Research paper

Governing Relationship State: A Legal Framework for Human-Controlled AI Continuity

Micheal Charles Preble · September 5, 2026

Abstract

Persistent human–AI interaction can accumulate corrections, preferences, contextual interpretations, prior decisions, restrictions, authority representations, and other state that shapes later work. That state can remain available even after the factual, legal, or institutional basis for relying on it has changed.

This paper identifies lawful continuing reliance as the central legal object. It proposes proportionate duties of visibility, contestability, provenance, revalidation, restriction, retirement from operative use, transition review, and protection against the reconstitution of previously invalidated state. Those duties would attach principally to actors that control consequential reliance while preserving lawful records, institutional memory, third-party rights, security, intellectual property, and prior lawful use.

Suggested citation
Preble, Micheal Charles. “Governing Relationship State: A Legal Framework for Human-Controlled AI Continuity.” Available at SSRN 7396659, 2026.

The Problem

Relationship state can remain available even after the factual, legal, or institutional basis for relying on it has changed.

What This Work Contributes

Identifies lawful continuing reliance as the central legal object, and proposes proportionate duties of visibility, contestability, provenance, revalidation, restriction, retirement from operative use, transition review, and protection against the reconstitution of previously invalidated state.

How the Argument Works

A legal and institutional conceptual analysis that weighs those duties against lawful records, institutional memory, third-party rights, security, intellectual property, and prior lawful use.

Evidence Status

Evidence status: Conceptual legal and institutional analysis.

How evidence status works across this site →

What This Does Not Claim

  • Not an empirical study.
  • Not a finished legal standard or model statute.
  • No version is stated in the deposited manuscript.

Limitations & Open Questions

The proposed duties have not been tested against real institutional adoption. The deposited manuscript uses the legacy byline “Micheal Preble.”

For different readers

Who this is for

Researchers

Methods, protocols, and evidence status for this research area.

Media

Plain-language framing and exact claim boundaries.

Industry

System requirements and design implications.

Related Research

Connects to Authority Does Not Travel by Default (the transfer problem), Human Agency Under Consequential State and its policy paper (what follows a correction), and When Correction Cannot Catch the System. See also Consequence and For Policy & Think Tanks.

Artifact Family

The standard derivative-product family for this paper. Only artifacts that actually exist are linked; the rest are planned and not yet produced.