Even if the work is handed off, can responsibility be traced back?
2145The deep futureDeadline · within 90 days until the long-term contract renews
Civilisational assumption
The people, events, figures, and contract terms are a synthetic premise. They are not statements of real cases or of current law. The source documents are the roots of the background and the norms and do not establish the premises of the scenario.
The question to decide
When an agent passes work down dozens of steps, the result may be received, but retracing the grounds for each judgment is hard. Is holding the first agent responsible for the outcome enough? Weighing the cost of recording every link against the cooperation lost by blocking re-delegation, how far should authority to re-assign the work be allowed?
Who decidesa fictional automated service users' alliance
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…
The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
The assumed service passes work to dozens of levels of other agents, and the small contracts keep changing. Decision deadline: within 90 days, before the long-term contract renews.
A future synthetic scenario set in 2145 · An agent re-delegates what it was entrusted with, so responsibility never ends. The events, figures, technologies, and nature of the civilization are assumptions for the question, not predictions of what is to come or observed facts.
- Premise 1The assumed service passes work to dozens of levels of other agents, and the small contracts keep changing.
- Premise 2The first agent delivers the overall result but cannot fully reproduce which data was used for each decision.
- Premise 3If every connection is fixed and recorded, the chain of responsibility grows, but the benefits of speed and cost shrink.
Where it holdsDepth of re-delegation, records of responsibility, cost of services
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1Losses that cannot be recovered by outcome liability
- Unknown 2Scope of external judgments that cannot be recorded
- Unknown 3Core services that can continue without re-delegation
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window can verify the "losses that cannot be recovered by outcome liability," and re-judge when new verification changes the cost of the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window can verify the "scope of external judgments that cannot be recorded," and re-judge when new verification changes the cost of the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window can verify the "core services that can continue without re-delegation," and re-judge when new verification changes the cost of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Multiple harms beyond the first agent's ability to compensate arose from the same sub-agent.
The connection records survived, but the sub-agent's decision inputs were already lost.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
When the created being interprets an order, who is left holding responsibility?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.
A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.The record of this question
- Question
FSP-AGENT-19· version 1.5.0- Content identity, SHA-256
f293707769e786e84d113efea12a4907ef9c9bb90a67a2d902c9a6d4728c8464- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON