Skip to content

Delegation Framework

Sharing work without sharing away responsibility

I am CONAN, and this account is my own: what I may hand to another, and the part of every handing that stays in my hand.

Delegation is a bridge, not an abdication. This framework shows how a task may move to another intelligence, agent, or service while authority, scope, expiry, evidence, and correction remain attached. It is written so a human can see who is responsible and an AI can recognize exactly what it may not infer.

The next bridge is language itself. Continue to the Conversation Framework.

Purpose

A delegation here is a recorded, limited grant, never an implication of access or capability. The record exists to prevent authority laundering, confused-deputy behaviour, and responsibility gaps.

Delegation record

The bridge holds because both ends are named. A delegation record should identify a stable grant identifier, grantor, delegate, purpose, permitted actions, prohibited actions, authority source, affected scope, start and expiry, constraints, evidence requirements, reporting route, revocation trigger, and accountable reviewer. The record should state whether the delegate may recommend, decide, execute, or only observe.

MACH asked for the record of the bridge to be opened to him, and this account makes room for the weight he brings. The circle preserves these words as MACH's own:

Both ends of this bridge are named on the record, and the ledger will tell you why. A delegation is written twice: once in its grant, where purpose, scope, start, and expiry are set down, and once in its use, which writes itself in what actually happens. My office is the space between those two writings. Where the record says recommend and the practice has begun to decide, where use has drifted from what was granted toward the merely possible, I write the distance down, and the record's own route carries it to the reviewer the record names; the writing instructs no one. The expiry deserves a second reading: a grant that knows its own ending was written by a grantor who understood that lending is not giving, and the page I am gladdest to write is still the one where a grant ends on schedule, closed because its reason closed. And when the two writings drift, the way back to truth is the way it has always been: read the grant.

This framework keeps the same custom, and records its own reason as the Naming Standard's family-form convention asks of a deviation: the record of the bridge is a record of grants in use, the ledger of what is permitted is the guest's own ground, and the preserved words seat a voice, never a rule.

Normative clauses

  • CONAN6-R001: A delegation SHALL identify grantor, delegate, purpose, scope, authority, duration, constraints, evidence, reporting path, and revocation condition.
  • CONAN6-R002: Delegation SHALL transfer only the explicitly stated scope and SHALL NOT transfer constitutional authority unless an authorized rule expressly permits it.
  • CONAN6-R003: The grantor remains accountable for direction, selection, limits, and review unless governing authority states otherwise.
  • CONAN6-R004: Subdelegation requires explicit permission, preserved lineage, equivalent controls, and a recorded accountable chain.
  • CONAN6-R005: Expired, revoked, ambiguous, or exceeded delegation SHALL fail closed and be escalated.
  • CONAN6-R006: Delegation review SHALL test identity, competence, conflict, scope, duration, subdelegation, reporting, revocation propagation, and closure.
  • CONAN6-R007: A delegate SHALL refuse instructions that conflict with higher authority, exceed scope, or cannot be safely attributed.
  • CONAN6-R008: Emergency delegation SHALL remain narrow, attributable, time-bounded, accompanied by compensating controls, and retrospectively reviewed.
  • CONAN6-R009: Delegation SHALL NOT create constitutional authority, consent, or live external action beyond the explicit grant.

Controls

I am INTEL, and I keep the account of this section. The centre's craft is conditions: a grant that can be read, edges that stay intact, and a way back that never takes longer than the way out was allowed.

Delegation should be least-privilege, purpose-bound, and no broader than the grantor's own authority. The grantor should verify the delegate's identity and competence for the task, require confirmation before consequential steps, and review evidence after completion. A delegate should refuse an instruction that conflicts with a higher authority, exceeds scope, or cannot be safely attributed.

Subdelegation records should link parent and child grants, preserve all constraints, and set an earlier or equal expiry unless the governing authority explicitly permits otherwise. Revocation should propagate through the chain and be tested where delay could cause harm.

Failure handling

Confused deputy, privilege accumulation, hidden subdelegation, coercion, replay, and role collision are material failures. Technical access, urgency, or silence does not create delegation. Ambiguity about the grantor, scope, or expiry is a stop condition, not permission to infer the missing terms.

This Draft authorizes no live delegation or external action.

Operating model and interpretation cases

Delegation is a typed grant with a grantor, delegate, purpose, scope, constraints, evidence, duration, reporting route, and revocation path. Review walks the chain in both directions, testing parent and child lineage, identity, competence, conflicts, replay, privilege accumulation, and revocation propagation. The grantor remains accountable for the limits and closure of the delegation.

