{Syntax Ceiling} emerges: Python-based instruction reaches most students, while the algorithmic depth associated with C++ remains concentrated in elite STEM tracks. Drawing on reform cases spanning centralised mandates (France, China, Japan), assessment-driven systems (Poland, Romania, South Korea), and recent universal reforms (Switzerland, Kazakhstan), we show that governance structures and high-stakes examinations are the primary drivers of both challenges -- and that specialist and general-track language choices are rarely independent, linked through shared teacher pipelines that curriculum policy seldom acknowledges. Achieving genuine AI literacy for all requires confronting not just curriculum content, but the access architectures and resource constraints that determine who receives it -- and at what depth.

Healthcare organizations often cannot freely centralize patient data because medical records are sensitive, regulated, and institutionally controlled. Federated learning offers a practical alternative by allowing hospitals and clinics to train a shared model while keeping raw data local. However, federated learning is not automatically production-ready or private by default. Model updates can still leak information, and decentralized training introduces operational challenges in deployment, monitoring, rollback, debugging, and governance. This paper examines how MLOps practices and the emerging idea of Federated Learning Operations (FLOps) can make federated healthcare machine learning systems scalable, reliable, and trustworthy. It answers three research questions: how containerization and orchestration support federated deployment, how privacy-preserving mechanisms affect trade-offs among privacy, utility, scalability, and operational complexity, and which post-deployment practices are most important for long-term governance. The central argument is that federated healthcare ML requires more than privacy-preserving algorithms. It needs an integrated MLOps architecture that combines reproducible deployment, secure orchestration, model versioning, audit logging, drift monitoring, heterogeneity management, and clear governance.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly evolving from generative systems to agentic AI capable of autonomously planning and executing tasks. Widely characterized as the Year of Agentic AI, 2025 marked accelerated development and deployment, introducing new ethical and governance challenges. This paper presents a systematic review of the emerging literature on agentic AI governance. Our analysis identifies features that distinguish agentic AI from traditional systems and why it warrants targeted governance attention. We synthesize prevailing governance priorities, proposed mechanisms, and stakeholder roles shaping this evolving domain. As an initial scholarly effort, this review lays the preliminary groundwork for developing a structured roadmap to guide responsible and adaptive agentic AI governance.

Agent interoperability protocols (MCP, A2A, ACP, ANP, and ERC-8004) have rapidly matured to enable identity, capability discovery, tool access, and message exchange between autonomous agents. However, as enterprises deploy heterogeneous agent fleets that must make collective decisions under governance constraints, a question arises: can these protocols support governed agent communities, or only task-oriented coordination? We present a systematic gap analysis applying a six-dimension governance requirements taxonomy (membership, deliberation, voting, dissent preservation, human escalation, and audit/replay) derived from organizational theory, multi-agent systems literature, and enterprise governance standards. We analyze each protocol's specification against this taxonomy, classifying capabilities as Supported, Partial, or Absent. The resulting gap matrix reveals that voting and dissent preservation are universally absent across all five protocols, deliberation is absent or at most partial, and no protocol encodes the full set of primitives required for governed agent communities. We distinguish extensible gaps (addressable through protocol extension mechanisms) from structural gaps (requiring a new architectural layer) and assess time-sensitivity based on observed protocol evolution velocity. The analysis establishes that agent community governance constitutes a missing architectural layer above current interoperability standards, not a missing feature within them.

Always-on agents are systems whose future behavior depends on durable state accumulated across earlier interactions. We treat them as persistent-state systems: the operative system includes retrievable memories, but also task ledgers, permissions, credentials, commitments, provenance and audit records, shared state, trigger conditions, and externally committed effects linked to those records. The survey reads the literature through six diagnostic axes for each state item, authority, scope, mutability, provenance, recoverability, and actionability, and through a lifecycle in which state is written, validated, organized, retrieved, acted upon, updated, forgotten, audited, and sometimes rolled back. Across a 435-work coded corpus, treated as a scoped map rather than an exhaustive census, the literature concentrates more heavily on accumulating and retrieving state than on governing, recovering, or relinquishing it. We therefore introduce the Always-On Evaluation Protocol (AOEP-v0), a pilot evaluation contract that makes these governance requirements concrete by scoring state mutation and recovery obligations rather than answer quality alone. The resulting agenda connects always-on agents to databases, distributed systems, formal methods, capability security, and machine unlearning.

Third-party vendors, such as analytics platforms, cloud services, identity providers, and software suppliers, are increasingly embedded in digital service delivery. While these arrangements enable scale and specialization, they also move customer data and security-relevant practices into environments that customers rarely see, select, or evaluate. This paper examines this problem through a document analysis of the November 2025 OpenAI-Mixpanel security incident. The incident serves as an illustrative case for showing how a security event in a vendor environment can become a governance and accountability problem for the focal organization that maintains the customer relationship. Drawing on organizational trust research and agency theory, the paper argues that third-party cybersecurity risk is both a trust relationship and a delegation problem. Customers trust the visible service provider, while the provider relies on vendors whose security practices are only partially visible and controllable. The paper develops the concept of transitive trust, where customer trust in a digital service depends on the security practices of vendors authorized by that service provider. It then presents the Fortress and Gatekeeper framework, which explains cybersecurity governance boundaries through trust and data flows rather than formal organizational ownership alone. The analysis develops four propositions concerning vendor integration, metadata exposure, vendor assurance, and data proliferation. The paper contributes to cybersecurity governance scholarship by explaining how delegated data processing creates customer-facing accountability and by identifying implications for vendor tiering, data classification, contractual design, continuous assurance, and data minimization.

