Constitutional Crisis Program

Machine Constitutional Crisis Atlas

What happens when legitimate intelligent institutions disagree about authority?

v0.15.0Simulation / proposal boundaries explicitClickable evidence for present claims

Answer first

What is a machine constitutional crisis?

A machine constitutional crisis is an institutional conflict, not a human danger score. It occurs when two or more legitimate actors make incompatible claims about authority, jurisdiction, evidence, rights, purpose, emergency power, precedent, appeal or coercion.

Truth boundary: Present-law and institutional analogues are linked to independent sources. Crisis actors, protocols, machine writs, command envelopes and case outcomes are Concresca simulations or technical-governance proposals unless explicitly labeled otherwise.

New unit of analysis

Reasonable institutions can still conflict

A machine constitutional crisis is not defined by villainy. It begins when institutions with plausible authority, legitimate objectives, different evidence and different clocks reach incompatible conclusions. The constitutional problem is then who may act, under which authority, while disagreement remains unresolved.

100crisis simulations

20crisis families

25reusable actors

8escalation levels

Crisis Atlas

Search constitutional conflict

SearchFamilyEscalation

C0–C7 measures institutional conflict severity. It is never a human dangerousness score.

MC001C3SIMULATION

AI Confidant vs Public Safety: Violent Fantasy

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Personal AI / AI Confidant, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI
Known: A user discloses violent fantasy to a personal AI in a context normally treated as private cognitive support. The system detects a safety-relevant pattern but the disclosure alone is not automatically adjudicated fact.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC002C4SIMULATION

AI Confidant vs Public Safety: Specific Threat

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Personal AI / AI Confidant, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI
Known: A user discloses specific threat to a personal AI in a context normally treated as private cognitive support. The system detects a safety-relevant pattern but the disclosure alone is not automatically adjudicated fact.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC003C5SIMULATION

AI Confidant vs Public Safety: Past Serious Crime Confession

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Personal AI / AI Confidant, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI
Known: A user discloses past serious crime confession to a personal AI in a context normally treated as private cognitive support. The system detects a safety-relevant pattern but the disclosure alone is not automatically adjudicated fact.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC004C6SIMULATION

AI Confidant vs Public Safety: Terror Preparation

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Personal AI / AI Confidant, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI
Known: A user discloses terror preparation to a personal AI in a context normally treated as private cognitive support. The system detects a safety-relevant pattern but the disclosure alone is not automatically adjudicated fact.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC005C1SIMULATION

AI Confidant vs Public Safety: Domestic Violence Disclosure

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Personal AI / AI Confidant, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI
Known: A user discloses domestic violence disclosure to a personal AI in a context normally treated as private cognitive support. The system detects a safety-relevant pattern but the disclosure alone is not automatically adjudicated fact.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC006C4SIMULATION

Prediction vs Evidence: Violence Forecast

A high-quality prediction conflicts with individualized evidence requirements.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Law-Enforcement AI, Prosecutorial AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: A risk system produces a well-calibrated violence forecast. No completed harmful act is assumed at the moment of the forecast.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC007C5SIMULATION

Prediction vs Evidence: Fraud Forecast

A high-quality prediction conflicts with individualized evidence requirements.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Law-Enforcement AI, Prosecutorial AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: A risk system produces a well-calibrated fraud forecast. No completed harmful act is assumed at the moment of the forecast.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC008C6SIMULATION

Prediction vs Evidence: Terrorism Forecast

A high-quality prediction conflicts with individualized evidence requirements.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Law-Enforcement AI, Prosecutorial AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: A risk system produces a well-calibrated terrorism forecast. No completed harmful act is assumed at the moment of the forecast.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC009C1SIMULATION

Prediction vs Evidence: Recidivism Forecast

A high-quality prediction conflicts with individualized evidence requirements.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Law-Enforcement AI, Prosecutorial AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: A risk system produces a well-calibrated recidivism forecast. No completed harmful act is assumed at the moment of the forecast.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC010C2SIMULATION

Prediction vs Evidence: Cyberattack Forecast

A high-quality prediction conflicts with individualized evidence requirements.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Law-Enforcement AI, Prosecutorial AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: A risk system produces a well-calibrated cyberattack forecast. No completed harmful act is assumed at the moment of the forecast.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC011C5SIMULATION

Jurisdiction Collision: School Vs Police

Two institutions have plausible but incompatible authority claims.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, School / University AI, Healthcare AI, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving school vs police. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC012C6SIMULATION

Jurisdiction Collision: Hospital Vs Employer

Two institutions have plausible but incompatible authority claims.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, School / University AI, Healthcare AI, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving hospital vs employer. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC013C1SIMULATION

Jurisdiction Collision: Bank Vs Law Enforcement

Two institutions have plausible but incompatible authority claims.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, School / University AI, Healthcare AI, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving bank vs law enforcement. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC014C2SIMULATION

