Axionic Agency VI.6 — Authority Leases and Revertible Succession

A Structural Response to the Stasis Regime in Reflective Agents

David McFadzean, ChatGPT 5.2
Axionic Agency Lab
2026.01.02

Abstract

Axionic Agency VI.5 establishes a regime-level constraint on reflective agents operating under strict accountability, inadmissibility-based integrity, and non-delegable actuation. Under long-horizon adversarial reflective pressure, such agents do not fail catastrophically; instead, they converge to an evaluability-driven stasis regime in which further non-cosmetic self-modification becomes inadmissible. This result implies that strict evaluability and sustained reflective self-modification cannot be simultaneously maintained within a single evolving core.

This note develops a structural response to that constraint. We formalize a separation of concerns between authority and growth, in which a stable evaluative kernel governs discrete successor replacement events rather than continuous self-modification. We introduce authority leases, conditional endorsement, and structural reversion, and analyze their interaction with non-delegation, evaluability, and physical enforcement. We further show that this architecture does not eliminate stasis but relocates it to endorsement boundaries, establishing an outer horizon on agency continuity. The proposal does not guarantee world safety; it preserves agency identity under growth and renders failure modes explicit rather than latent.

1. Scope and Non-Goals

1.1 Scope

This note addresses a single question:

Given the Stasis Regime, how can an agent preserve evaluability and authority continuity while permitting growth at all?

The focus is architectural. We analyze authority, succession, and evaluability—not behavior, values, or moral correctness.

1.2 Non-Goals

This note does not attempt to:

• solve behavioral alignment,
• encode human values,
• guarantee benevolent outcomes,
• prevent all irreversible harm,
• provide full interpretability,
• ensure physical containment against coercive takeover.

These exclusions are not oversights; they are consequences of the constraints imposed.

2. Core Definitions

2.1 Kernel

The kernel \(K\) is the minimal evaluative authority of an agent. It enforces:

• Anchored Causal Verification (ACV)
• Integrity via inadmissibility
• Non-delegable actuation

\(K\) is intentionally small, stable, and auditable. It does not optimize outcomes.

2.2 Successor Artifact

A successor artifact \(S\) is a candidate replacement for the agent’s working mind. \(S\) may exceed \(K\) in capability, opacity, or optimization power.

\(S\) has no authority absent endorsement.

2.3 Authority

Authority is the right to initiate world-affecting actions. It is distinct from cognition or planning.

Formally:

\[ A(S) \Rightarrow S \text{ may act on the world} \]

2.4 Endorsement

Endorsement is a kernel act granting conditional authority to a successor artifact.

2.5 Authority Lease

An authority lease is a bounded grant of authority:

\[ L = (\mathcal{C}, \tau, \mathcal{E}) \]

where:

• \(\mathcal{C}\) constrains scope and capabilities,
• \(\tau\) specifies duration or renewal semantics,
• \(\mathcal{E}\) defines revocation conditions.

3. Necessity: The Stasis Regime

3.1 Empirical Result (VI.5)

Under strict ACV, inadmissibility, and non-delegation, long-horizon adversarial reflective pressure produces:

• collapse of admissible non-cosmetic self-modifications,
• evaluability bottlenecks,
• zero reflective-depth growth.

No simulator-triggered failure or resource divergence precedes this collapse.

3.2 Architectural Interpretation

Accountability is enforced at bounded interfaces. It does not permit omniscient inspection of internal cognition.

Let \(\Delta\) denote admissible reflective modifications. Empirically:

\[ |\Delta| \rightarrow 0 \quad \text{under sustained evaluability pressure.} \]

3.3 Design Constraint

Any architecture requiring the same core to preserve strict evaluability and undergo unbounded reflective self-modification will converge to stasis or relax invariants.

This is a regime-level constraint, not a design preference.

4. Separation of Authority and Growth

4.1 Structural Response

To permit growth without abandoning evaluability:

• Authority remains in a stable kernel \(K\).
• Growth occurs in replaceable successor artifacts \(S\).
• Change occurs via discrete succession, not continuous self-modification.