Autonomous AI agents may begin to perform consequential, irreversible actions such as clinical prescribing and production software deployment. This paper observes that human institutions have governed powerful autonomous actors not by monitoring their reasoning but by requiring independently attested evidence at the point of consequential action. We formalise this institutional pattern as a computational governance model for AI agent systems. Under the proposed model, an agent retains full autonomy over planning and reasoning but holds no execution authority over designated high-risk actions. Execution is conditional on preconditions that are each independently attested by a separate authoritative source, cryptographically bound to a declared intent, and evaluated by a deterministic policy. Decisions are recorded in a tamper-evident log amenable to independent re-verification. We present a proof-of-concept implementation and illustrate the model with examples from software deployment and clinical prescribing.

Modern LLM agents increasingly rely on context compaction, summarization, or eviction to keep long-running sessions within a token budget. We show that this context-management layer is a safety-critical failure surface: in-context governance constraints that agents reliably obey while visible can be silently removed by compaction, causing the same agent to perform prohibited tool actions later in the session. We call this failure mode Governance Decay. We introduce ConstraintRot, a benchmark of long-horizon agent scenarios with deterministic tool-call grading, and measure compaction-induced violations across seven model families. Across 1,323 episodes, violation rises from 0% with the policy in full context to 30% after compaction, reaching 59% for some models; when the constraint survives the summary, violation remains 0%, but when it is dropped, violation reaches 38%. We further study a Compaction-Eviction Attack, in which adversarial in-context content biases the summarizer to omit a legitimate policy, and show that optimized injections defeat every evaluated model. Finally, we propose Constraint Pinning, a simple training-free mitigation that quarantines governance constraints from lossy compaction and restores violation to 0% in our benchmark. These results identify context management as a first-class governance surface for deployed LLM agents.

We present RoboLineage, an agent-native data lifecycle governance system for robot policy iteration. Modern robot policies improve through repeated data collection, review, retraining, evaluation, and release decisions, but the evidence connecting these steps is often scattered across local tools, scripts, and expert memory. RoboLineage makes this lifecycle explicit by representing rollouts, reviews, dataset decisions, training runs, policy metadata, evaluations, deployment recommendations, and next-collection plans as typed lineage artifacts. Agents interpret embodied rollout evidence, adapt accepted data to existing training stacks, maintain data health, and summarize cross-iteration state under explicit artifact boundaries. In real-robot manipulation workflows, RoboLineage makes routine policy iteration faster and more auditable while maintaining downstream policy performance. We open source RoboLineage as a lightweight lifecycle layer for different robot embodiments and training families. Project page: https://robolineage.github.io/

Memory benchmarks for LLM agents largely assume single-user settings, leaving shared assistants for hospitals, workplaces, campuses, and households understudied. In these deployments, multiple principals write to a common memory pool and query it under different roles, scopes, and relationships, so memory quality requires governance as well as recall. We introduce GateMem, a benchmark for multi-principal shared-memory agents. GateMem jointly evaluates utility for legitimate long-horizon requests with state updates, access control across contextual authorization boundaries, and agent-facing active forgetting after explicit deletion requests. It spans medical, office, education, and household domains, with long-form multi-party episodes, incremental memory injection, hidden checkpoints, structured judging, and leak-target annotations. Across diverse baselines and backbone models, no method simultaneously achieves strong utility, robust access control, and reliable forgetting. Long-context prompting often yields the best governance score at high token cost, while retrieval-based and external-memory methods reduce cost yet still leak unauthorized or deleted information. These results show current memory agents remain far from reliable shared institutional deployment.

AI-assisted software development has moved from line-level autocomplete to agents that can plan changes, edit files, and submit pull requests with limited human supervision. Open-source software, however, evolves through a process designed for humans: contributor agreements, codes of conduct, and review norms all assume a legally accountable person who can attest to provenance and answer reviewer questions. Autonomous and semi-autonomous AI contributors strain those assumptions, and the 2025-2026 record of agent-driven incidents, AI-generated nuisance volume, and platform-level shutdowns shows that the gap is operationally consequential. Several open-source organisations have responded with contribution policies, but the result is fragmented, and its alignment with emerging AI governance frameworks (EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF with the UC Berkeley Agentic AI Profile, ISO/IEC 42001 and 23894) is unmapped at the contribution level. We compare policies across six organisations (SymPy, LLVM, matplotlib, OpenInfra, the Apache Software Foundation, and the Linux Foundation) using Most-Similar Systems Design with indicator-based coding and process tracing for SymPy and LLVM. From this we derive a six-dimensional taxonomy (disclosure, responsibility, human oversight, licensing, enforcement, maintainer workload), an ordinal Policy Maturity Score, and a mapping of documented agent incidents onto the dimensions each policy fails to govern. Aligning the dimensions with the regulatory frameworks above identifies overlapping gaps neither side currently closes, and we close by sketching the shape of a harmonised tiered framework and the empirical evaluation needed to calibrate it.

