4-Slide Mini Deck · Authority Does Not Travel by Default
Authority Does Not Travel, in four slides
Micheal Charles Preble · Operant Dyad — Paper 3 · SSRN 7359661
Slide 1 of 4
The Problem
Relationship state can remain useful and technically available across sessions, applications, models, and providers — even after the legal basis for relying on it has narrowed, expired, or moved to a different actor.
Slide 2 of 4
The Contribution
Ownership is too coarse a master variable. Technical portability is not lawful portability. Proposes a multi-source, multi-incident authority model and the concept of retained-but-non-operative state: a record can survive for a legitimate purpose while its ordinary authority to affect current interaction is removed.
Slide 3 of 4
How It Works · Evidence Status
A comparative legal synthesis grounded in real Texas and federal statutes (Data Privacy and Security Act, TRAIGA, UETA, RUFADAA) and EU law (GDPR, Data Act).
Evidence status: Conceptual legal and institutional analysis, illustrative rather than exhaustive.
Slide 4 of 4
Why It Matters · Limits · Open Questions
Destination-side revalidation: a receiving system should evaluate current legal operability in its own context, not inherit a context-free authorization status.
Limits: U.S.-law-primary; not a 50-state survey. Open: the paper calls its own residual claim “deliberately falsifiable.”
Preble, Micheal Charles. “Authority Does Not Travel by Default: Legal Provenance and Revalidation in Persistent Human–AI Continuity” Available at SSRN 7359661, 2026.