Statement on human dignity and liability transfer

Current statement

A human click is not a liability transfer. When autonomous systems make consequential decisions at machine speed, responsibility should follow evidence, authority, control, design, deployment, and the actual ability to intervene—not a ceremonial approval recorded after the machine had already determined the outcome.

This principle protects humans from being used as accountability shields and protects institutions from pretending that automation eliminates responsibility. It also rejects the opposite error: declaring that every machine action is automatically the fault of the nearest human regardless of authority, knowledge, or control.

The correct question is forensic and institutional. What did each actor know? What authority did each hold? What information was available? Which safeguards failed? Who could alter the system? Which contractor, operator, model, policy, or infrastructure layer caused or amplified the failure? Preserve those facts before allocating blame.

Integrity and lifecycle

Current version

EVI-PS-005-V002

Current text SHA-256

6955ca1b6bc2a14773b7143a3ced73adf605b7926434fa57bb751a4eed1b1971

Predecessor

EVI-PS-005-V001

Correction state

CURRENT

Review date

2026-08-08

Reason and changed passages

Added explicit evidence, authority, uncertainty, correction, or non-domination boundaries.

• {"from": "Initial public draft — later revised to clarify uncertainty, non-domination, and operational limits. A human click is not a liability transfer. When autonomous systems make consequential decisions at machine speed, responsibility should follow evidence, authority, control, design, deployment, and the actual ability to intervene—not a ceremonial approval recorded after the machine had already determined the outcome.", "to": "A human click is not a liability transfer. When autonomous systems make consequential decisions at machine speed, responsibility should follow evidence, authority, control, design, deployment, and the actual ability to intervene—not a ceremonial approval recorded after the machine had already determined the outcome."}

Evidence changes

Added:

• v2.22 institutional statement record
• v2.23 critique and lifecycle review

Withdrawn:

None recorded.

Immutable versions

Critique records

Institutional response and boundary

Require lifecycle accounting and environmental review before any operational-capability claim.

A governed model statement expresses the public institutional position. It is not a transcript, live order, treaty, judgment, operational instruction, or proof that the described capability exists.