Research Index

AOI Runtime Governance Evidence Map

A continuously maintained index of primary research, technical architectures, standards, market developments, and adjacent work contributing to the emerging discipline of Runtime Governance.

The map catalogs supporting, overlapping, adjacent, and challenging work. Inclusion does not imply endorsement.

The Evidence Map describes the state of the literature, not the state of AO Integrity.

Schema v744 sources9 claims

Corpus facts

Derived from stored corpus records.

44

Total sources

35

Primary sources

0 external contributions recorded.

Classification metrics

Counts depend on AOI's current taxonomy.

25

Overlap flagged

23

Challenge or complicate

Claim Map

Stored claims and source relationships.

Coverage statements are rendered exactly as stored in the Schema v7 corpus.

ClaimLabelTypeCoverageSources
EL

Execution Legitimacy

Whether a specific execution remains a legitimate exercise of conferred authority at the moment it occurs. The five conditions operationalize this determination.

determinationFourteen sources. Three added 2026-08-03, all as support or complement rather than competition: aviation dispatch release as a two-party determination made against current conditions, financial settlement finality as an ex ante determinate irrevocability point, and certificate-bound admission as a conditional-execution model. Support remains strongest from outside AI. Competing treatments continue to address individual conditions rather than the integrated five.
RA

Runtime Admissibility

The determination of whether execution should proceed right now. Not whether memory, data, context, or a consequence is admissible — those may be inputs or subordinate questions, but RA governs execution.

gateTwenty-one sources. Six added 2026-08-03. The certificate-bound admission and execution pair (arXiv 2606.11632, 2606.20520) is the corpus's first two-paper treatment separating proposal, admission, and execution with a signed artifact carried between them, with prototype measurements on AWS and Kubernetes. Foundational support continues to come from runtime verification and monitorability literature, now joined by financial settlement-finality standards on the ex ante determinacy of the irrevocability point. No enterprise-scale operational case study found.
AC

Authority Continuity

The preservation of valid, correctly scoped, and traceable authority across identity, delegation, context, and execution as conditions change over time. Broader than delegation-chain correctness: includes whether authority remains legitimate through the interval between grant and effect.

continuityTwenty sources. Four added 2026-08-03. arXiv 2607.23586 addresses grant survival under agent mutation under the name authorization continuity, with a fixed transition envelope and effect ceiling; arXiv 2606.20520 revalidates against live state at execution rather than at grant. Aviation dispatch regulation (14 CFR 121.533 and 121.663) supplies a long-standing regulatory analogue in which release authority is joint, continuously revisited between release and completion, and non-delegable at the dispatch level. Catalogued treatments continue to address subsets of the claim: agent mutation, infrastructure state, or delegation structure, rather than authority across identity, delegation, organizational context, and execution together. Delegation chains remain structurally representable without non-widening enforced by construction in any deployed standard.
AD

Authority Drift

The divergence, over time, between authority a system retains and the authority current organizational circumstances would justify. Not privilege accumulation — a technically correct entitlement may still be illegitimate in current context.

failureThree sources, unchanged this week. No competing treatments found, and none of the seven sources added 2026-08-03 competes with the canonical definition. arXiv 2606.20520 checks live-state drift at execution against a certified contract, but that comparison is infrastructure state against a contract rather than retained authority against current organizational circumstances, and it was not tagged AD. No standardized business-state event vocabulary exists. No unit of measure, continuous formulation, or threshold located in any source. AD remains the thinnest claim in the corpus by competing coverage and an open search lane.
CD

Capability Drift

Change in an autonomous system's effective ability to produce consequences without a corresponding reevaluation of the authority governing those capabilities. Arises through learned skills, tool composition, memory, model updates, reusable behaviors, delegation, or environmental change.

failureThree sources, up from one. Two added 2026-08-03 substantively address capability evolution rather than state persistence: a state-bound authorization model that fixes an immutable effect ceiling at grant time and proves that mutation cannot amplify protected effects beyond it, where the mutations enumerated include acquiring skills and tools, revising workflows, and delegating work (arXiv 2607.23586); and a lifecycle-time upgrade governance pipeline with interface, policy, behavioral, and recovery compatibility checks, gated activation, shadow deployment, online monitoring, and rollback, measured on an embodied-agent testbed (arXiv 2604.08059). Both report formal or quantitative results; neither uses the term Capability Drift. A third source added this week, arXiv 2605.26542, is catalogued under AC and RA rather than CD: it governs authority attenuation across a composed tool chain within a session, which is adjacent compositional attenuation rather than change over time in effective ability to produce consequences. Still absent from the record: any enterprise deployment case study, any continuous measure or threshold for capability change, and any treatment tying capability change to organizational rather than technical authority.
GE

