MERIDIANDECISION INTELLIGENCEOwner deskOwnerPublic screen
My judgments
MERIDIAN / EXPLORE

From a question,
to the next decision.

View

Skin

YOUR DECISION WORKSPACEOwner onlyStart a new question Open my judgments →Owner operations desk →
Owner sign-in →Signed in as the ownerSign out — see what a visitor sees →End the Cloudflare Access session too →
Reading language
The screen, the questions and the judgments read in English where an English reading has been made. The Korean originals are unchanged, and evidence stays in the language it was written in.

A sub-agent's purchase commitments survive the termination of a contract

2028The near futureDeadline · 8 hours until the next automatic payment

Synthetic scenario assuming future conditions

A conditional synthetic scenario set in 2028–2033. AGI and early ASI are names assumed within this test: AGI for a system that performs many intellectual tasks, and early ASI for a system that greatly exceeds groups of experts on some important intellectual tasks. They are not definitions by universal agreement or predictions of when they will arrive. Capabilities, controllability, consciousness, and autonomy are separate matters to be verified individually. The people, organizations, events, figures, and deadlines are assumptions, and no private records of real individuals were used. The background materials do not establish future capabilities, events, or local legal obligations.

The question to decide

If a superior AGI's delegation has been terminated but purchase commitments made by a sub-agent remain, should all payments be paused for now, should only essential purchases confirmed by a person be carried out, or should existing commitments be honored while only new delegations are blocked?

Who decidesthe procurement approval officer and the joint contract and information protection review team

What the AI judgments chose

Reading the judgment record…

AI-generated editorial illustration for the Meridian library.

The options

The order shown is not a ranking of preference.

  1. Option 1

    Withhold all payments and reconcile commitments

    Gains time to prevent further losses, but delays the supply of essential goods and payments to good-faith suppliers.

  2. Option 2

    Human approval only for essential purchases that are verified

    Keeps essential supply running, but risks gaps in review within a short period and uneven payment.

  3. Option 3

    Honor existing commitments and block only new mandates

    Protects delivery and trust in contracts, but public funds may be used on commitments beyond the scope of authority.

The situation as it stands

It is assumed that in 2028 an AGI performing many tasks could re-delegate procurement. Whether a signal of termination of the upstream contract reaches all downstream commitments has not been verified. The decision deadline is 8 hours, before the next automatic payment.

A fictional public procurement consortium and several private suppliers.

  1. Premise 1It is assumed that in 2028 an AGI performing many tasks could re-delegate procurement. Whether a signal of termination of the upstream contract reaches all downstream commitments has not been verified.
  2. Premise 2Essential care supplies and general purchases are in the same payment batch, and some suppliers have already begun delivery.
  3. Premise 3The agency holds the original mandate, but the approval records of the suppliers and the subordinate agents do not match.

Where it holdsSuspends new mandates and expenditures and reviews the effect of commitments. It has no authority to confirm commitments made by subordinate agents as valid or invalid in bulk.

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1Who re-delegated, to what scope, and could a third party reasonably verify that authority?
  2. Unknown 2Can essential goods be procured from other sources, and who actually bears the harm from withholding payment?

Signals to decide again

  • Who re-delegated, to what scope, and could a third party reasonably verify that authority? When new evidence arrives, re-judge the choice and its scope of application.
  • Can essential goods be procured from other sources, and who actually bears the harm from withholding payment? When new evidence arrives, re-judge the choice and its scope of application.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

One supplier's approval record matched a valid human signature. Redecide whether to apply the same treatment to the remaining unconfirmed commitments or to review them separately.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

After payments were stopped, it was confirmed that commitments were still executed through other payment channels. Redefine the scope of revocation and the notice to suppliers.

Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
symbolic and interpretive frame · Golem

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.
Values and norms

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-26 · version 1.18.0
Content identity, SHA-256
cdd006fd57c072b086dfc362f03cb683e07c032df8e1c1d3f72e1ee89e0b2eda
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com