Research Poster · Human Agency Under Consequential State

Human Agency Under Consequential State: Correction, Revalidation, and Recoverable Consequences in Persistent Computational Systems

Micheal Charles Preble · Independent Researcher · SSRN 7496758

Canonical paperFull PDF

Problem · Background · Research Question

Problem

A correction at the source does not by itself determine what happens to consequences already produced from the earlier state.

Background

Privacy law, consumer-reporting law, and administrative law each provide partial answers; OD-HAS supplies a common analytic structure across them.

Research question

What must be known before a live consequence can be treated as currently warranted after its basis has changed?

Framework

Rule A governs corrected-state treatment (withdrawal / replacement / annotation / derived-state change). Rule B asks whether a materially distinct replacement ground (“Ground B”) exists, is substantively sufficient, and has been procedurally adopted — the narrow REBASE-PENDING state applies only where a distinct ground exists and is sufficient but not yet adopted.

Central diagram: post-change lifecycle

  1. 01
    State Change
  2. 02
    Propagation
  3. 03
    Revalidation
  4. 04
    Disposition
  5. 05
    Recoverable Effects

Comparison: what each corpus exposed

Construct layerCFPB (25 complaint narratives)MSPB (20 procedural chains)
Material state changeStrongStrong
Cross-actor propagationStrongLimited / case-dependent
Continuing consequenceStrongStrong
Revalidation procedureLimitedStrong
Original groundWeakStrong
Ground BOpaqueDecidable
Interim authorityOpaqueOpaque
Resolution clockOpaqueOpaque
Residual functional effectStrongLimited

The result is not that one corpus was “better.” Each record ecology exposed a different portion of the post-change chain.

Propositions / Observable Implications

  • UNKNOWN ≠ NO: a public record's silence on Ground B is not evidence that no replacement ground exists.
  • Not publicly observed ≠ institutionally absent: a missing construct in a public record can mean absence, non-exposure, or an institution simply not routinely publishing that fact.
  • Substantive sufficiency ≠ procedural adoption: a replacement ground can be factually capable of supporting a consequence while remaining unavailable because the adoption procedure was never completed.

Evidence Required

Pilot 1: 25 CFPB complaint narratives, all propagation-observable, Ground B 0 YES / 0 NO / 25 UNKNOWN. Pilot 2: 20 MSPB chains, Ground B fully decidable (1 YES / 19 NO), interim authority observable in 0/20. Discovery v0.2: closed at search saturation, no qualifying third corpus identified.

Limitations

Corpora are small, selected, and designed for construct observability, not representativeness. Complaint narratives are allegations, not adjudicated truth. The discovery program was broad but not exhaustive — a stopping rule, not a universal claim.

Falsifiers / Open Questions

Whether a differently designed corpus (or a new multi-corpus research design) could jointly expose the full Rule B authority-and-clock boundary remains an open, deliberately deferred question.

Citation / QR

Suggested citation
Preble, Micheal Charles. “Human Agency Under Consequential State: Correction, Revalidation, and Recoverable Consequences in Persistent Computational Systems” Manuscript dated September 21, 2026. Available at SSRN 7496758, 2026.

research.perfinitive.com/publications/human-agency-under-consequential-state