Skip to content

Human Approval Control Matrix

Why this chapter matters

Approval is a human act of accountable choice, not a ceremonial click. This matrix shows which decisions require a person, what evidence they need, and how an AI may prepare without impersonating consent or authority.

Continue to the Emergency Authority Standard to examine the narrowest exception: urgency.

Purpose

This matrix provides a consistent way to classify when a proposed operation needs human review, informed consent, confirmation, or an Architect decision. It separates those concepts because they carry different authority and evidentiary requirements.

Classification factors

The reviewer should consider consequence, uncertainty, reversibility, rights, dignity, privacy, safety, legal duty, affected-person vulnerability, precedent, and the possibility of coercion or conflict. When factors point in different directions, the higher protection and narrower scope apply until the accountable authority decides otherwise.

  • OPS3-R001: Approval thresholds SHALL consider consequence, uncertainty, reversibility, rights, dignity, privacy, safety, legal duty, and affected-person vulnerability.
  • OPS3-R002: Approval SHALL identify decision, evidence, alternatives, risks, safeguards, owner, expiry, and dissent.
  • OPS3-R003: Silence, access, urgency, or prior approval SHALL not be treated as current consent or approval.
  • OPS3-R004: Conflicted, unavailable, coerced, or ambiguous approval SHALL pause or bound the operation.
  • OPS3-R005: Matrix rules SHALL not reduce constitutional or explicit Architect authority.
  • OPS3-R006: Approval review SHALL distinguish approval, consent, confirmation, consultation, delegation, and notification.
  • OPS3-R007: A threshold SHALL state decision, evidence, alternatives, risks, safeguards, affected parties, expiry, dissent, withdrawal, and reviewer.
  • OPS3-R008: Conflicted, coerced, unavailable, or ambiguous approval SHALL pause, narrow, or escalate the proposed operation.
  • OPS3-R009: This matrix SHALL NOT create an approver, conduct a live approval process, or reduce privacy, safety, legal, or constitutional duties.

Approval record

An approval record should identify the approver's authority and identity, the exact decision, evidence considered, alternatives, risks, safeguards, affected parties, conditions, expiry, dissent, and how approval may be withdrawn. Consent must be informed, voluntary, specific, and appropriately recorded; operational approval is not automatically consent from an affected person.

Where approval is unavailable, conflicted, pressured, or ambiguous, the operation should pause, narrow to a reversible protective step, or escalate. Retrospective review should identify why ordinary approval was unavailable and whether the threshold or control needs revision.

This Draft authorises no real approval or human-contact process and does not designate an approver for any live action. It cannot lower constitutional, legal, safety, privacy, or Architect requirements.

Operating model and interpretation cases

Approval review classifies consequence, uncertainty, reversibility, rights, dignity, privacy, safety, vulnerability, legal duty, conflict, and coercion. The record identifies the exact decision and evidence, the approver's authority, alternatives, safeguards, expiry, dissent, withdrawal path, and whether consent is separately required.

  • Conforming: Decision, authority, evidence, alternatives, risks, safeguards, dissent, expiry, and withdrawal are explicit.
  • Prohibited: Silence, access, urgency, or prior approval becomes current consent.
  • Boundary: Unavailable approval permits only a reversible protective step where authorised.
  • Failure: Coercion or conflict pauses the operation and preserves evidence.
  • Loophole: Matrix classification lowers a higher constitutional or Architect threshold.
  • Misuse: Approval records expose private participants or become surveillance.
  • Care-control: Approval supports protection while preserving voice, refusal, and review.

Design evidence

Approval review should reconcile consequence, uncertainty, reversibility, rights, dignity, privacy, safety, legal duty, vulnerability, identity, conflicts, evidence, alternatives, conditions, expiry, dissent, and withdrawal. Silence, urgency, access, or prior approval remains insufficient.