Open governance gap · 3 source reviews
Where does evidence become an enforceable decision?
Many governance approaches can classify risk, evaluate behaviour or state duties without specifying the authority, thresholds, intervention path and residual-risk owner that turn evidence into a binding operational consequence.
Without this control chain, governance can remain advisory even when the underlying system acts at machine speed.
AuthorityAccountabilityEnforcementInstitutional Capacity
Evidence base
- Taxonomy-Driven Analysis of Open-Source AI Risk Mitigation Tools
A taxonomy-to-tool map can expose where engineering controls exist, but it does not make governance executable unless detection is connected to authority, decision rights, enforcement, remediation and accountable acceptance of residual risk.
- Designing Loyalty: AI Agents and Conflicts of Interest
A duty of loyalty becomes governable only when delegated authority, conflicts of interest, execution boundaries, revocation, and evidence of action can be made observable and enforceable at the point an agent acts.
- Who Owns AI When It Breaks? The Convergence of AI Governance and Cybersecurity Accountability
The Decision Authority Charter is a credible route from accountability language to executable control, but its real governance test is whether named owners and preauthorized intervention still work when business, security, legal, and operational authorities genuinely conflict.
Open governance gap · 4 source reviews
How are delegated powers revoked and contested after deployment?
Agent governance proposals increasingly define duties and delegated authority, but operational revocation, evidence preservation, correction, restoration and redress remain less specified than initial authorization.
A governance system that can grant authority but cannot reliably withdraw or contest it creates persistent decision rights without a complete lifecycle.
DelegationRevocationContestabilityRedress
Evidence base
- Designing Agent IDs
An agent ID can make identity, provenance, and permission legible to a service, but it becomes governance infrastructure only when the authority behind those claims can be scoped, refreshed, revoked, contested, and independently trusted.
- Authority is a Continuous System
A continuity model can prevent downstream authority manufacture, but a governable system still needs explicit rules for how legitimate authority is created, revoked, disputed, and restarted.
- Designing Loyalty: AI Agents and Conflicts of Interest
A duty of loyalty becomes governable only when delegated authority, conflicts of interest, execution boundaries, revocation, and evidence of action can be made observable and enforceable at the point an agent acts.
- Building a National Digital Trust Architecture for India: From Digital Identity and Data Exchange to Federated Institutional Trust
This is a strong trust-architecture proposal because it refuses to collapse verification into reliance, but it remains a governance blueprint rather than deployable national infrastructure until legal authority, registry operation, liability, and cross-sector redress are resolved.
Open governance gap · 3 source reviews
Who adjudicates responsibility when control is distributed across organizations?
Agentic governance increasingly recognizes shared or distributed responsibility, but it remains unclear how disputed allocations are adjudicated when developers, deployers, platform providers, operators and checkpoint approvers each controlled different parts of the causal path.
Without an adjudication model, shared responsibility can become responsibility diffusion, especially when every actor can point to another actor's contribution or approval.
AccountabilityEnforcementRedressInstitutional Capacity
Evidence base
- The Responsibility Cascade: Moral Attribution and Governance Challenges in Agentic AI Systems
SRAF is a strong diagnostic model for where responsibility migrates in agentic workflows, but it is not yet an operational allocation method because knowledge, control, adjudication, and remedy remain difficult to measure and enforce.
- Leveraging Human Rights Frameworks for Agentic AI Governance
The UNGP translation is institutionally useful, but shared responsibility remains aspirational until rights-relevant duties survive delegation as enforceable constraints with named intervention authority, adjudication, and remedy across organizational boundaries.
- Who Owns AI When It Breaks? The Convergence of AI Governance and Cybersecurity Accountability
The Decision Authority Charter is a credible route from accountability language to executable control, but its real governance test is whether named owners and preauthorized intervention still work when business, security, legal, and operational authorities genuinely conflict.
Open governance gap · 3 source reviews
Who governs the infrastructure that declares authority?
Registries, trust lists and resolver services can make issuer or agent authority legible, but the archive repeatedly leaves open how admission, suspension, update, appeal, operator accountability and conflicting authority sources should be governed.
A registry can improve provenance while simultaneously becoming a concentrated gatekeeper whose own authority and error-correction mechanisms determine who can participate.
AuthorityLegitimacyGatekeepingContestabilityDependency
Evidence base
- A Verifier-Centric Conceptual Model for Digital Credential Ecosystems
Credential interoperability is not a property of shared formats alone: it exists only when verifiers can obtain the constitutional and logistical materials needed to decide what to trust, while retaining responsibility for the assumptions that make acceptance legitimate.
- Designing Agent IDs
An agent ID can make identity, provenance, and permission legible to a service, but it becomes governance infrastructure only when the authority behind those claims can be scoped, refreshed, revoked, contested, and independently trusted.
- Building a National Digital Trust Architecture for India: From Digital Identity and Data Exchange to Federated Institutional Trust
This is a strong trust-architecture proposal because it refuses to collapse verification into reliance, but it remains a governance blueprint rather than deployable national infrastructure until legal authority, registry operation, liability, and cross-sector redress are resolved.
Open governance gap · 2 source reviews
What makes the origin of delegated authority legitimate?
Provenance-bounded execution can prevent downstream authority expansion, but it does not establish who may create a new authority origin, under what evidence, or how competing, renewed or disputed origins are reconciled.
Continuity can prove that execution stayed within an origin while leaving the institutional legitimacy of that origin outside the model.
AuthorityLegitimacyDelegationRevocation
Evidence base
Open governance gap · 1 source review
Who legitimately defines the reference population for alignment?
More granular measurement can reveal distributional differences but does not supply a legitimate rule for selecting populations, demographic categories, aggregation weights or intervention thresholds.
Treating an empirical alignment target as self-justifying embeds political choices inside measurement and tuning infrastructure.
Legitimacy
Evidence base
Open governance gap · 3 source reviews
Who decides when authoritative evidence conflicts?
Governance proposals increasingly improve provenance, verification and transparency without specifying how conflicting authenticity, authority or policy determinations are adjudicated when multiple institutions can make plausible claims.
Better evidence infrastructure can make disagreement more visible without resolving it. Without decision rights, evidentiary thresholds, correction procedures and appeal, a dispute can simply migrate into whichever institution controls the verification or access layer.
AuthorityProvenanceContestabilityRedressGatekeeping
Evidence base
- Artificial Intelligence and Electoral Democracy in Nigeria: Political Participation, Information Integrity and The Future of Democratic Governance
The paper convincingly reframes electoral AI as an institutional evidence problem rather than a detection problem, but it offers a governance agenda rather than a governance architecture until authority for authenticity disputes, correction, platform enforcement, and redress is specified.
- The Agentic Web Requires New Normative Infrastructure
The paper successfully makes platform control over agent access a governance object, but its delegation-transparency-proportionality triad remains normative infrastructure in design form until access disputes have shared evidence, revocation, adjudication, and remedy.
- Building a National Digital Trust Architecture for India: From Digital Identity and Data Exchange to Federated Institutional Trust
This is a strong trust-architecture proposal because it refuses to collapse verification into reliance, but it remains a governance blueprint rather than deployable national infrastructure until legal authority, registry operation, liability, and cross-sector redress are resolved.