arXiv (All)
open access
Standing, Not Truth: Who May Say What About Whom in Agentic Selection
Software agents increasingly choose on a user's behalf among competing offerings described by the parties who benefit. A lawful participant, publishing under its own identity, compromising no channel and issuing no instruction, can move that choice with a single false factual claim about a competing
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Standing, Not Truth: Who May Say What About Whom in Agentic Selection#1318891
- Inexcuseable? Building an Artificial Intelligence Microexpert on Contract Excuse Doctrine#228780
- From Safety Risk to Design Principle: Peer-Preservation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems and Its Implications for Orchestrated Democratic Discourse Analysis#2640
- The Right to Access the Logic of Algorithmic Decision-Making: From Automated Processing to Intelligent Technologies#1298448
- Risk-Weighted Hallucination Scoring for Legal Answers: A Conceptual Framework for Trustworthy AI in Law#1178309
Record · ID 1343151
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive