Preserving Decision Sovereignty in Military AI: A Trade-Secret-Safe Architectural Framework for Model Replaceability, Human Authority, and State Control

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.20867v1
• Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 04:52:09 GMT
• Title: Preserving Decision Sovereignty in Military AI: A Trade-Secret-Safe Architectural Framework for Model Replaceability, Human Authority, and State Control
• Abstract summary: This paper argues that the central strategic issue is not merely access to capable models, but preservation of decision sovereignty.<n>The paper develops a trade-secret-safe architectural formulation of the Energetic Paradigm as a layered, model-agnostic command-support design.
• Score: 3.719121868494767
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent events surrounding the relationship between frontier AI suppliers and national-security customers have made a structural problem newly visible: once a privately governed model becomes embedded in military workflows, the supplier can influence not only technical performance but also the operational boundary conditions under which the system may be used. This paper argues that the central strategic issue is not merely access to capable models, but preservation of decision sovereignty: the state's ability to retain authority over decision policy, version control, fallback behavior, auditability, and final action approval even when analytical modules are sourced from commercial vendors. Using the public Anthropic--Pentagon dispute of 2026, the broader history of Project Maven, and recent U.S., NATO, U.K., and intelligence-community guidance as a motivating context, the paper develops a trade-secret-safe architectural formulation of the Energetic Paradigm as a layered, model-agnostic command-support design. In this formulation, supplier models remain replaceable analytical components, while routing, constraints, logging, escalation, and action authorization remain state-owned functions. The paper contributes three things: a definition of decision sovereignty for military AI; a threat model for supplier-induced boundary control; and a public architectural specification showing how model replaceability, human authority, and sovereign orchestration can reduce strategic dependency without requiring disclosure of proprietary implementation details. The argument is conceptual rather than experimental, but it yields concrete implications for procurement, governance, and alliance interoperability.

