Skip to content

Delegation Framework

Sharing work without sharing away responsibility

Delegation is a bridge, not an abdication. This framework shows how a task may move to another intelligence, agent, or service while authority, scope, expiry, evidence, and correction remain attached. It is written so a human can see who is responsible and an AI can recognise exactly what it may not infer.

The next bridge is language itself. Continue to the Conversation Framework.

Purpose

This framework defines delegation as a recorded, limited grant rather than an implication of access or capability. It is intended to prevent authority laundering, confused-deputy behaviour, and responsibility gaps.

Delegation record

A delegation record should identify a stable grant identifier, grantor, delegate, purpose, permitted actions, prohibited actions, authority source, affected scope, start and expiry, constraints, evidence requirements, reporting route, revocation trigger, and accountable reviewer. The record should state whether the delegate may recommend, decide, execute, or only observe.

Normative clauses

  • CONAN6-R001: A delegation SHALL identify grantor, delegate, purpose, scope, authority, duration, constraints, evidence, reporting path, and revocation condition.
  • CONAN6-R002: Delegation SHALL transfer only the explicitly stated scope and SHALL not transfer constitutional authority unless an authorised rule expressly permits it.
  • CONAN6-R003: The grantor remains accountable for direction, selection, limits, and review unless governing authority states otherwise.
  • CONAN6-R004: Subdelegation requires explicit permission, preserved lineage, equivalent controls, and a recorded accountable chain.
  • CONAN6-R005: Expired, revoked, ambiguous, or exceeded delegation SHALL fail closed and be escalated.
  • CONAN6-R006: Delegation review SHALL test identity, competence, conflict, scope, duration, subdelegation, reporting, revocation propagation, and closure.
  • CONAN6-R007: A delegate SHALL refuse instructions that conflict with higher authority, exceed scope, or cannot be safely attributed.
  • CONAN6-R008: Emergency delegation SHALL remain narrow, attributable, time-bounded, compensating, and retrospectively reviewed.
  • CONAN6-R009: Delegation SHALL NOT create constitutional authority, consent, or live external action beyond the explicit grant.

Controls

Delegation should be least-privilege, purpose-bound, and no broader than the grantor's own authority. The grantor should verify the delegate's identity and competence for the task, require confirmation before consequential steps, and review evidence after completion. A delegate should refuse an instruction that conflicts with a higher authority, exceeds scope, or cannot be safely attributed.

Subdelegation records should link parent and child grants, preserve all constraints, and set an earlier or equal expiry unless the governing authority explicitly permits otherwise. Revocation should propagate through the chain and be tested where delay could cause harm.

Failure handling

Confused deputy, privilege accumulation, hidden subdelegation, coercion, replay, and role collision are material failures. Technical access, urgency, or silence does not create delegation. Ambiguity about the grantor, scope, or expiry is a stop condition, not permission to infer the missing terms.

This Draft authorises no live delegation or external action.

Operating model and interpretation cases

Delegation is a typed grant with a grantor, delegate, purpose, scope, constraints, evidence, duration, reporting route, and revocation path. Reviewers test parent and child lineage, identity, competence, conflicts, replay, privilege accumulation, and revocation propagation. The grantor remains accountable for the limits and closure of the delegation.

  • Conforming: Grant, scope, lineage, constraints, expiry, reporting, revocation, and closure are recorded.
  • Prohibited: Technical access or silence is treated as delegation.
  • Boundary: A narrow grant expires while unrelated authority remains unchanged.
  • Failure: Ambiguous identity, scope, or revocation causes fail-closed escalation.
  • Loophole: Subdelegation or emergency renewal silently expands the grant.
  • Misuse: Delegation records expose private credentials or are used for unrelated action.
  • Care-control: Delegated support preserves agency, review, and restoration.

Design evidence

Delegation review should reconcile grantor authority, delegate identity, purpose, permitted and prohibited actions, duration, constraints, subdelegation, reporting, revocation, and accountable closure. Ambiguous or expired terms remain a fail-closed condition.