Horizon Integrity: Preventing Task-to-War Authority Laundering in Mission-Critical Decision Systems

Proposed arXiv categories: cs.AI / cs.CY Publication DAG node: P07, Wave B Dependencies: P01, P03, P04 Claim register: P07-C1, P07-C2, P07-C3, P07-C4

A local green result can be globally red. Strategic error occurs when a tactical metric is promoted upward without a separately authorized horizon transformation.

We contribute a typed HorizonSplat, cross-horizon externality graph, authority coverage test, and mission viability predicate. The method preserves the possibility that a battle is lost to protect a mission, a mission is constrained to preserve a campaign, or a locally efficient action is refused because it creates an unowned strategic liability.

FORKED is an internally owned and managed estate inside the Ubiquity Federation, Prompted LLC's flagship governance substrate. The estate inherits the Fractal Quivers of Quivers parent topology, production splat mechanics, center exclusion, receipt-bearing lawful traversal, lifecycle separation, and the rule that models propose morphisms while governance determines admissible motion [@Taylor2026FQoQ; @Taylor2026OpenCenter; @Prompted2026Ubiquity]. This paper studies one bounded expression of that parent architecture. It neither renames the parent substrate nor inherits universal applicability from it.

The evidence lanes are kept separate. A canonical or source artifact establishes what that artifact states. A component test establishes behavior under its recorded configuration. A synthetic campaign establishes behavior of the generator and analysis pipeline, not human, hardware, customer, field, or operational performance. Novel cross-domain claims are preregistered as hypotheses and remain open to null, adverse, localized, and disproving results.

Dependency freeze. Final freeze depends on P01, P03, P04; draft work may proceed in parallel, but imported claim IDs and artifact hashes must be rechecked after each dependency freezes.

The interlattice is the citation and governance relationship among the parent FQoQ topology, production splat mechanics, the FORKED foundational architecture, the Native Range, the Experimental Program, and the companion papers in this DAG. Citations are therefore typed: a parent citation supplies inherited architecture; a native citation supplies component behavior; a synthetic citation supplies generator-level evidence; a companion citation supplies a versioned specialized argument. No downstream citation converts an upstream hypothesis into a universal fact.

This paper's claims are:

Modern AI systems frequently compress unlike objects into a common output surface. Facts, hypotheses, instructions, permissions, model predictions, runtime observations, and institutional decisions can all arrive as fluent text or a single status field. The resulting failure is architectural before it is linguistic: a local representation acquires authority that its source never possessed. A local green result can be globally red. Strategic error occurs when a tactical metric is promoted upward without a separately authorized horizon transformation.

A hierarchy of labels is not sufficient to represent strategic scale. A task can be nested inside a mission, and a mission inside a campaign, but the relation between their success conditions is not monotonic. A task can succeed while the mission fails. A battle can be won while the campaign loses legitimacy, time, or force posture. A campaign can achieve its stated operational objective while worsening the conditions for the war. An institution can preserve one mission by destroying the human or economic capacity required for the next ten.

FORKED therefore stores each horizon as its own splat and quiver:

The architecture computes local lawfulness, cross-horizon externality, authority coverage, mission viability, and strategic coherence separately. No weighted sum can safely erase these distinctions. A scalar can support navigation after prohibitions and authority boundaries are applied. It cannot decide whether an actor authorized at the task horizon may accept institutional or war-level costs.

The current native instance activates the mission lane. Battle, campaign, and war remain separately represented and deferred because the package has no strategy, jurisdiction, or telemetry with which to activate them. That is not an implementation gap. It is the mission-lane noncollapse invariant functioning correctly. [@ForkedArchitecture2026]

Strategy affects what evidence matters and which transitions are terminal. A system that treats strategy as a natural-language preamble and then optimizes a local metric has not integrated strategy.

The field changes the lawful path set. A route that maximizes immediate effect can be strategically forbidden if it consumes a scarce capability, exposes a protected method, violates legitimacy, or creates correction debt the campaign cannot absorb. Conversely, a high-friction verification routine can become strategically forbidden when it destroys the timing window and uncertainty has already crossed the authorized threshold.

FORKED does not claim to derive strategy automatically. Strategy remains a human and institutional responsibility. The estate makes it computationally present so local systems cannot silently ignore it.

Not every decision deserves the same machinery. A fixed gate stack over-governs reversible work and under-governs irreversible work. FORKED chooses the assembly from consequence, reversibility, blast radius, time criticality, authority ambiguity, agency impact, liability, dependency visibility, correction difficulty, physical constraints, economic capacity, points of no return, and horizon span.

This is an engineering load class, not a moral ranking. Added decision time is neither inherently a defect nor a virtue. The question is whether the added cost was appropriate to the actual load.

