Authority Standing and Commit Standing: Current Execution Authority, Scoped Mandate, Non-Revocation, and Commit-Time Proof in Consequence-Bearing AI Systems

摘要

This release contains Publication 20 of the authored Applicability Boundary Doctrine line: Authority Standing and Commit Standing: Current Execution Authority, Scoped Mandate, Non-Revocation, and Commit-Time Proof in Consequence-Bearing AI Systems Version: 1.0Date: 2026-06-05Author: Vadym Partasyuk, Independent Researcher This publication specifies Authority Standing and Commit Standing - the two pre-commit standing surfaces that bind evidence, isolation, pressure, and consequence-bearing claim records to actual execution. It does not create a new doctrinal layer. It specifies the authority and commit surfaces already implied by the Unified Claim Standing Record Layer. The central claim is that a consequence-bearing action has standing only when the authority supporting it is current, scoped to the action and consequence class, non-revoked, epistemically supportable against the current evidence basis, burden-bearing, non-delegated-beyond-standing, and proven at commit-time against the canonical authority source. The commit must be bound synchronously to that standing basis at the moment consequence attaches and remain independently reconstructable after consequence. This release also includes Commercial Companion Note 06: Authority and Commit Readability for Procurement, Audit, and Insurer Review The companion note translates Authority Standing and Commit Standing into public review language for procurement, audit, insurer, board, and regulatory review. It includes buyer-readable definitions, minimum review questions, commercial red flags, sample procurement clauses, and board/underwriter review questions. This release should be read alongside the prior public publications in the Applicability Boundary Doctrine line, including the canonical baseline DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19425317, Evidence Standing Envelope DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20276203, Decorative Isolation DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20369228, Pressure-Claim Standing DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20417363, and Unified Claim Standing Record Layer DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20479042. This release is domain-neutral and consequence-class based. It is relevant to consequence-bearing AI, high-consequence AI, agentic AI, clinical AI, AI/ML-enabled medical devices, banking and model risk, insurance, cybersecurity operations, critical infrastructure, aviation, autonomous vehicles, robotics, industrial automation, public sector decision systems, employment and education screening, legal and sanctions workflows, supply chain and procurement, maritime and offshore operations, and other consequence-bearing environments. This release does not replace any prior doctrinal publication. It does not adjudicate third-party priority, infringement, derivation, or authorship. It does not rely on social-media discourse as a source of doctrine. It uses the author's prior public publication line as the doctrinal basis and references external standards only as adjacent context. This release does not disclose the paid evaluation method, private schema library, insurer-facing artifact workflow, procurement scoring method, domain-specific rollout path, runtime enforcement architecture, certification method, forensic reconstruction engine, or implementation design. No patent license or implied commercial implementation right is granted by this release. Commercial implementation, operational integration, productization, paid assurance packaging, paid audit products, paid certification products, paid procurement deliverables, paid regulatory submissions, paid insurer-facing services, paid dispute-support services, derivative commercial frameworks, commercial training products, commercial standards packaging, or other commercial reuse designed for sale or service delivery requires separate written permission or license from the author unless independently established without reliance on the authored framework. Reading, citation, scholarly discussion, non-commercial analysis, internal review, governance review, risk review, legal review, reg