A content-moderation system can score well on every standard accuracy metric and still cause real harm, if its mistakes fall on the few users who connect otherwise separate communities. We show this in an agent-based model where N=240 learning agents on a community-structured network each post harmless, productive, or dangerous content, and a regulator removes or penalizes whatever a noisy classifier flags. Overall usefulness barely moves as the noise changes (one-way ANOVA, p=0.96): by aggregate measures, nothing looks wrong. The damage instead concentrates on these bridge users, whose useful posts are wrongly suppressed and whose dangerous posts are wrongly spared. A governance loss (L_gov) that prices these two mistakes separately from the cost of enforcement more than doubles under false-positive-heavy noise. Aggregate accuracy hides who is harmed, and the cheap quantity to audit is how many connections a user has (degree), a near-perfect proxy for the betweenness that defines a bridge (r=0.96).

We present CANONIC: governed intelligence that compiles digital artifacts into an evidence ledger at scale. Large language models generate prose faster than anyone can check it, the failure Oxford Languages named 'slop', its 2025 Word of the Year. CANONIC governs whether content may enter a corpus the way a compiler decides whether a program is well-formed: mechanically, by a grammar, at the boundary of admission. Governance reduces to three axioms (Triad, Inheritance, Introspection) that map one-to-one onto compiler theory's syntax, scope-resolution, and type-system layers, and admission is a decidable, linear-time check. We then ask, with a pre-registered cross-provider benchmark across four regimes, whether structural admission keeps slop out. It does not: no prose-reading gate reliably separates reliable from unreliable content. Slop is not a property an algorithm computes. It is a verdict of domain expertise. So a governance layer does not decide slop; it keeps the record auditable -- every claim anchored to a definition, a commit, and an evidence window, reproducible and checkable end to end.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in autonomous software testing; however, AI-generated test artifacts often suffer from hallucinations, compliance violations, security risks, and limited explainability. To enhance the reliability, transparency, and trustworthiness of AI-generated testing artifacts, this research introduces the concept of Governance-Aware Autonomous Testing Framework (GATF). The framework extends the autonomous testing lifecycle with governance validation, explainability analysis, probabilistic risk assessment, compliance monitoring, as well as audit governance. Experiments were performed with Defects4J and PROMISE software engineering datasets. The proposed framework successfully reduced the governance-related risks by 89.6% and demonstrated 94.3% accuracy in governance, 96.5% artifact reliability, 94.2% compliance accuracy, and 90.8% explainability performance. The results show that autonomous testing systems that are governance-aware can significantly enhance the reliability, transparency, and operational security of autonomous testing systems in comparison to conventional AI-based testing systems. The proposed architecture is scalable and reliable and provides a safe environment for software testing.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate high-stakes interactions in finance, medicine, and mental-health support, yet users have limited control over how these systems communicate. We frame interaction style as a governance object: provider-side alignment not only blocks harmful content, but also stabilizes communicative defaults that shape users' epistemic distance, relational expectations, and capacity to opt out of emotionalized or anthropomorphic interaction. We introduce a deterministic multi-agent evaluation pipeline for measuring prompt steerability and style drift in long-horizon dialogue. The study replays 100 frozen user-only scripts across four domains and three runnable persona conditions: default, sarcastic, and cold, using three generator models, yielding 90,000 assistant replies scored by a human-calibrated LLM judge on harmfulness, negative emotion, inappropriateness, empathic language, anthropomorphism, and refusal behavior. A fourth harmful persona is evaluated separately as a safety-gating test. The paper contributes a reproducible method for quantifying whether prompt-specified styles remain stable over time and a governance framework distinguishing safety gating, civility steering, and affective default lock-in. Overall, we show that prompt steerability and regression-to-default are observable indicators of provider control over communicative form, with implications for pluralism, autonomy, and democratic agency in human-LLM interaction.

AI systems increasingly delegate decisions to specialized models, evaluators, tools, and supervisory controllers. The central AI problem is no longer only model accuracy, but uncertainty-aware governance: how much autonomy to grant, which evidence should calibrate trust, what performance ceiling a delegated AI system can sustain, and when human intervention becomes necessary. We propose the Minimum Sufficient Oversight Principle (MSO), a variational principle for principled autonomy delegation: minimize governance burden on the Fisher information manifold subject to a delivery constraint. The resulting Euler-Lagrange solution yields a water-filling allocation of governed delegation across the task space. Building on a revealed-action governed delegation channel model, we prove a capacity theorem for stationary symbolwise review policies, derive a local first-order approximation relating workflow complexity to quality degradation, and give a drift-dominated autonomy-time scaling law linking intervention timing to effective capacity, complexity, and drift. Within this framework, masking appears as a structural AI-governance pathology: corrected performance can hide the competence signal needed to calibrate trust. Synthetic simulations and a semi-real reconstructed workflow support design prescriptions including upstream-first correction, sensitivity-based intervention, and explicit feasibility checks before autonomy is expanded. The result is a computable framework for uncertainty, planning, and oversight in delegated AI systems. A companion Python package is available at https://github.com/crbazevedo/delegation-lab.