Related papers

• The AI Resilience Gap: Bringing Artificial Intelligence Inside the Operational Resilience Perimeter [0.0]
  We argue that AI adoption creates a resilience obligation distinct from, and inadequately covered by, the trustworthy AI stack.<n>We propose the AI Resilience Framework: a regime-agnostic method for bringing AI dependencies inside the operational resilience perimeter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-08T12:54:11Z)
• From Battlefield to Boardroom: Strategic Red Teaming as an Epistemic Governance Instrument in the Age of AI [0.0]
  This technical report reframes strategic red teaming as a board-level governance discipline.<n>The report proposes a six-component model for strategic red teaming in AI governance.<n>It treats red teaming not as penetration testing, scenario theatre, or generic risk review, but as structured adversarial testing of the claims on which governance decisions depend.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T09:12:18Z)
• Final Authority in AI Governance: Frontier-Provider Sovereignty and Action-Centered Deployer Governance [0.6526824510982799]
  This paper examines where final authority should sit once capable AI systems are embedded in organizational sovereignty.<n>The first, frontier-provider, assigns privileged authority to the provider of the most capable models.<n>The second, action-centered deployer sovereignty, places final authority over high-impact actions with the organization that authorizes the action.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-12T03:28:06Z)
• Provably Secure Agent Guardrail [89.79561918065122]
  Existing defense architectures rely on empirical semantic guardrails and probabilistic large model adjudicators.<n>This paper proposes a new security paradigm for agents based on the fundamental limitations of logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T02:12:41Z)
• Beyond Rational Illusion: Behaviorally Realistic Strategic Classification [56.458581740660236]
  We propose the Prospect-Guided Strategic Framework (Pro-SF) to address the behaviorally realistic strategic classification problem.<n>Pro-SF is a principled framework grounded in prospect theory to model and learn under behaviorally realistic strategic responses.<n> Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets establish Pro-SF as a behaviorally grounded approach to strategic classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T11:04:55Z)
• From Assistance to Agency: Rethinking Autonomy and Control in CI/CD Pipelines [0.0]
  This paper presents a vision of agentic Continuous Integration and Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) in which the central challenge is not improving task performance but designing authority transfer.<n> Drawing on research prototypes and industrial platforms, we show that current systems operate mainly at the data plane under bounded autonomy.<n>We identify three recurring patterns: constrained autonomy as the dominant design, external governance as the primary safety mechanism, and a widening gap between deployment momentum and evaluation methodology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T00:15:43Z)
• The Security Cost of Intelligence: AI Capability, Cyber Risk, and Deployment Paradox [0.0]
  Firms are deploying more capable AI systems, but organizational controls often have not kept pace.<n>High-value uses require broader authority exposure when governance controls have not yet decoupled capability from authority exposure.<n>We develop an analytical model in which a firm jointly chooses AI deployment and cybersecurity investment under this governance-capability gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-24T22:58:38Z)
• The Open-Weight Paradox: Why Restricting Access to AI Models May Undermine the Safety It Seeks to Protect [0.0]
  The governance of open-weight artificial intelligence (AI) models has been framed as a binary choice: openness as risk, restriction as safety.<n>This paper argues that access restrictions, without governed alternatives, may displace risks rather than reduce them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-19T12:38:14Z)
• Externalization in LLM Agents: A Unified Review of Memory, Skills, Protocols and Harness Engineering [55.93186934265401]
  Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly built less by changing model weights than by reorganizing the runtime around them.<n>This paper reviews that shift through the lens of externalization.<n>We argue that agent infrastructure matters not merely because it adds auxiliary components, but because it transforms hard cognitive burdens into forms that the model can solve more reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T13:19:41Z)
• Governing frontier general-purpose AI in the public sector: adaptive risk management and policy capacity under uncertainty through 2030 [0.0]
  Article argues that public governance for frontier AI should be based on adaptive risk management, scenario-aware regulation, and sociotechnical transformation.<n>It examines how AI adoption in government depends on organizational foresight, public-sector institutional dynamics, and data collaboration capacity.<n>It concludes that effective AI governance requires stronger policy capacity, clearer allocation of responsibility, and governance mechanisms that remain robust across divergent technological futures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T19:03:26Z)
• Dial E for Ethical Enforcement: institutional VETO power as a governance primitive [16.505918019260964]
  The paper argues that communities most vulnerable to military uses must lead governance design.<n>It argues that institutional veto power is a prerequisite for converting symbolic safeguards into enforceable responsibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-28T12:18:55Z)
• Buy versus Build an LLM: A Decision Framework for Governments [48.79793054207466]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) represent a new frontier of digital infrastructure that can support a wide range of public-sector applications.<n>When expanding AI access, governments face a set of strategic choices over whether to buy existing services, build domestic capabilities, or adopt hybrid approaches.<n>This paper provides a strategic framework for making this decision by evaluating these options across dimensions including sovereignty, safety, cost, resource capability, cultural fit, and sustainability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T15:39:31Z)
• The Chancellor Trap: Administrative Mediation and the Hollowing of Sovereignty in the Algorithmic Age [0.0]
  In high- throughput organizations, AI-mediated decision support can reduce the probability that failures become publicly legible and politically contestable.<n>The article formalizes this dynamic as a principal-agent problem characterized by a verification gap.<n>The results are consistent with a paradox of competence: governance systems may become more effective at absorbing and resolving failures internally while simultaneously raising the threshold at which those failures become politically visible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T07:28:44Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control [44.99833362998488]
  The use of Artificial Intelligence in public administration is expanding rapidly.<n>While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.<n>This article applies principal-agent theory to AI adoption as a special case of delegation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T07:46:41Z)
• The Role of Large Language Models in the Recognition of Territorial Sovereignty: An Analysis of the Construction of Legitimacy [67.44950222243865]
  We argue that technology tools like Google Maps and Large Language Models (LLM) are often perceived as impartial and objective. We highlight the case of three controversial territories: Crimea, West Bank and Transnitria, by comparing the responses of ChatGPT against Wikipedia information and United Nations resolutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T08:46:49Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.