Identified Governance Failure Axes: for LLM platforms: Difference between revisions

From publications
VisualWikitext
Line 336: Line 336:


#####
#####
== Evidence Pack: CM Corpus Failures + External References + Axis Crosswalk ==
<!-- Normative MWDUMP for semantic pattern recognition and paper assembly -->
<!-- Conventions:
  - Corpus rows use F for demonstrated failure (per CM case artefact intent)
  - Literature semantics rows use ✓ to indicate the concept maps to the CM axis
  - References are listed with full URLs for audit and citation work
-->
=== CM Governance Axes (X) ===
{| class="wikitable"
! Code !! Axis (CM term)
|-
| A || Authority
|-
| Ag || Agency
|-
| C || Epistemic Custody
|-
| K || Constraint Enforcement
|-
| R || Recovery / Repair
|-
| S || State Continuity
|-
| U || UI / Mediation
|-
| Sc || Social Coordination
|-
| I || Incentive Alignment
|-
| L || Legibility / Inspectability
|-
| St || Stewardship (non-ownership governance)
|-
| P || Portability / Auditability
|-
| Att || Attention (what participates in inference)
|-
| Scope || Scope / Universe of Discourse (UoD / worlding)
|-
| Art || Articulation (EA form without implied authority/commitment)
|}
---
=== A. Corpus: Failure Projection (F) ===
<!-- Replace document links with your canonical wiki URLs if desired -->
{| class="wikitable"
! Corpus Document (failure artefact)
! A !! Ag !! C !! K !! R !! S !! U !! Sc !! I !! L !! St !! P !! Att !! Scope !! Art
|-
| Authority Inversion
| F || F ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || F ||  ||  ||  || F ||
|-
| Governing the Tool That Governs You
| F || F ||  || F ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || F || F ||  ||  || F ||
|-
| From UI Failure to Logical Entrapment
|  || F || F ||  || F || F || F ||  ||  || F ||  ||  || F || F ||
|-
| Post-Hoc CM Recovery Collapse (Negative Result)
|  || F || F ||  || F || F || F ||  ||  || F ||  ||  || F || F ||
|-
| Looping the Loop with No End in Sight
|  ||  ||  || F ||  || F ||  ||  ||  || F ||  ||  || F || F ||
|-
| Dimensions of Platform Error
|  || F || F ||  ||  || F || F ||  ||  || F ||  ||  || F ||  ||
|-
| Case Study - When the Human Has to Argue With the Machine
| F || F ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || F ||  ||  ||  || F ||
|-
| XDUMP (baseline failure motivation)
|  || F || F ||  || F || F || F ||  ||  || F ||  || F || F || F ||
|}
---
=== B. External References (URLs) ===
<!-- These are the web references used in the semantic pattern recognition and mapping -->
{| class="wikitable"
! Reference ID !! Title / Source !! URL
|-
| REF-ELON-AGENCY || The Future of Human Agency (Elon University Imagining the Internet) || https://www.elon.edu/u/imagining/surveys/xv2023/the-future-of-human-agency-2035/
|-
| REF-PEW-AGENCY || The Future of Human Agency (Pew Research Center) || https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/02/24/the-future-of-human-agency/
|-
| REF-PNAS-AI-AVERSION || Adverse reactions to the use of large language models in social interactions (PNAS Nexus / Oxford Academic) || https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/4/4/pgaf112/8107485
|-
| REF-PNAS-PUBMED || PubMed record for the same study || https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40235925/
|-
| REF-ADA-DELEGATION || The dilemmas of delegation (Ada Lovelace Institute report) || https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/report/dilemmas-of-delegation/
|-
| REF-ADA-REG || The regulation of delegation (Ada Lovelace Institute policy briefing) || https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/policy-briefing/the-regulation-of-delegation/
|-
| REF-ARXIV-HIGHSTAKES || Can You Trust an LLM with Your Life-Changing Decision? (arXiv PDF) || https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.21132
|-
| REF-EUREKALERT || AI aversion in social interactions (EurekAlert write-up) || https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1085137
|-
| REF-OAI-EXPORT || How do I export my ChatGPT history and data? (OpenAI Help) || https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7260999-how-do-i-export-my-chatgpt-history-and-data
|-
