PhilArchive
open access
The Computational Legitimacy Gap: Why Existing AI Infrastructure Categories Cannot Authoritatively Verify Computational Decisions
The proliferation of artificial intelligence in high-stakes domains has driven the development of a sophisticated computational trust ecosystem encompassing cybersecurity, observability, explainability, provenance, governance, auditability, and compliance systems. Yet these established categories, while indispensable, were designed to address fundamentally different questions than the one increasingly demanded by regulators, courts, auditors, and the public: Can a computational decision be authoritatively verified under the precise conditions that existed at the moment it was made? This paper builds directly on Constitutional Replay-Authority (Otto, 2026), which defined the proposed infrastructure category dedicated to computational legitimacy and replay verification. The present paper identifies and analyzes the specific infrastructure deficiency—the Computational Legitimacy Gap—that necessitates that category. It demonstrates that existing categories are capable of preserving records, generating explanations, documenting lineage, and managing policies, yet none were designed to determine whether those preserved materials are constitutionally sufficient to support authoritative replay of the original decision condition. The paper further shows that the gap is not merely operational but categorical, and that it is exacerbated by the passage of time. As the demand for authoritative verification increases, the ability to reconstruct original decision conditions tends to decrease due to model drift, policy change, infrastructure replacement, and institutional turnover. This dynamic—the Legitimacy Reconstruction Paradox—makes the gap both structural and temporal. The paper concludes that Constitutional Replay-Authority is the infrastructure category specifically constituted to address this gap, and that the subsequent papers in this corpus develop the theoretical architecture required to close it.
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
- Authority without Authorship: Delegation Thresholds in Agentic AI Systems#76720
- Auditing the Auditor: Limitations, Attack Surfaces, and Stewardship Requirements for Applying v43 in AI Governance#704580
- From static oversight to distributed corrigibility#696675
- AI Governance Is Not Enough to Prove Responsibility: A Conceptual and Testable Architecture for Demonstrable Responsibility in AI Systems#691051
- Infrastructure Is Not Truth Corrigibility, Epistemic Infrastructure, and the Preservation of Error Correction#695022
Record · ID 709921
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