Declared Authority and Consent Gate

Method, inputs and limits

Checks explicit authority declarations and required human signoffs for declared activity types. Method version 0.2.0. Cannot interpret law, infer permission from a country or commodity, or certify legal clearance.

Visible mathematics / decision rules

Applicable declarations match the activity type and any declared activity IDs. Dated declarations use effectiveFrom inclusive and validUntil exclusive.

The supplied-record gate passes when an applicable approval is effective, required signoffs are approved, and no applicable block, unresolved declaration, or exercise assumption remains.

What this result cannot establish

• The gate records proposed action, actor, jurisdiction, cited authority, review status, restrictions, and review date; it does not interpret legal rules.
• An approved result means the supplied records declare approval. It is not legal clearance or independent verification of a signature.
• Exercise assumptions never authorize transactions. Local independent activities are evaluated only against declarations explicitly affecting their type.
• The list of required signoffs is supplied by the user and may be incomplete.
• The assessment date is supplied explicitly. Date-only values mean midnight UTC. A dated record without an assessment date leaves the gate unresolved.

What would falsify the assumptions?

• A withdrawn consent, invalid reference, missing required reviewer, or contradictory authority record defeats the declared result.
• Obtain independent review from the actual authority responsible for each activity.
• No resources are created or allocated by this checklist; a human can reproduce the same gate without AI.
• This is a governance checklist, not a causal estimate. MAR adds no benefit if the same human checklist gives the same result; missed blocks would add risk.
• Assumptions fail if the supplied definitions, units, period, scope or source records are wrong or incomplete.
• An independent source audit or replication may contradict an input or the recorded dependency.
• This method creates no resources. Physical conservation is checked in the inventory and transfer ledgers; descriptive graphs and checklists are not resource-flow models.
• The same equations and review checklist can be reproduced with a spreadsheet or structured human-only process.
• This is deterministic arithmetic, a descriptive comparison or a structured governance check, not a fitted causal effect or forecast. Fictional inputs remain an exercise.
• Equal or worse measured errors, net review effort, disclosure burden or fallback under MAR would show no added benefit or added risk; no improvement is assumed.

{
  "observations": {
    "unit": "declarations",
    "origin": "synthetic",
    "sources": [
      {
        "id": "SYN-001",
        "kind": "synthetic",
        "label": "Fictional example",
        "url": null
      }
    ],
    "authorityReview": {
      "proposedAction": "Fictional civilian transfer and independent local record review",
      "actor": "Fictional civilian service office",
      "jurisdiction": "Fictional jurisdiction; no real legal permission implied",
      "citedLegalAuthority": "SYN-001 fictional exercise authority",
      "approvalStatus": "approved",
      "restrictions": [
        "No real transaction is authorized by this fixture"
      ],
      "lastLegalReview": "2027-01-01",
      "reviewer": {
        "identityOrPlaceholder": "Fictional reviewer A",
        "role": "Designated authority reviewer",
        "authorizedHuman": true
      }
    },
    "activities": [
      {
        "id": "TRANSFER",
        "label": "Fictional civilian transfer",
        "type": "transaction-dependent"
      },
      {
        "id": "LOCAL",
        "label": "Read independent local record",
        "type": "local-independent"
      }
    ],
    "declarations": [
      {
        "id": "D1",
        "status": "blocked",
        "affectedActivityTypes": [
          "transaction-dependent"
        ],
        "requiredSignoffs": [
          "authority reviewer"
        ],
        "signoffs": [],
        "reason": "Consent withdrawn in this fictional exercise",
        "reference": "SYN-001"
      },
      {
        "id": "D2",
        "status": "approved",
        "affectedActivityTypes": [
          "local-independent"
        ],
        "requiredSignoffs": [
          "record owner"
        ],
        "signoffs": [
          {
            "role": "record owner",
            "status": "approved",
            "reference": "SYN-001"
          }
        ],
        "reason": "Local record access explicitly approved in the fixture",
        "reference": "SYN-001"
      }
    ]
  },
  "parameters": {}
}

{
  "stopped": 1,
  "unresolved": 0,
  "exerciseOnly": 0,
  "declaredApproved": 1,
  "transactionEligible": 0
}

Authoritative background references

• NIST: AI Risk Management Framework — Voluntary governance background; not validation of MAR. Reviewed 2026-11-09. Reference, not endorsement or validation.

These sources inform definitions or review practices. They do not validate this implementation or endorse MAR.