Taxonomy / Consociational codification / Checking an agent's authority before it acts

Checking an agent's authority before it acts

The codified rule here is a permission — who this agent acts for and what that person allowed it to do — written down outside the agent in a form a counterparty can verify at the moment of the request and an investigator can follow afterward. In practice that means agent-specific credentials added to the ordinary sign-in standards, with permissions written in plain language compiled into auditable access-control settings; identifiers attached to individual running instances, so anyone dealing with one can look up what it is; and a wider program of shared protocols for attributing actions, shaping how agents interact, and providing remedy when one causes harm. Identity and delegation differ in scope, not in mechanism: one answers who this is, the other on whose authority it acts, and both are checked before the action rather than judged after it.

The method, against Consociational codification

Scroll the diagram sideways to see all of it.

Concept Analysis: Theoretical Foundations

Each concept is read twice: whether the approach carries it, and whether the approach's own sources claim it. A concept that is absent and was never claimed is a gap in the field rather than a failure of the work, and is marked out of scope.

Segmental autonomy

PartialClaimed · partial

Definition · Arend Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies (1977)

In a deeply divided society, each group governs its own internal affairs — its schools, its family law — within its own sphere, instead of everyone living under one uniform rule.

Analysis

Each delegating principal sets the permissions and scope of its own agent, and each digital service provider decides the terms on which it admits agents at all, so there really are many spheres with their own rules and no merging step. But the sphere is an account or a website, held by one individual or one firm, rather than a group governing its internal affairs. Lijphart's segments have an internal life and a claim to self-rule; here the unit of autonomy is whoever happens to own the credential or the server.

Choice-of-law rule

AbsentNot claimed · out of scope

Definition · Friedrich Carl von Savigny, System of the Modern Roman Law (1849)

When several bodies of rules could govern the same case, an explicit rule decides which one actually does — and states the reason. Without such a rule, "different rules for different groups" has no answer for the cases in between.

Analysis

A credential states what one principal has authorized its own agent to do. It never says which of several bodies of rules governs a case, because no plurality of rule sets is in view: the subject throughout is the scope of a single grant and the chain of accountability behind it. When a service provider's conditions and a delegating user's grant point different ways, what the framework offers is refusal at the gate rather than allocation, and the audit trail records the configuration applied, not a reason why one order reached the case rather than another.

Mutual veto and proportionality

AbsentNot claimed · out of scope

Definition · Arend Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies (1977)

Decisions that affect all groups require every group's consent, and representation is proportional to each group's size — so no segment can simply be outvoted on what matters most to it.

Analysis

No group consents to anything here and nothing is proportional to anything. A service provider can refuse an agent and a user can narrow a grant, but both are unilateral refusals inside one's own sphere rather than a consent requirement over decisions affecting all. Those most exposed to agent activity, the people an agent contacts or transacts with, appear in these papers as parties to be protected, never as parties whose agreement is needed.

Papers

No method has been built here yet — this approach rests entirely on what follows.