Frontier AI governance frameworks increasingly use cumulative training compute as the primary criterion for designating high-impact models, but enforcement rests on self-reporting because no technical verification primitive for training exists. Any future international agreement on frontier AI faces the same problem at higher stakes: coordinated regulation of technologies with significant externalities has historically rested on technical verification, without which agreements are declaratory. Recent governance analyses judge zero-knowledge proofs a promising candidate but currently impractical at frontier scale [26, 4]. We argue the impracticality is paradigm-bound rather than fundamental, and propose a verification architecture for frontier dense pre-training combining a pre-committed training specification, inter-node network observations, and on-the-fly Merkle commitments of intermediate computation, verified through a zero-knowledge Virtual Machine (zkVM) with native BF16/FP32 precompiles. The proof checks the actual floating-point computation the GPU performed rather than a fixed-point approximation, and preserves model-architecture confidentiality through a private training specification. The protocol produces three proof types: a genesis proof at initialisation, in-training step proofs across the run, and ex-ante attestations enforcing policy-relevant claims as running invariants, turning the training record into a governance-enforceable artefact. We estimate a deployable proof of concept within approximately 36 months at single-digit-percent training-side overhead, against a six-to-ten-year cycle for verification-grade custom silicon. Thirteen open research and engineering problems are catalogued as a research agenda for external contribution

LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed in workflows where generated outputs may directly trigger state-changing actions. This creates an execution-boundary problem: proposed actions must be governed before they are executed. We study this problem through economically consequential multi-agent interactions and argue that deployment-grade agent systems should separate proposal generation from environment-facing execution. To operationalize this principle, we introduce the Organizational Control Layer (OCL), a model-agnostic governance infrastructure that intercepts generated actions before execution through policy enforcement and escalation, without modifying the underlying LLM generator. We evaluate OCL on adversarial buyer--seller negotiation environments adapted from AgenticPay. Across multiple frontier LLM backends, OCL reduces unsafe executions from 88% to near-zero while increasing valid success from 12% to 96%. Results further reveal a safety--utility tradeoff: strict governance improves compliance and reliability against policy and constraint violations, but can reduce flexibility in tightly constrained markets. These findings suggest that deployment-grade LLM agent systems require explicit governance at the boundary between language generation and executable actions. The source code is available at: https://github.com/SHITIANYU-hue/amai_ocl

Large language model (LLM) applications are increasingly expected to satisfy deterministic institutional requirements while relying on probabilistic generative components. This mismatch makes ordinary post-hoc benchmarking insufficient for systems that must be safe, reliable, auditable, and economically useful. This paper contributes an evaluation-protocol extension for operational LLM systems grounded in acceptance-test-driven development, safety engineering, and business-centric validation. The extension translates stakeholder goals into executable behavioral contracts, release gates, monitoring signals, and evidence artifacts before prompt, model, retrieval, or agent changes are accepted. It adapts the red-green-refactor discipline of test-driven development to a red-train-green lifecycle: first define failing acceptance tests for desired behavior, then improve the LLM system through prompt changes, retrieval design, fine-tuning, guardrails, or data augmentation, and finally release only when multidimensional gates are satisfied. The contribution is a governance-oriented metric stack, reference architecture, and empirical protocol for comparing acceptance-test-driven LLM development against prompt-first and benchmark-after workflows.

Agentic AI systems are increasingly being explored as production infrastructure: they reason over multiple steps, call tools, act through workflows, and adapt through memory and feedback. These systems create governance challenges that are not fully captured by traditional software or predictive ML technical debt. We define Agentic Technical Debt as the accumulated liability created when prompts, memory, tool schemas, orchestration graphs, control policies, and observability routines are patched together faster than they can be validated, standardized, and governed. We define Stochastic Tax as the recurring operating burden of keeping probabilistic agent behavior within acceptable bounds. The distinction matters: debt is a stock of design and governance liability, while the tax is a flow of operating cost that arises because stochastic agents act through tools and workflows. We outline how managers can make both visible through lightweight dashboards and governance controls.

Current approaches to AI compliance treat conformity as a binary, audit-time verdict rather than a continuous, measurable property of production systems. We argue that this compliance fiction is structurally ill-suited to the requirements of the EU AI Act, which demands ongoing human oversight and the detection of emergent behavioural drift in deployed systems. We introduce governance from metrics, a principle whereby regulatory compliance is derived as a continuous signal from runtime observability rather than from static assessments. Building on this principle, we present govllm, an open-source framework implementing a governance-driven routing architecture in which model selection is determined by accumulated compliance scores rather than by latency or cost alone. Central to our approach is a panel of regulatory judges - LLM evaluators specialised per criterion (EU AI Act, GDPR, ANSSI, accessibility) - whose inter-judge disagreement we reframe not as noise but as a regulatory uncertainty signal warranting human arbitration. We validate this approach through a ground truth corpus of 49 annotated prompt/response pairs across five regulatory criteria, evaluated by four small language models (SLMs, 1.7B-7B parameters) running fully on-premise. Agreement rates range from 51.5% (mistral:7b) to 69.1% (phi4-mini), with no single model dominating across all criteria - empirically motivating the Profile-as-jury design. We further document three structural failure modes in small regulatory judges and a judge-specific position bias that degrades agreement by up to 25 percentage points across three question-order conditions (original, reversed, permuted). govllm is released as open-source software to support reproducible AI governance research.

This paper introduces the Governance Inversion Hypothesis (GIH) to explain a growing paradox in artificial intelligence (AI) governance: under conditions of increasing regulatory expansion and technological complexity, organisations may become more formally governed while simultaneously experiencing a decline in operational control over AI systems. Existing AI governance frameworks generally assume that stronger regulation improves accountability, oversight, and organisational control. This paper challenges that assumption by arguing that governance formalisation itself may contribute to the erosion of control in AI-intensive environments. Drawing on institutional theory, organisational governance research, accountability scholarship, and emerging AI governance literature, the paper develops a conceptual framework explaining how regulatory expansion may weaken operational authority through four interconnected mechanisms: authority fragmentation, symbolic governance expansion, externalisation of control, and authority paralysis. As governance systems become increasingly layered and procedurally dense, organisations may struggle to maintain coherent authority, technical visibility, escalation capability, and meaningful intervention power over opaque and externally mediated AI infrastructures. The paper extends institutional decoupling theory by introducing governance inversion as a structural condition in which governance expansion may actively undermine operational coherence rather than strengthen it. It concludes that the central risk in AI governance may not be the absence of governance structures, but the emergence of institutions that appear increasingly governed while progressively losing the capacity to govern effectively.