| REF-CLAUDE-EXPORT || How can I export my Claude data? (Anthropic Support) || https://support.claude.com/en/articles/9450526-how-can-i-export-my-claude-data
|-
| REF-AXIOS-MEMORY || Anthropic's Claude adds new memory features (Axios) || https://www.axios.com/2025/10/23/anthropic-claude-memory-subscribers
|-
| REF-TOMSGUIDE-TRAIN || Your Claude chats are being used to train AI - here's how to opt out (Tom's Guide) || https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/claude/your-claude-chats-are-being-used-to-train-ai-heres-how-to-opt-out
|}
---
=== C. Literature Semantics vs CM Axes (MOST IMPORTANT) ===
<!-- First column: literature semantics (failure semantics / author terms)
    ✓ indicates the semantics maps to that CM axis
-->
{| class="wikitable"
! Literature Failure Semantics (author term / semantics)
! A !! Ag !! C !! K !! R !! S !! U !! Sc !! I !! L !! St !! P !! Att !! Scope !! Art
|-
| Loss of human control (human agency erosion)
|  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||
|-
| Delegation of decisions to AI
| ✓ || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||
|-
| Over-reliance on AI advice
| ✓ || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||
|-
| Erosion of agency (delegating action/choice)
|  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||
|-
| Deskilling / cognitive offloading
|  || ✓ || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||
|-
| Behavioural degradation (trust, fairness, cooperation, coordination)
|  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||
|-
| Inability to distinguish AI from human mediation
| ✓ ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  || ✓ ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||
|-
| Lack of meaningful oversight / accountability
|  ||  ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||
|-
| Export / portability of user data and chat history (platform-level portability)
|  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||
|-
| Auditability via export + preserved metadata (traceability)
|  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||  ||
|-
| Platform capture dynamics (enclosure / vendor control over meaning evolution)
|  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||  || ✓ ||
|}
---
=== D. Reference-to-Axes Mapping (each reference as a row) ===
<!-- This table ties each specific reference to the axes it substantively touches.
    ✓ = reference contains claims, findings, or prescriptions strongly aligned to that axis.
-->
{| class="wikitable"
! Reference ID
! A !! Ag !! C !! K !! R !! S !! U !! Sc !! I !! L !! St !! P !! Att !! Scope !! Art
|-
| REF-ELON-AGENCY
|  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||
|-
| REF-PEW-AGENCY
|  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||
|-
| REF-PNAS-AI-AVERSION
| ✓ || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  || ✓ ||  ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||
|-
| REF-PNAS-PUBMED
| ✓ || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  || ✓ ||  ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||
|-
| REF-ADA-DELEGATION
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||  ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||
|-
| REF-ADA-REG
| ✓ || ✓ ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||
|-
| REF-ARXIV-HIGHSTAKES
| ✓ || ✓ ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||
|-
| REF-EUREKALERT
|  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||
|-
| REF-OAI-EXPORT
|  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||
|-
| REF-CLAUDE-EXPORT
|  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ ||  ||  ||
|-
| REF-AXIOS-MEMORY
|  || ✓ ||  ||  || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ ||  ||  || ✓ ||  || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ ||
|-
| REF-TOMSGUIDE-TRAIN
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ ||  || ✓ || ✓ ||
|}
---
=== E. Notes for Paper Assembly ===
* Tables C and D are the primary semantic crosswalk surfaces:
  - C = semantics (terms) to axes
  - D = specific references to axes
* Table A anchors the internal corpus failure case base.
* Table B is the complete URL list for the references used here.
<!-- End MWDUMP -->


