This paper develops the Execution Passport pattern as the minimal portable authority-state bundle that accompanies consequence-binding actions to the commit boundary (T=0) for SCIA Runtime validation. It explains why approvals and permissions are insufficient when authority decays under changing evidence, context, and state, and proposes passport-based admissibility as a reconstructable, expirable, and enforceable authority continuity mechanism.
• What must an Execution Passport carry to enable admissibility at T=0? • How does an Execution Passport differ from approval tokens, IAM permissions, and audit logs? • How is expiry, revocation, scope, and escalation represented? • How does the passport remain reconstructable after execution? • How do institutions govern passport issuance and validation?
Define the Execution Passport pattern as the portable authority-state bundle that must survive from decision to execution, and specify the minimum admissibility-carrying payload required for runtime validation at T=0.
• The Desynchronization of Authority • Execution Attribution Collapse • Governance Survivability and the Limits of Institutional Recomputation
How authority-state travels to the commit boundary
Authority-state → evidence at the commit boundary
Execution Passports
How authority-state travels to the commit boundary
Paper type: Arqua Architecture Paper
Status: Planned
Publication state: Concept Approved
Version/date: Placeholder
Abstract
Execution Passports addresses the problem that approvals, permissions and audit logs do not reliably carry authority, context, policy and evidence from decision formation to the point where consequence binds. The paper owns the transformation from authority-state to evidence at the commit boundary. It defines the portable bundle that accompanies a proposed action so SCIA Runtime can evaluate admissibility at T=0. Within Arqua’s programme, Execution Passports connects The Desynchronization of Authority to Execution Admissibility Architecture by providing a reconstructable, expirable and enforceable mechanism for authority continuity. It matters for AI-mediated institutional systems because agents and workflows can act across boundaries where static permissions do not express current authority, permitted use, evidence sufficiency or escalation requirements.
Focus
This paper asks: what must travel with a proposed action so authority, context, policy and evidence can be re-evaluated before execution binds consequence?
Transformation
Authority-state
↓
Evidence at the commit boundary
How this relates to Arqua
This paper supports Execution Admissibility Architecture by carrying the evidence required for SCIA Runtime. It depends on Architecture of Record to identify commit boundaries and on The Enterprise Control Plane to preserve provenance, policy, lineage and authority-state.
Key concepts
- Execution Passport
- Authority-state
- Commit boundary
- Evidence bundle
- Expiry
- Revocation
- Scope
- Runtime validation
Read this if
Read this if you are an enterprise architect, risk leader, AI governance owner, workflow owner or platform architect designing how approvals and authority survive until execution.
Placeholder note
This paper is currently in development. The placeholder records the architectural position, transformation and relationship to the Arqua architecture programme. Full paper text will be added when the draft is ready for publication.
Related papers
CTA
Start with one high-consequence decision. Identify where meaning, authority, policy, evidence or execution currently becomes uncontrolled.