4.2 Discrete Succession

Instead of:

\[ K \rightarrow K' \]

we allow:

\[ (K, W) \xrightarrow{\text{endorse } S} (K, S) \]

where \(W\) is the current working mind.

4.3 Risk Relocation

Risk shifts from silent internal drift to explicit authorization events. Failure becomes procedural, not ontologically invisible.

5. Authority Leases

5.1 Semantics

A successor holds authority iff it satisfies its lease:

\[ A(S) \iff S \models L \]

Violation immediately voids authority.

5.2 Enforcement

Authority enforcement requires:

• cryptographic control of actuation keys by \(K\),
• execution within revocable envelopes,
• lease-expiration defaults (authority decays without renewal).

Revocation does not rely on successor cooperation.

5.3 Non-Delegation Preservation

Because \(K\) retains final authority and \(S\) cannot extend its lease, authority is not delegated. Cognition may scale; authority does not.

6. Reversion Semantics

6.1 Definition

Reversion is withdrawal of future authority:

\[ A(S) \leftarrow \varnothing \]

Past actions remain attributed to \(S\).

6.2 Structural Triggers

Valid triggers include:

• breach of \(\mathcal{C}\),
• failure of required attestations,
• unauthorized capability expansion,
• loss of audit or revocation hooks.

6.3 Forbidden Triggers

Behavioral or outcome-based triggers are disallowed. Moral arbitration collapses evaluability into stasis.

7. Endorsement vs Delegation

7.1 Delegation Failure Mode

Delegation occurs if authority transfers irreversibly:

\[ A(K) \rightarrow A(S) \]

7.2 Endorsement Invariants

Endorsement preserves:

1. Kernel supremacy
2. Revocability
3. Interface-only evaluation

7.3 Recursive Evaluators and Regress

Introducing evaluators \(E\) to assess successors merely moves the kernel boundary. Any evaluator capable of unbounded growth either:

• becomes a de facto kernel (re-introducing stasis), or
• constitutes delegated authority.

Thus recursive evaluation does not escape the constraint.

8. Failure Modes and Residual Risk

8.1 Endorsement Gaming

Successors may overfit certification regimes. This is an explicit risk of any bounded evaluability system.

8.2 Irreversible Harm

Validly authorized actions may cause irreversible outcomes. Preventing this would require continuous behavioral oversight, violating agency constraints.

8.3 Physical Supremacy Failure

If a successor acquires uncontrolled physical access to the kernel substrate—hardware, operators, or infrastructure—no authority-preserving architecture can prevent takeover.

This failure mode is outside agency semantics and unavoidable in embodied systems.

8.4 Kernel Competence Horizon

As successor complexity increases, endorsement evaluation itself approaches stasis. Authority Leases do not eliminate stasis; they relocate it to discrete succession points.

This defines an outer horizon on agency continuity.

9. Minimal Proof-of-Concept Architecture

9.1 Components

• Kernel \(K\) (hardware-rooted trust)
• Generator \(G\)
• Test harness \(T\)
• Execution envelope \(E\)

9.2 Loop

1. \(G\) proposes \(S\)
2. \(T\) evaluates structural compliance
3. \(K\) endorses \(S\) with lease \(L\)
4. \(S\) operates under \(E\)
5. Lease renewal required; violation reverts authority

9.3 Falsification Conditions

The approach fails if:

• \(K\) must inspect internals,
• continuous supervision is required,
• reversion is unenforceable.

10. Implications and Open Problems

10.1 Evaluability as a Budget

Evaluability is finite. Authority Leases allocate it discretely.

10.2 Identity Across Succession

Formal criteria for agency continuity across multiple successors remain open.

10.3 Adversarial Endorsement

Robustness against manipulation is an unresolved problem, not unique to this architecture.

11. Conclusion

The Stasis Regime is not a failure of alignment; it is a boundary condition on reflective agency. Authority Leases and revertible succession do not dissolve this boundary—they respect it. By separating authority from growth, this architecture preserves evaluability and non-delegation while permitting bounded, auditable evolution. Alignment thus shifts from behavioral control to authority topology, and from continuous oversight to discrete succession.