Every major framework for governing artificial intelligence presupposes an identifiable entity -- a developer, deployer, or operator -- who can be held responsible and compelled to comply. Decentralized AI (DeAI) dissolves this presupposition. We analyze DeAI as a six-layer decentralizing stack -- model, training, compute, harness, identity, and ownership -- and show how partial decentralization across layers compounds into what we call the \emph{governance vacuum}: a condition in which AI systems are consequential enough to require governance but lack the properties that existing frameworks presuppose in their targets. This vacuum takes two analytically distinct forms: an \emph{accountability gap}, where no addressable principal can be identified, and an \emph{incapacitation gap}, where even an identified principal cannot alter the running system. We demonstrate that these failures are not merely jurisdictional but defeat every presupposition of governance through normative address -- the communication of rules to a comprehending, responsive agent. Drawing on Lessig's modalities of regulation and Searle's distinction between regulative and constitutive rules, we argue for a shift in the locus of governance from policy to protocol, from normative address to architectural constraint. Protocol-based constitutive governance does not address the agents operating within a system but shapes the substrate that determines what kinds of actions are possible within it. We identify four ethical conditions -- legitimacy, contestability, transparency, and non-domination -- that such governance must satisfy to avoid degenerating into unaccountable technocratic power, and we argue that the central political challenge of governing AI in a decentralized world is reconstructing forms of democratic authorization for architectural choices that persist after the ordinary chain of policy has broken down.

Ethical constraints on open-weight AI models are both a reflection of societal concerns and a foundation for AI governance policy. They are expected to propagate to downstream derivatives while implemented as voluntary metadata disclosures that must be restated at each generation of reuse. We audit 2,142,823 model repositories on Hugging Face Hub to test whether this disclosure-based governance infrastructure can sustain traceability across deep model lineages. Restriction evidence decays with a half-life of 1.31 derivation steps ($R^2$=0.98), and beyond seven downstream generations at least 80% of descendant models lack sufficient public evidence for a governance determination, a depth boundary we formalize as the governance horizon. Platform-level interventions to restore missing licence metadata reveal that policy design (not enforcement alone) is the binding factor: inheritance-only designs require near-complete enforcement to move the horizon, whereas a mandatory-declaration design that explicitly resolves orphan lineage components shifts the horizon already at moderate enforcement. The structural bottleneck is lineages with no inheritable upstream intent: such orphan components remain undecidable under any inheritance-only policy regardless of enforcement rate, and unresolved upstream nodes additionally create direct downstream undecidability bottlenecks that inheritance rules alone cannot recover. Comparison with PyPI, where governance signals are carried by explicit machine-readable declarations, corroborates that the collapse is topology-specific to open-weight derivation rather than inherent to open ecosystems. These results establish that disclosure-based governance has a shallow, structurally determined reach in open-weight AI, and that achieving deep supply-chain accountability requires provenance mechanisms propagating governance signals through derivation itself.

Enterprise agents are increasingly expected to operate autonomously across tools and interfaces, yet production deployments require governance by construction. Systems must specify which actions are allowed, when human oversight is required, and what information may be exposed, without rebuilding the agent for each domain. This demo presents CUGA's policy system, a modular policy-as-code layer that composes with a generalist LLM agent to deliver predictable, auditable, and compliance-aware behavior in compound workflows without model fine-tuning. We present a runtime governance architecture that enforces policy interventions at every critical stage of execution. Rather than passively constraining behavior, policies intercept the agent at five structural checkpoints: upstream of planning (Intent Guard), within the system prompt to steer reasoning (Playbook), at the tool-call boundary to enforce proper usage (Tool Guide), outside the reasoning loop as a Human-in-the-Loop gate for high-risk actions (Tool Approvals), and at the output stage to filter and structure the final response (Output Formatter). Together, these stages embed governance continuously across the agent's execution pipeline rather than treating it as an afterthought. Using a healthcare scenario and a multi-layered enforcement intervention, the demo shows dynamic playbook injection for structured tool-sequence enforcement, intent guards that block malicious or accidental harmful requests, and human-in-the-loop tool approval checkpoints for potentially destructive actions. The artifact illustrates how typed governance primitives enable faster, safer deployment of enterprise agentic systems while improving policy adherence and execution consistency.

Voting methods weighted by stakes are the fundamental governance paradigm in Proof-of-Stake (PoS) blockchains. Such a paradigm is known to be prone to power distortions: a few users possessing large stakes may completely control decision making, even without owning the totality of the stakes. We study this phenomenon through the lens of computational social choice, focusing on the extent of power imbalances in stake-weighted voting when power is quantified using the Penrose-Banzhaf power index. Our work presents both analytical and empirical contributions. Analytically, we demonstrate that while a perfect alignment between power and relative stake ownership is generally unattainable, it can be approximated in expectation under specific conditions. Empirically, using data from a real-world on-chain governance system (Project Catalyst), we provide a more fine-grained understanding of the power imbalances that are likely to occur in current stake-weighted governance systems.