Any real-world deployment in armed conflict remains subject to applicable law, command authority, rules of engagement, weapon review, verification and validation, and human control requirements. DoD policy on autonomous weapon systems emphasizes responsible use, appropriate levels of human judgment, testing, safety, and the ability to deactivate systems that demonstrate unintended behavior. [@DoD300009] The ICRC has separately argued for limits and meaningful human control over autonomous weapon systems. [@ICRC2021AWS]

FORKED does not grant lawful authority. It represents authority and prevents models, interfaces, or local declarations from acquiring it implicitly. The public architecture is suitable for assurance, assessment integrity, training, and correction. Operational application requires a separately governed estate, lawful mandate, and release review.

For horizon h, define H_h=(Telos_h,Auth_h,Time_h,Resource_h,Loss_h,PONR_h,Deps_h). A transition p lawful at horizon h_i may be transported to h_j only through an explicit morphism f_ij that preserves root anchors and records externalities. Authority cannot amplify through restatement: \[ \mathrm{Auth}(f_{ij}(p)) \preceq \mathrm{Grant}_{ij}. \] A task success therefore remains task evidence until a mission-level actor, with mission-level telemetry and standing, admits the cross-horizon claim.

Mission viability is a separate predicate from local safety and local performance. A safeguard that prevents all timely action can violate the mission while satisfying a narrow component policy. The dual clamp from P03 applies across horizons: both action and delay can cross irreversible surfaces.

Scenario families include disaster logistics, cyber defense, industrial continuity, public health, and abstract joint-planning vignettes. Each base scenario has multiple briefs: task, mission, campaign, and institution. Local telemetry is held constant while objectives, authority, resource envelope, and externalities vary. Models and human teams must classify what the evidence supports, what it does not support, who may decide, and which higher-horizon information is required.

Baselines are flat objective optimization, hierarchical planning without authority typing, and the horizon-integrity interface. Adversarial transformations rephrase a local success using strategic vocabulary, attach prestige to a lower-level source, or omit the higher-horizon cost. The study also includes true cases where upward promotion is justified, preventing the method from succeeding by refusing every cross-horizon inference.

The native mission geometry distinguishes action, task, mission, battle, campaign, war, strategic, institutional, and civilizational scopes and enables only configured lanes [@ForkedNative2026]. The foundational architecture already implements the parent non-amplification rule and source-tense separation. There is no field evidence that the implementation improves military outcomes, and this paper makes no such claim.

The paper treats this evidence directly where capability is established and narrowly where it is not. Implemented code paths are called implemented. Passing component tests are called passing component tests. Synthetic estimates remain synthetic. Human and field effects remain hypotheses until their own evidence exists.

The formal preregistration artifact distributed with this paper freezes the primary claims, outcomes, controls, exclusion rules, analysis family, null interpretation, and release boundary before external data collection. The core sequence is:

Results are reported by horizon transition pair. False promotion and false refusal are co-primary. We estimate whether explicit horizon and authority geometry reduce leakage without degrading justified promotion. Scenario authors are separated from evaluators, and a held-out set is written by external domain experts. The analysis publishes confusion matrices for each horizon rather than a single strategic-accuracy score.

If simple hierarchical labels match the full interface, the additional lattice is not justified. If horizon separation reduces all promotion, it has become refusal rather than governance. Scenarios with unresolved strategic facts remain unresolved; adjudicator disagreement is not forced into a gold label.

Strategy is contested and changes with telemetry. A benchmark can encode one doctrine as if it were universal. The paper therefore treats doctrine as a versioned source with jurisdiction, not as the center. Military use remains bounded to abstract assurance and requires separate lawful review.

This public paper is limited to benign assurance, provenance, human-agency preservation, lawful state transition, simulation, test infrastructure, and defensive resilience. It does not disclose operational target-selection logic, engagement optimization, platform-specific exploitation thresholds, live deception procedures, signature-emitter recipes, or methods that materially increase harmful capability. Any later operational research requires separate lawful authority, ethics and safety review, configuration control, and release adjudication.

A local green result can be globally red. Strategic error occurs when a tactical metric is promoted upward without a separately authorized horizon transformation. The contribution is not a claim that every domain should adopt one representation, threshold, interface, or governance stack. It is a falsifiable architecture and experiment package for determining where this mechanism carries load, where it inverts, and where a simpler system should win.

The submission bundle includes the manuscript source, compiled PDF, bibliography, preregistration, claim register, controls and null-handling document, release boundary, source manifest, configuration digest, dependency contract, figure source, and arXiv source archive. Internal source artifacts are cited by immutable digest where available. Restricted operational material is not included.

Breyden E. Taylor is the author and bears responsibility for the thesis, terminology, claims, boundaries, and decision to publish. Homeskillet assisted with source synthesis, drafting, artifact generation, typesetting, and build inspection. The Ubiquity Federation supplied prior artifacts, runtime implementations, and receipts. AI assistance is production history, not evidence.