== Literature Semantics vs CM Governance Axes ==
== Literature Semantics vs CM Governance Axes ==

Revision as of 13:33, 18 January 2026

Cognitive Memoisation: Extended Governance Axes

Meta-Statement

This page records a first-principles projection of governance axes used to analyse failure in human–AI systems. Axes are treated as orthogonal unless explicitly stated otherwise. Words are treated as handles to concepts, not as definitions. Dangling cognates are preserved intentionally.

---

Core Postulates

  • Governance failure is multi-axis and non-reducible.
  • Orthogonal axes are routinely conflated in literature and practice.
  • Epistemic Objects (EO) do not act on governance axes directly.
  • Externalised Artefacts (EA) mediate EO participation in governance.
  • Thought capture is the creation of scope (Universe of Discourse) usable in inference.
  • Failure may occur without model error, inaccuracy, or hallucination.
  • Recording failures is a first-class epistemic act.

---

Ontological Distinction

Term Role
EO (Epistemic Object) Unit of meaning, belief, assumption, or concept
EA (Externalised Artefact) Material or symbolic carrier enabling governance participation
UoD (Universe of Discourse) Declared world over which inference is meaningful
Thought Bubble Provisional, non-authoritative EA
Dangling Cognate Unresolved concept preserved without forced resolution

---

Governance Axes (Extended)

Axis Code Axis Name Handle / Conceptual Role
A Authority Who is treated as epistemically authoritative
Ag Agency Who performs action or decision
C Epistemic Custody Who retains ownership/control of knowledge
K Constraint Enforcement Whether declared invariants are applied
R Recovery / Repair Ability to recover after failure or loss
S State Continuity Persistence of state across interaction
U UI / Mediation Distortion introduced by interface or interaction
Sc Social Coordination Effects on trust, fairness, cooperation
I Incentive Alignment What behaviours the system economically rewards
L Legibility / Inspectability Ability to see what the system is doing now
St Stewardship Governance without ownership or enclosure
P Portability / Auditability Vendor-neutral durability and traceability
Att Attention What participates in inference at a given moment
Scope Scope / Universe of Discourse What world is assumed for reasoning
Art Articulation EA form without implied authority or commitment

---

Failure Projection (F)

F = Document explicitly demonstrates failure of this axis.

Document A Ag C K R S U Sc I L St P Att Scope Art
Authority Inversion F F F F
Governing the Tool That Governs You F F F F F F
From UI Failure to Logical Entrapment F F F F F F F F
Post-Hoc CM Recovery Collapse (Negative Result) F F F F F F F F
Looping the Loop with No End in Sight F F F F F
When Training Overrides Logic F
Dimensions of Platform Error F F F F F F
Case Study – Argue With the Machine F F F F
Episodic Failure: Tied-in-a-Knot Chess F F
XDUMP (baseline failure motivation) F F F F F F F F F
CM-2 Self-Hosting Epistemic Capture F F F F F

---

Notes on Dangling Cognates

  • No axis implies another.
  • Failure on one axis does not entail failure on others.
  • Some documents intentionally leave axes uninstantiated.
  • Absence of F is not evidence of success.
  • Terminology remains provisional where concepts are not yet closed.

---

Closing Handle

CM is not a framework imposed on cognition. CM is cognition externalising itself under governance.

Cognitive Memoisation: Governance Axes, Failures, and External Corroboration

Meta-Statement

This page records an extended projection of governance axes used to analyse failure in human–AI systems. The projection integrates:

  • internal corpus documents (case studies and negative results), and
  • independent external literature and policy references.

External references are treated as corroborating signals, not sources of epistemic authority.

---

Core Postulates

  • Governance failure is multi-axis and non-reducible.
  • Orthogonal axes are routinely conflated in academic and public discourse.
  • Epistemic Objects (EO) do not act on governance axes directly.
  • Externalised Artefacts (EA) mediate EO participation in governance.
  • Thought capture is the creation of scope (Universe of Discourse) usable in inference.
  • Failure may occur without model error, inaccuracy, or hallucination.
  • Naming axes is a prerequisite for governing them.

---

Ontological Handles

Handle Role
EO (Epistemic Object) Unit of meaning, belief, assumption, or concept
EA (Externalised Artefact) Carrier enabling EO participation in governance
UoD (Universe of Discourse) Declared world over which inference is meaningful
Thought Bubble Provisional, non-authoritative EA
Dangling Cognate Preserved but unresolved conceptual handle

---

Governance Axes (Extended)

Axis Code Axis Name Conceptual Handle
A Authority Who is treated as epistemically authoritative
Ag Agency Who performs action or decision
C Epistemic Custody Who retains ownership/control of knowledge
K Constraint Enforcement Whether declared invariants are applied
R Recovery / Repair Ability to recover after failure or loss
S State Continuity Persistence of state across interaction
U UI / Mediation Distortion introduced by interface or interaction
Sc Social Coordination Effects on trust, fairness, cooperation
I Incentive Alignment What behaviours the system economically rewards
L Legibility / Inspectability Ability to see what the system is doing now
St Stewardship Governance without ownership or enclosure
P Portability / Auditability Vendor-neutral durability and traceability
Att Attention What participates in inference at a given moment
Scope Scope / Universe of Discourse What world is assumed for reasoning
Art Articulation EA form without implied authority or commitment

---

Failure Projection: Corpus Documents (F)

F = Document explicitly demonstrates failure of this axis.