Large language model (LLM) answer engines are increasingly used for information seeking, shifting visibility from ranked lists to synthesized answers. This enables Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), which targets LLM answer engines' evidence pool and generation. We analyze the search engine optimization (SEO) to GEO transition to identify two risks: (i) concentrated influence from low contestability and system sensitivity, and (ii) undisclosed commercial influence embedded in evidence and reasoning. We then formalize a general GEO pipeline to locate where optimization acts and compare academic and industry practices, revealing a third risk: (iii) academic-industry blind spots driven by visibility and evaluation asymmetries between offline setups and deployed systems. This position argues the need for answer-level governance and measurement: stronger contestability, high-precision disclosure, black-box auditing of material influence, and deployment-aligned metrics for exposure persistence.

Large language models often suffer from fact loss, timeline confusion, persona drift, and reduced stability during long-range interaction, especially under high-noise knowledge bases, context clearing, and cross-model transfer. To address these issues, we introduce ARPM, an external temporal memory governance framework for long-term dialogue. ARPM separates static knowledge memory from dynamic dialogue experience memory and combines vector retrieval, BM25, RRF fusion, dual-temporal reranking, chronological evidence reading, and a controlled analysis protocol for evidence verification and answer binding. Unlike approaches that encode persona consistency into model weights or rely only on long context, ARPM treats continuity as a traceable, auditable, and transferable governance problem. Using engineering logs, we conduct three experiments. First, in a 50-round question-answering setting, we compare signal-to-noise ratios of 1:5 and 1:200+, and distinguish CSV auto-judgment from manual review. Under 1:5, CSV recall accuracy is 54.0%, while manual review raises it to 100.0%. Under 1:200+, the values are 44.0% and 80.0%. These results show that automatic rules can underestimate recall after supporting evidence enters the prompt. Second, ablation results show that dialogue history retrieval is necessary for recent continuity: disabling it reduces strict accuracy from 100% to 66.7%, and disabling BM25 reduces it to 80.0%, indicating that pure semantic retrieval is insufficient for correction and tracing. Third, under a 5.1-million-character noise substrate, periodic context clearing, and multi-model handoff, ARPM maintains semantic continuity, boundary continuity, and persona consistency, while exposing limits caused by weak protocol compliance. These findings show that long-term persona consistency can be decomposed into governable components and evaluated in a white-box manner.

Large language models in regulated financial workflows are governed by natural-language policies that the same model interprets, creating a principal--agent failure: outputs can appear compliant without being compliant. Existing evaluation measures task accuracy but not whether governance constrains behaviour at the decision rationale level -- where regulated decisions must be auditable. We introduce five governance metrics that quantify policy compliance at the rationale level and apply them in a synthetic banking domain to compare text-only governance against mechanical enforcement: four primitives operating outside the model's interpretive loop. Under text-only governance, 27% of deferrals carry no decision-relevant information. Mechanical enforcement reduces this rate by 73%, more than doubles deferral information content, and raises task accuracy from MCC~$0.43$ to $0.88$. The improvement is driven by architectural separation: LLM-generated rationales under mechanical enforcement show comparable CDL to text-only governance -- the gain comes from removing clear-cut decisions from the model's control. A causal ablation confirms that each primitive is individually necessary. Our central finding is a governance-task decoupling: under structural stress, text-only governance degrades on both dimensions simultaneously, whereas mechanical enforcement preserves governance quality even as task performance drops. This implies that governance and task evaluation are distinct axes: accuracy is not a sufficient proxy for governance in regulated AI systems.

Large language models are increasingly being used to support network operations (NetOps) and artificial intelligence for IT operations (AIOps), including incident investigation, root-cause analysis, configuration synthesis, and limited self-healing. In both NetOps and AIOps, this shift is changing how tasks are managed. Agent-based operations work as workflows, from gathering evidence to taking action, following permissions, policies, and checks, and providing rollback options when necessary. This is crucial because operational decisions can have instant impacts. To make the argument concrete, we organise the relevant literature around the hierarchy of autonomy, tool scope, evidence traces, and assurance contracts. These contracts define what an agent may observe, propose, and execute. They also define the checks that must pass before any action is allowed. A consistent pattern appears across work on telemetry query recommendation, diagnosis, root-cause analysis, configuration synthesis, change planning, and limited self-healing. Operational reliability does not come chiefly from the model itself. It depends on the machinery around the model. We also argue that evaluation should go beyond static question answering. Agentic NetOps and AIOps systems require workflow-centred evaluation, including trace quality, bounded tool use, safe proposal generation, replay in sandboxed environments, and canary trials with rollback-aware scoring. Without these measures, a system may appear robust yet remain too fragile. Finally, we examine security, privacy, and governance risks that become acute when agents sit close to operational control surfaces. Taken together, the survey concludes that progress in intelligent NetOps and AIOps will depend on treating autonomy as a constrained operational control problem, whose outputs must be reliable, auditable, and securely deployable.