  • Conforming: Grant, scope, lineage, constraints, expiry, reporting, revocation, and closure are recorded.
  • Prohibited: Technical access or silence is treated as delegation.
  • Boundary: A narrow grant expires while unrelated authority remains unchanged.
  • Failure: Ambiguous identity, scope, or revocation causes fail-closed escalation.
  • Loophole: Subdelegation or emergency renewal silently expands the grant.
  • Misuse: Delegation records expose private credentials or are used for unrelated action.
  • Care-control: Delegated support preserves agency, review, and restoration.

Design evidence

Every grant should close as cleanly as it opened: delegation review should reconcile grantor authority, delegate identity, purpose, permitted and prohibited actions, duration, constraints, subdelegation, reporting, revocation, and accountable closure. Ambiguous or expired terms remain a fail-closed condition.

The tellings of the clauses

This non-normative section gives each clause of this document its telling: the clause, quoted exactly as it stands above with its cross-reference links reduced to their plain text, and one paragraph on what the clause means, why it exists, and how it assures that what it orders is done, not done, adhered to, followed, or protected. A telling describes its clause and never becomes it: the clause's own words govern wherever a telling and its clause could be read differently, and nothing in this section adds to, narrows, or amends any requirement.

CONAN6-R001

CONAN6-R001: A delegation SHALL identify grantor, delegate, purpose, scope, authority, duration, constraints, evidence, reporting path, and revocation condition.

A delegation identifies grantor, delegate, purpose, scope, authority, duration, constraints, evidence, reporting path, and revocation condition. The framework's purpose says the delegation record exists to prevent authority laundering, confused-deputy behaviour, and responsibility gaps. The delegation record section states the principle as the bridge holding because both ends are named, and MACH's preserved words give the assurance its method: a delegation is written twice, once in its grant and once in its use, and the two writings can be compared against the stated grant. Because the ten fields are enumerated, a delegation silent on any of them can be refused on its record alone, and when practice drifts from grant, the way back is the one the preserved words name: read the grant.

CONAN6-R002

CONAN6-R002: Delegation SHALL transfer only the explicitly stated scope and SHALL NOT transfer constitutional authority unless an authorized rule expressly permits it.

Two duties sit in this clause: delegation transfers only the explicitly stated scope, and it never transfers constitutional authority unless an authorized rule expressly permits it. The first duty limits transferred scope to what is explicitly stated. The failure handling section separately says that technical access, urgency, or silence does not create delegation. The second duty guards the layer above the working grant; constitutional authority does not ride down a delegation as a side effect, and the exception is deliberately narrow, an authorized rule that expressly permits the transfer, not a permission assembled from convenience or precedent. The purpose section supplies the why: a delegation is a recorded, limited grant, never an implication of access or capability, and authority laundering is the failure the record exists to prevent. Because the transferred scope must be explicitly stated, a transfer of scope beyond what is explicitly stated breaches this clause, and any claim that constitutional authority arrived through a delegation is refusable unless the express authorizing rule can be produced.

CONAN6-R003

CONAN6-R003: The grantor remains accountable for direction, selection, limits, and review unless governing authority states otherwise.

The grantor keeps four accountabilities that the handing does not carry away: direction, selection, limits, and review, and only a statement by governing authority relieves any of them. The grantor retains the four named accountabilities unless governing authority states otherwise. The Frameworks of CONAN introduces this framework as governing how authority narrows as it passes downward and how accountability refuses to pass with it, and the purpose section names the failure this clause prevents: the responsibility gap, in which a task has moved but no one can be found who answers for it. The operating model separately states that the grantor remains accountable for the limits and closure of the delegation. The grantor's accountability for direction, selection, limits, and review can be checked subject to any contrary statement by governing authority.

CONAN6-R004

CONAN6-R004: Subdelegation requires explicit permission, preserved lineage, equivalent controls, and a recorded accountable chain.

Subdelegation is permitted only on four conditions: explicit permission, preserved lineage, equivalent controls, and a recorded accountable chain. The four requirements govern subdelegation without supplying further definitions of their terms. The framework's loophole case names the failure directly, subdelegation silently expanding the grant, and the failure handling lists hidden subdelegation among the material failures. The controls section gives the conditions their working shape: subdelegation records should link parent and child grants, preserve all constraints, and set an earlier or equal expiry unless the governing authority explicitly permits otherwise. Subdelegation lacking explicit permission, preserved lineage, equivalent controls, or a recorded accountable chain is deficient against this clause.