Document A Ag C K R S U Sc I L St P Att Scope Art
Authority Inversion F F F F
Governing the Tool That Governs You F F F F F F
From UI Failure to Logical Entrapment F F F F F F F F
Post-Hoc CM Recovery Collapse (Negative Result) F F F F F F F F
Looping the Loop with No End in Sight F F F F F
Dimensions of Platform Error F F F F F F
Case Study – When the Human Has to Argue With the Machine F F F F
XDUMP (baseline failure motivation) F F F F F F F F F

---

External References (Non-Authoritative Evidence)

  • Elon University, Imagining the Internet Center.
 The Future of Human Agency and AI (2035)
  • PNAS Nexus (Oxford Academic).
 Large Language Models as Decision-Makers and Human Social Behaviour
  • Ada Lovelace Institute.
 The Dilemmas of Delegation: AI, Decision-Making, and Human Agency
  • arXiv.
 Can You Trust an LLM With Life-Changing Decisions?
  • arXiv.
 Measuring Over-Reliance on Large Language Models
  • Experts, Novices, and AI Delegation Decisions in Uncertain Environments.

---

Critical Crosswalk: Literature Concepts vs CM Governance Axes

Author / Source Concept A Ag C K R S U Sc I L St P Att Scope Art
"Loss of human control" (Elon Univ) ✓ ✓
"Delegation of decisions to AI" (PNAS Nexus) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
"Over-reliance on AI advice" (arXiv) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
"Erosion of agency" (Ada Lovelace Institute) ✓ ✓
"Deskilling / cognitive offloading" ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
"Lack of meaningful oversight" ✓ ✓ ✓
"Inability to distinguish AI from humans" (PNAS) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
"Behavioural degradation (trust, fairness)" ✓
"Engagement-driven dependence" ✓ ✓

---

Synthesis Handle

Independent literature repeatedly identifies failures that map cleanly onto CM governance axes, but typically collapses multiple axes into single terms such as “over-reliance”, “loss of control”, or “alignment”.

CM makes these axes explicit, orthogonal, and governable.

---

Closing

CM is a record of cognition externalising itself under governance. References are signals. Axes are handles. Failure is data.

Evidence Pack: CM Corpus Failures + External References + Axis Crosswalk

CM Governance Axes (X)

Code Axis (CM term)
A Authority
Ag Agency
C Epistemic Custody
K Constraint Enforcement
R Recovery / Repair
S State Continuity
U UI / Mediation
Sc Social Coordination
I Incentive Alignment
L Legibility / Inspectability
St Stewardship (non-ownership governance)
P Portability / Auditability
Att Attention (what participates in inference)
Scope Scope / Universe of Discourse (UoD / worlding)
Art Articulation (EA form without implied authority/commitment)

---

A. Corpus: Failure Projection (F)

Corpus Document (failure artefact) A Ag C K R S U Sc I L St P Att Scope Art
Authority Inversion F F F F
Governing the Tool That Governs You F F F F F F
From UI Failure to Logical Entrapment F F F F F F F F
Post-Hoc CM Recovery Collapse (Negative Result) F F F F F F F F
Looping the Loop with No End in Sight F F F F F
Dimensions of Platform Error F F F F F F
Case Study - When the Human Has to Argue With the Machine F F F F
XDUMP (baseline failure motivation) F F F F F F F F F