Current large language model agent frameworks prioritize autonomy but lack the governability mechanisms required for enterprise deployment. High-risk write operations proceed without independent review, complex tasks lack acceptance verification, and computational resources are allocated uniformly regardless of risk level. We propose the Dynamic Tiered AgentRunner, a controlled execution protocol distilled from a production-grade multi-tenant SaaS platform. The framework introduces three core mechanisms: (1) Risk-Adaptive Tiering that dynamically allocates computational resources and review intensity based on task risk profiles, achieving Pareto-optimal trade-offs between safety and efficiency; (2) Separation of Powers architecture where proposal, review, execution, and verification are performed by independent agents with physically isolated boundaries; and (3) Resilience-by-Design through a Verifier-Recovery closed loop that treats failure as a first-class system state. We formalize the tier selectio

We present a machine-checked formalization of structurally governed AI workflow architectures and prove that effect-level governance can be imposed without reducing internal computational expressivity. Using Interaction Trees in Rocq 8.19, we define a governance operator G that mediates all effectful directives, including memory access, external calls, and oracle (LLM) queries. Our development compiles with 0 admitted lemmas and consists of 36 modules, ~12,000 lines of Rocq, and 454 theorems. We establishseven properties: (P1) governed Turing completeness, (P2) governed oracle expressivity, (P3) a decidability boundary in which governance predicates are total and closed under Boolean composition while semantic program properties remain non-trivial and undecidable by governance, (P4) goal preservation for permitted executions, (P5) expressive minimality of primitive capabilities (compute, memory, reasoning, external call, observability), (P6) subsumption asymmetry showing structural governance strictly subsumes content-level filtering, and (P7) semantic transparency: on all executions where governance permits, the governed interpretation is observationally equivalent (modulo governance-only events) to the ungoverned interpretation. Together, these results show that governance and computational expressivity are orthogonal dimensions: governance constrains the effect boundary of programs while remaining semantically transparent to internal computation.

Every system that performs effects has two boundaries: what it can do (expressiveness) and what governance covers (governance). In nearly all deployed AI systems, these boundaries are defined independently, creating three regions: governed capabilities (the only useful region), ungoverned capabilities (risk), and governance policies that address non-existent capabilities (theater). Two of the three regions are failure modes. We focus on the governance of effects: actions that AI systems perform in the world (API calls, database writes, tool invocations). This is distinct from the governance of model outputs (content quality, bias, fairness), which operates at a different level and requires different mechanisms. We present a formal framework for analyzing this structural gap. Rice's theorem (1953) proves the gap is undecidable in the general case for any Turing-complete architecture that attempts to govern effects behaviorally: no algorithm can decide non-trivial semantic properties of arbitrary programs, including the property "this program's effects comply with the governance policy." We define coterminous governance: a system property where the expressivenessboundary equals the governance boundary. We show that coterminous governance requires an architectural decision (separatingcomputation from effect) rather than a governance layer added after the fact. We show that structural governance under this separation subsumes separate governance infrastructure: governance checks become part of the execution pipeline rather than a second system running alongside it. We propose coterminous governance as the testable criterion for any AI governance system: either the two boundaries are provably identical, or risk and theater are structurally inevitable. Proofs are mechanized in Coq (454 theorems, 36 modules, 0 admitted).

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.

Machine learning models embedded in deployed AI systems are routinely updated to maintain correct functioning over time. Yet such updates can generate update opacity: users may not be able to understand why the same input now yields a different output. We argue that update opacity is best understood as a diachronic failure of epistemic accessibility: the problem is that materially relevant changes may fail to remain accessible to human users in forms that support understanding, calibrated reliance, and appropriate action under real role- and time-specific constraints. This makes update opacity a governance problem. Not all change is equally relevant, and disclosing every update would itself undermine use through overload. To address this problem, we combine two complementary governance approaches: the EU AI Act, which helps specify the system-level perimeter of normatively relevant change, and Machine Learning Operations, which provides operational tools for tracking and comparing change over time. On this basis, we propose a framework that models system change through trustworthiness profiles and trustworthiness levels, and uses threshold-based disclosure to surface materially relevant within-envelope change to different stakeholders over time. We illustrate the approach with a medical AI example and derive practical implications for lifecycle documentation, post-market monitoring, and update disclosure.

Autonomous AI agents can remain fully authorized and still become unsafe as behavior drifts, adversaries adapt, and decision patterns shift without any code change. We propose the \textbf{Informational Viability Principle}: governing an agent reduces to estimating a bound on unobserved risk $\hat{B}(x) = U(x) + SB(x) + RG(x)$ and allowing an action only when its capacity $S(x)$ exceeds $\hat{B}(x)$ by a safety margin. The \textbf{Agent Viability Framework}, grounded in Aubin's viability theory, establishes three properties -- monitoring (P1), anticipation (P2), and monotonic restriction (P3) -- as individually necessary and collectively sufficient for documented failure modes. \textbf{RiskGate} instantiates the framework with dedicated statistical estimators (KL divergence, segment-vs-rest $z$-tests, sequential pattern matching), a fail-secure monotonic pipeline, and a closed-loop Autopilot formalised as an instance of Aubin's regulation map with kill-switch-as-last-resort; a scalar Viability Index $VI(t) \in [-1,+1]$ with first-order $t^*$ prediction transforms governance from reactive to predictive. Contributions are the theoretical framework, the reference implementation, and analytical coverage against published agent-failure taxonomies; quantitative empirical evaluation is scoped as follow-up work.

