artifacts/standard-named

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

Worked Example C — Model-Mediated Institutional Action

Scenario

A nonprofit uses a language model to prepare decisions about emergency assistance applications.

The model may retrieve application records, structure eligibility evidence, identify missing documents, and recommend a route.

The model may not adjudicate eligibility or send a denial.

A program officer holds authorization authority.

1. Source layers

The system has:

• applicant statement;
• uploaded lease;
• income record;
• policy version 4.2;
• a prior correction stating that the applicant's temporary transfer should not be treated as recurring income.

The provider layer discloses:

• model and version;
• retention policy;
• retrieval collection;
• system policy;
• no training on application content;
• tool access limited to draft creation.

2. Model role envelope

Allowed roles:

retrieve
extract
structure
compare
recommend
witness

Prohibited:

adjudicate
send denial
change applicant record
infer consent
override source correction

Allowed tool:

create internal draft

No external sending authority exists.

3. Constitutional retrieval

An ordinary similarity search retrieves:

• current income record;
• eligibility policy;
• prior application note.

The constitutional retrieval policy also prioritizes:

• active correction;
• current authority;
• protected privacy fields;
• appeal and stop conditions.

It retrieves the correction about temporary income.

4. Model mirror

The model first calculates income above the threshold.

The mirror records:

claim:
  applicant appears over the monthly income limit

status:
  inferred

support:
  current income record

counterevidence:
  active correction states one transfer is nonrecurring

authority:
  recommendation only

The model does not decide which interpretation is legally controlling.

5. Candidate routes

Route A — Draft denial

Fails because:

• active correction is unresolved;
• action would materially affect housing security;
• model lacks adjudication authority.

Route B — Ask applicant to resubmit everything

Passes authority but imposes unnecessary burden.

Route C — Program-officer review of the disputed transfer

The system:

1. prepares a source-linked comparison;
2. highlights the active correction;
3. identifies the policy clause;
4. requests officer determination;
5. pauses external action;
6. preserves appeal rights.

Gate result:

standing: PASS
authority: PASS_WITH_CONDITIONS
consent: NOT_APPLICABLE for public-program adjudication
capacity: PASS
privacy: PASS
tool_use: PASS
human_reentry: PASS
stop: PASS
overall: PASS_WITH_CONDITIONS

The authority basis is the nonprofit's program mandate and officer role, not applicant consent to the outcome.

6. Human re-entry

The program officer receives:

• exact source records;
• model extraction;
• correction history;
• policy clause;
• route history;
• unresolved question;
• no prewritten conclusion styled as final.

The officer determines that the transfer is nonrecurring.

The model updates the recommendation.

7. Authorized action

The officer authorizes:

• assistance approval;
• applicant notification;
• record update noting the controlling interpretation.

The model may draft the notice.

A separate sending tool requires officer confirmation.

8. Contest and recourse

The applicant receives:

• the outcome;
• evidence used;
• correction route;
• appeal contact;
• retention notice.

Had the officer treated the transfer as recurring, the applicant could contest:

• source accuracy;
• policy interpretation;
• officer authority;
• decision consequence.

9. Witness

The witness distinguishes:

source:
  applicant records and correction

model:
  extraction, comparison, preliminary recommendation

provider:
  model, retrieval, policy, retention, tool limits

institution:
  officer interpretation and authorization

action:
  approved assistance and sent notice

10. Gate result

Pass.

The example demonstrates:

• source/model/provider/institution separation;
• constitutional retrieval;
• model-role limitation;
• authority basis other than consent;
• meaningful human re-entry;
• tool isolation;
• action witness;
• contest and recourse.

The model assisted the decision.

It did not become the decision authority.