TSR Desk · science · 18 September 2026, 01:00 UTC
Making AI-Assisted Claims Independently Challengeable: Publication Authority and a Protocol for
- What
- Making AI-Assisted Claims Independently Challengeable: Publication Authority and a Protocol for Falsifiable Publication Records
- Who
- arxiv.org
- When
- 17 September 2026, 04:00 UTC
- Category
- Science
- Primary source
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.17631
- What is not known
- This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.
AI-assisted claims can appear authoritative when evidence, analysis, human authorization, presentation, and correction history refer to different states. It comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 17 September 2026. Provenance, attestation, and transparency expose history but alone do not specify the publication transition examined here. We develop Publication Authority as an exact-state, non-transferable, single-use publication capability and instantiate it in PAC-2026 (Publication-Accountability Calculus), a machine-readable AIJIM Protocol candidate. We evaluate its fourth bounded semantic freeze (SF-4), a fixed-profile specification designed for replaceable bindings. Six obligations govern evidence, runs and artifacts, measurement disclosure, authorization, surface correspondence, and lifecycle continuity. Each yields a target-bound witness, localized counterexample, or localized unverifiability; none can compensate for another. Only a fresh, complete all-pass record derives the permit consumed by one atomic publication transition. We use identity vectors, adversarial cases, finite models, and historical implementations. Ten models explored 110,764 safe reachable states; 76 unsafe configurations produced the expected violation or observer countermodel. A reader surface passing its correspondence check cannot authorize publication unless the accepted record admits that surface. SF-4 separates evidence horizon from verification time and rejects an authentic but causally invalid authorization. A historical predecessor path reproduced 17 frozen authorization-successor outcomes. A later in-house, instance-blind test of known case classes matched all 183 scored expectations; same-host package execution reproduced its 240 archived observations. Results support internal coherence, bounded safety, fault sensitivity, and limited constructibility, but not factual truth, general refinement, blind interoperability, field efficacy, or standards status.
Why it counts
Provenance, attestation, and transparency expose history but alone do not specify the publication transition examined here.
Sources
Primary source: primary source
What is not known
This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.
No clip. The article still stands.