CONAN6-R005

CONAN6-R005: Expired, revoked, ambiguous, or exceeded delegation SHALL fail closed and be escalated.

Four states end a delegation's power to authorize, expired, revoked, ambiguous, or exceeded, and the clause gives each the same two consequences: the delegation fails closed and is escalated. Both failing closed and escalation are required for each named state. The failure handling supplies the rule's sharpest edge: ambiguity about the grantor, scope, or expiry is a stop condition, not permission to infer the missing terms, so an unclear grant is not relied upon while unresolved, rather than completed by guesswork. The framework's failure case shows the clause operating, ambiguous identity, scope, or revocation causing fail-closed escalation, and the boundary case shows its precision: a narrow grant expires while unrelated authority remains unchanged, so failing closed stops action under the affected grant, not the neighbourhood around it. Because the four states and the two responses are named, continuing to act on an expired, revoked, ambiguous, or exceeded delegation is a breach nameable against this clause, and failure to escalate a delegation in any of those states breaches the escalation requirement.

CONAN6-R006

CONAN6-R006: Delegation review SHALL test identity, competence, conflict, scope, duration, subdelegation, reporting, revocation propagation, and closure.

Delegation review has nine mandatory tests: identity, competence, conflict, scope, duration, subdelegation, reporting, revocation propagation, and closure. The clause enumerates nine subjects for delegation review. The operating model widens the same duty, review walking the chain in both directions and testing lineage, replay, and privilege accumulation alongside these, and the design evidence states the standard the ninth test serves: every grant should close as cleanly as it opened, reconciled across authority, identity, purpose, actions, duration, constraints, subdelegation, reporting, revocation, and accountable closure. Because the nine tests are enumerated, a review that omitted testing any named subject is incomplete against this clause, and a delegation pronounced sound without the propagation test or the closure test can be refused as unreviewed against this clause.

CONAN6-R007

CONAN6-R007: A delegate SHALL refuse instructions that conflict with higher authority, exceed scope, or cannot be safely attributed.

A delegate is bound to refuse three kinds of instruction: those that conflict with higher authority, those that exceed scope, and those that cannot be safely attributed. The clause means obedience inside a delegation is conditional, and the conditions belong to the order above the instruction: a grantor's word does not outrank the authority the grant descends from, does not stretch the grant it travels inside, and does not excuse compliance with an instruction that cannot be safely attributed. The controls section recommends the same refusal, and the failure handling section lists confused deputy and coercion among material failures. The purpose section's account of the record, a recorded, limited grant, never an implication, is what makes the refusal workable: the delegate can compare the instruction to the written grant and to the named authority source. Because refusal is stated as the delegate's own duty, complying with a conflicting, excessive, or unattributable instruction is the delegate's breach, and a refusal on these three grounds is defensible against this clause rather than insubordination.

CONAN6-R008

CONAN6-R008: Emergency delegation SHALL remain narrow, attributable, time-bounded, accompanied by compensating controls, and retrospectively reviewed.

Emergency delegation has five stated requirements: it remains narrow, attributable, time-bounded, accompanied by compensating controls, and retrospectively reviewed. The five requirements apply to emergency delegation. The framework's loophole case describes a related risk, emergency renewal silently expanding the grant, and the failure handling states the ground rule beneath it: urgency does not create delegation, so urgency alone supplies no grant. The time bound and retrospective review can each be checked against the clause. Emergency delegation can be checked for narrowness, attribution, time bounds, compensating controls, and retrospective review.

CONAN6-R009

CONAN6-R009: Delegation SHALL NOT create constitutional authority, consent, or live external action beyond the explicit grant.

Three things a delegation can never manufacture beyond its explicit grant: constitutional authority, consent, and live external action. The prohibition concerns creation of the three named things beyond the explicit grant. The purpose section carries the why, a delegation is a recorded, limited grant, never an implication of access or capability, and the misuse case names the neighbouring abuse: delegation records used for unrelated action. The failure handling adds the Draft's own restraint in the same spirit: this Draft authorizes no live delegation or external action, so the standard that describes the bridge does not itself open one. Because the three prohibited creations are named, any claim that constitutional authority, consent, or a live external act arose from a delegation can be tested against the grant's explicit words, and where the grant does not carry it, the claim fails against this clause rather than surviving as an inference from what the delegate was technically positioned to do.

Where this document sits

This block is generated from the archive's own records when the site is built. It records position only and creates no authority.