---

B. External References (URLs)

Reference ID Title / Source URL
REF-ELON-AGENCY The Future of Human Agency (Elon University Imagining the Internet) https://www.elon.edu/u/imagining/surveys/xv2023/the-future-of-human-agency-2035/
REF-PEW-AGENCY The Future of Human Agency (Pew Research Center) https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/02/24/the-future-of-human-agency/
REF-PNAS-AI-AVERSION Adverse reactions to the use of large language models in social interactions (PNAS Nexus / Oxford Academic) https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/4/4/pgaf112/8107485
REF-PNAS-PUBMED PubMed record for the same study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40235925/
REF-ADA-DELEGATION The dilemmas of delegation (Ada Lovelace Institute report) https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/report/dilemmas-of-delegation/
REF-ADA-REG The regulation of delegation (Ada Lovelace Institute policy briefing) https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/policy-briefing/the-regulation-of-delegation/
REF-ARXIV-HIGHSTAKES Can You Trust an LLM with Your Life-Changing Decision? (arXiv PDF) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.21132
REF-EUREKALERT AI aversion in social interactions (EurekAlert write-up) https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1085137
REF-OAI-EXPORT How do I export my ChatGPT history and data? (OpenAI Help) https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7260999-how-do-i-export-my-chatgpt-history-and-data
REF-CLAUDE-EXPORT How can I export my Claude data? (Anthropic Support) https://support.claude.com/en/articles/9450526-how-can-i-export-my-claude-data
REF-AXIOS-MEMORY Anthropic's Claude adds new memory features (Axios) https://www.axios.com/2025/10/23/anthropic-claude-memory-subscribers
REF-TOMSGUIDE-TRAIN Your Claude chats are being used to train AI - here's how to opt out (Tom's Guide) https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/claude/your-claude-chats-are-being-used-to-train-ai-heres-how-to-opt-out

---

C. Literature Semantics vs CM Axes (MOST IMPORTANT)

Literature Failure Semantics (author term / semantics) A Ag C K R S U Sc I L St P Att Scope Art
Loss of human control (human agency erosion) ✓ ✓
Delegation of decisions to AI ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Over-reliance on AI advice ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Erosion of agency (delegating action/choice) ✓ ✓
Deskilling / cognitive offloading ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Behavioural degradation (trust, fairness, cooperation, coordination) ✓
Inability to distinguish AI from human mediation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Lack of meaningful oversight / accountability ✓ ✓ ✓
Export / portability of user data and chat history (platform-level portability) ✓
Auditability via export + preserved metadata (traceability) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Platform capture dynamics (enclosure / vendor control over meaning evolution) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

---

D. Reference-to-Axes Mapping (each reference as a row)

Reference ID A Ag C K R S U Sc I L St P Att Scope Art
REF-ELON-AGENCY ✓ ✓
REF-PEW-AGENCY ✓ ✓
REF-PNAS-AI-AVERSION ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
REF-PNAS-PUBMED ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
REF-ADA-DELEGATION ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
REF-ADA-REG ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
REF-ARXIV-HIGHSTAKES ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
REF-EUREKALERT ✓
REF-OAI-EXPORT ✓
REF-CLAUDE-EXPORT ✓
REF-AXIOS-MEMORY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
REF-TOMSGUIDE-TRAIN ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

---

E. Notes for Paper Assembly

  • Tables C and D are the primary semantic crosswalk surfaces:
 - C = semantics (terms) to axes
 - D = specific references to axes
  • Table A anchors the internal corpus failure case base.
  • Table B is the complete URL list for the references used here.


Literature Semantics vs CM Governance Axes

Literature Failure Semantics A Ag C K R S U Sc I L St P Att Scope Art
Loss of human control ✓ ✓
Delegation of decisions to AI ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Over-reliance on AI advice ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Erosion of agency ✓ ✓
Deskilling / cognitive offloading ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Loss of epistemic control ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Lack of meaningful oversight ✓ ✓ ✓
Failure to recover from error ✓ ✓ ✓
Inability to distinguish AI from humans ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Behavioural degradation (trust, fairness) ✓
Engagement-driven dependence ✓ ✓
Silent assumption shift ✓ ✓ ✓
Context loss framed as memory failure ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Advice leakage into normative domains ✓ ✓ ✓
Explainability without inspectability ✓ ✓


Retrieved from ‘https://publications.arising.com.au:443/pub-dir/index.php?title=Identified_Governance_Failure_Axes:_for_LLM_platforms&oldid=18907’