Governance Evidence

Independently reviewable evidence showing what legitimacy determination was made, which authority and contextual signals informed it, and why the execution was permitted, denied, escalated, or attested. Logs may contribute evidence; event records alone do not establish governance reasoning.

evidenceThirteen sources. Three added 2026-08-03. Signed decision and outcome records bound to a certified execution contract (arXiv 2606.20520) and evidence-digest binding at admission (arXiv 2606.11632) extend the catalogued set of cryptographically bound evidence models. The signed dispatch release under 14 CFR 121.663 is the corpus's first regulatory instance of a governance artifact that two named parties must both sign before an operation may begin. Regulatory demand remains documented with no finalized technical standard.
OBJ

Evaluation Object

The composite execution event: principal, delegation chain, agent, action, target, context, intent, and provenance relevant to a specific execution. Treated as an adopted and refined architecture choice, not a novelty claim.

designNine sources. One added 2026-08-03: arXiv 2606.11632 compiles agent proposals into typed execution contracts bound to evidence digests and policy versions, adding a fifth independent 2026 work locating governance at an execution, admission, or bind boundary.
PE

Policy vs Enforcement

The distinction between governance that is declared and governance that is operationally established in the execution path. A supporting claim, not AOI-originated.

supportingWell covered externally. Primary source is Cavallo's described-versus-established framing; supported by practitioner and distributed-systems material.
MKT

Market Conditions

External technical, regulatory, operational, and commercial developments that increase the need for Runtime Governance but do not themselves establish its architecture.

contextAmple. NHI ratios, over-permissioning rates, IAM capability gaps, and regulatory timelines all documented from multiple sources.

Showing 3 of 44 sources.

Clear filters

e014

Okta transmits only two outbound CAEP event types as of early 2026

Permalink
Source
Andrew Doering
Source type
practitioner
Primary or secondary status
Secondary
Domain
Identity
Published
2026
Claims
AD
Conditions
3.3
Stance
supports
Relation
supports
Strength
emerging
Overlap flag
none

Okta does not emit risk-level-change, device-compliance-change, or assurance-level-change outbound. Sharpens the Appendix A argument that expressibility is not standardization — the deployed vocabulary is narrower than the specified one, well before reaching matter closure or contract expiry.

Original link

e022

State-Aware Runtime for Long-Horizon LLM Agents: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda

Permalink
Source
Cambridge Open Engage
Source type
research
Primary or secondary status
Primary
Domain
Memory/State
Published
2026
Claims
AD, CD, RA
Conditions
3.3
Stance
supports
Relation
complements
Strength
emerging
Overlap flag
none

Conceptual framework and research agenda for state-aware runtime across long-horizon agent operation. Bears on AD and on the Section 6.1 assumption that business systems can be consulted at execution latency. CD tag is provisional: the source addresses state persistence, and qualifies for CD only where it substantively treats capability evolution.

Original link

e026

Verified runtime validation for partially observable hybrid systems

Permalink
Source
arXiv 1811.06502
Source type
research
Primary or secondary status
Primary
Domain
Verification
Published
2018
Claims
RA, AD
Conditions
3.3, EV
Stance
supports
Relation
supports
Strength
foundational
Overlap flag
none

Synthesizes runtime monitors from provably safe hybrid system models, robust to partial observability arising from sensor uncertainty and partial controllability arising from actuator disturbance. Establishes what guarantee survives when a monitor cannot observe full system state. The partial-observability treatment corresponds to the Section 6.1 assumption that contextual validity may proceed on cached state, and to the signal-freshness requirement in Section 4.2.

Original link

Methodology

How to read this map.

AO Integrity maintains the corpus and performs the classifications. Classification is interpretive. Total, primary, and externally contributed counts are corpus facts. Other metrics depend on the current taxonomy. Records can be corrected or withdrawn. Stable evidence IDs are never renumbered or reused. Withdrawn records remain addressable.

Contribution

What are we missing?

The corpus is intended to include work that supports, overlaps with, complicates, or challenges the Runtime Governance thesis. Sources that make the thesis less comfortable are especially useful.

Please include the source title, original URL, author, organization, or venue as published, publication date, and why it may be relevant. Submission does not imply guaranteed inclusion.

Submit a source