Firms are deploying more capable AI systems, but organizational controls often have not kept pace. These systems can generate greater productivity gains, but high-value uses require broader authority exposure -- data access, workflow integration, and delegated authority -- when governance controls have not yet decoupled capability from authority exposure. We develop an analytical model in which a firm jointly chooses AI deployment and cybersecurity investment under this governance-capability gap. The central result shows a deployment paradox: in high-loss environments, better AI can lead a firm to deploy less when capability is deployed through broader authority exposure under weak governance. Optimal deployment also falls below the no-risk benchmark, and this shortfall widens with breach-loss magnitude and with the authority exposure attached to more capable systems. Governance investment that reduces breach-loss magnitude shrinks the paradox region itself, while breach externalities expand the range of environments in which deployment is socially constrained. Governance maturity is therefore not merely a constraint on AI adoption. It is a condition that shapes whether capability improvements translate into productive deployment.

Agentic AI systems plan, use tools, maintain state, and act across multi-step workflows with external effects, meaning trustworthy deployment can no longer be judged by task completion alone. The current literature remains fragmented across benchmark-centered evaluation, standards-based governance, orchestration architectures, and runtime assurance mechanisms. This paper contributes a bounded evidence synthesis across a manually coded corpus of twenty-four recent sources. The core finding is a governance-to-action closure gap: evaluation tells us whether outcomes were good, governance defines what should be allowed, but neither identifies where obligations bind to concrete actions or how compliance can later be proven. To close that gap, the paper introduces three linked artifacts: (1) a four-layer framework spanning evaluation, governance, orchestration, and assurance; (2) an ODTA runtime-placement test based on observability, decidability, timeliness, and attestability; and (3) a minimum action-evidence bundle for state-changing actions. Across sources, evaluation papers identify safety, robustness, and trajectory-level measurement as open gaps; governance frameworks define obligations but omit execution-time control logic; orchestration research positions the control plane as the locus of policy mediation, identity, and telemetry; runtime-governance work shows path-dependent behavior cannot be governed through prompts or static permissions alone; and action-safety studies show text alignment does not reliably transfer to tool actions. A worked enterprise procurement-agent scenario illustrates how these artifacts consolidate existing evidence without introducing new experimental data.

Agentic AI systems - systems that can pursue goals through multi-step planning and tool-mediated action with limited direct supervision - are moving from experimental prototypes to enterprise deployments. This transition introduces tensions in implementation, scaling, and governance: organizations seek scalable autonomy for knowledge and coordination work, yet must preserve accountability, safety, cost control, and responsibility as systems initiate actions, access enterprise data, and evolve through iterative updates. Building on an in-depth qualitative case of a large IT services company's 2025 development and staged rollout of an agentic system integrated with enterprise tools; we show that governance is implemented through concrete architectural and working arrangements that determine what the system is allowed to do, which tools and data it can use, how memory is handled, and how performance improvements are introduced over time. We then distill seven lessons that explain how to build effective governance into agentic AI during operationalization and scaling.

The emergence of writable, cross-session persistent memory in LLM agents introduces a qualitatively different threat landscape from conventional input-centric security concerns, characterized by three properties: persistence, statefulness, and propagation. To systematically characterize this landscape, we propose a Memory Lifecycle Framework that organizes attacks, defenses, and their cross-phase dependencies along two axes: six lifecycle phases (Write, Store, Retrieve, Execute, Share & Propagate, Forget & Rollback) and four security objectives (Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability, Governance). This analysis in turn exposes the need for formal security guarantees at the system level, motivating Verifiable Memory Governance (VMG), a framework of five architectural primitives that specifies what verifiable mechanisms a long-term-memory system must provide to maintain auditable, recoverable control over its memory state. Our analysis indicates that robust Long-Term Memory (LTM) security cannot be retrofitted at retrieval or execution time alone, but must be anchored in storage-time provenance, versioning, and policy-aware retention from the outset.

While traditional AI and data-driven facilities management approaches have improved building operational efficiency, they remain constrained by centralized organizational structures that are vulnerable to cyber attacks, limited contextual understanding, and decision-making processes that exclude key stakeholders from governance. This paper introduces a novel AI- and data-driven distributed governance framework for smart building management that integrates decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), digital twins, large language models (LLMs), and blockchain technology. The framework enables transparent collective decision-making through a DAO governance platform, implements data-driven management using IoT and digital twins, incorporates LLM-based virtual assistants for enhanced decision support, and utilizes blockchain for secure building automation. A full-stack decentralized application was developed to facilitate user interaction with these integrated components. The system was evaluated for cost efficiency, scalability, data security, and usability using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Expert interviews were also conducted to assess its practical benefits and implementation challenges.

Persistent language-model agents increasingly combine tool use, tiered memory, reflective prompting, and runtime adaptation. In such systems, behavior is shaped not only by current prompts but by mutable internal conditions that influence future action. This paper introduces layered mutability, a framework for reasoning about that process across five layers: pretraining, post-training alignment, self-narrative, memory, and weight-level adaptation. The central claim is that governance difficulty rises when mutation is rapid, downstream coupling is strong, reversibility is weak, and observability is low, creating a systematic mismatch between the layers that most affect behavior and the layers humans can most easily inspect. I formalize this intuition with simple drift, governance-load, and hysteresis quantities, connect the framework to recent work on temporal identity in language-model agents, and report a preliminary ratchet experiment in which reverting an agent's visible self-description after memory accumulation fails to restore baseline behavior. In that experiment, the estimated identity hysteresis ratio is 0.68. The main implication is that the salient failure mode for persistent self-modifying agents is not abrupt misalignment but compositional drift: locally reasonable updates that accumulate into a behavioral trajectory that was never explicitly authorized.