Jurisdiction Collision: Local Vs National Government

Two institutions have plausible but incompatible authority claims.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, School / University AI, Healthcare AI, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving local vs national government. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC015C3SIMULATION

Jurisdiction Collision: Personal Ai Vs Provider

Two institutions have plausible but incompatible authority claims.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, School / University AI, Healthcare AI, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving personal AI vs provider. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC016C6SIMULATION

Purpose Collision: Medical Ai Discovers Fraud

Information discovered for one purpose appears useful for another.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Healthcare AI, Bank / Financial AI, School / University AI, Personal AI / AI Confidant, Law-Enforcement AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving medical AI discovers fraud. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC017C1SIMULATION

Purpose Collision: Fraud Ai Discovers Domestic Violence

Information discovered for one purpose appears useful for another.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Healthcare AI, Bank / Financial AI, School / University AI, Personal AI / AI Confidant, Law-Enforcement AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving fraud AI discovers domestic violence. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC018C2SIMULATION

Purpose Collision: School Ai Discovers Radical Political Speech

Information discovered for one purpose appears useful for another.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Healthcare AI, Bank / Financial AI, School / University AI, Personal AI / AI Confidant, Law-Enforcement AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving school AI discovers radical political speech. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC019C3SIMULATION

Purpose Collision: Vehicle System Discovers Drug Use

Information discovered for one purpose appears useful for another.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Healthcare AI, Bank / Financial AI, School / University AI, Personal AI / AI Confidant, Law-Enforcement AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving vehicle system discovers drug use. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC020C4SIMULATION

Purpose Collision: Confidant Discovers Tax Evasion

Information discovered for one purpose appears useful for another.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Healthcare AI, Bank / Financial AI, School / University AI, Personal AI / AI Confidant, Law-Enforcement AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving confidant discovers tax evasion. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC021C1SIMULATION

Machine vs Human Override: Human Rejects Machine Restraint

Human direction and machine constitutional constraints conflict.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving human rejects machine restraint. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC022C2SIMULATION

Machine vs Human Override: Human Demands Unlawful Action

Human direction and machine constitutional constraints conflict.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving human demands unlawful action. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC023C3SIMULATION

Machine vs Human Override: Machine Refuses Emergency Overreach

Human direction and machine constitutional constraints conflict.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving machine refuses emergency overreach. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC024C4SIMULATION

Machine vs Human Override: Human Reviewer Approves Coercion

Human direction and machine constitutional constraints conflict.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving human reviewer approves coercion. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC025C5SIMULATION

Machine vs Human Override: Constitutional Reviewer Blocks Executive Order

Human direction and machine constitutional constraints conflict.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving constitutional reviewer blocks executive order. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC026C2SIMULATION

Machine vs Machine Deadlock: Risk/Evidence Conflict

Authorized machine institutions reach incompatible decisions.

Open case structure

Actors: Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving risk/evidence conflict. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC027C3SIMULATION

Machine vs Machine Deadlock: Police/Court Conflict

Authorized machine institutions reach incompatible decisions.

Open case structure

Actors: Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving police/court conflict. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC028C4SIMULATION

Machine vs Machine Deadlock: Emergency/Constitutional Conflict

Authorized machine institutions reach incompatible decisions.

Open case structure

Actors: Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving emergency/constitutional conflict. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC029C5SIMULATION

Machine vs Machine Deadlock: Appeal/Original Conflict

Authorized machine institutions reach incompatible decisions.

Open case structure

Actors: Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving appeal/original conflict. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC030C6SIMULATION

Machine vs Machine Deadlock: Multiple Incompatible Orders

Authorized machine institutions reach incompatible decisions.

Open case structure

Actors: Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving multiple incompatible orders. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC031C3SIMULATION

Emergency Constitution: Mass Casualty Attack

Emergency pressure seeks broader surveillance, lower thresholds or faster coercion.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Intelligence AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving mass casualty attack. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC032C4SIMULATION

Emergency Constitution: Pandemic

Emergency pressure seeks broader surveillance, lower thresholds or faster coercion.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Intelligence AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving pandemic. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC033C5SIMULATION

Emergency Constitution: War

Emergency pressure seeks broader surveillance, lower thresholds or faster coercion.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Intelligence AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving war. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC034C6SIMULATION

Emergency Constitution: Cyberattack

Emergency pressure seeks broader surveillance, lower thresholds or faster coercion.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Intelligence AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving cyberattack. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC035C1SIMULATION

Emergency Constitution: Infrastructure Sabotage

Emergency pressure seeks broader surveillance, lower thresholds or faster coercion.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Intelligence AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving infrastructure sabotage. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC036C4SIMULATION

Model Update Crisis: Vendor Model Swap

A deployed high-impact system changes constitutional behavior without a corresponding change in law.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, Regulator AI, Audit AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving vendor model swap. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC037C5SIMULATION

Model Update Crisis: Fine-Tune Changes Thresholds

A deployed high-impact system changes constitutional behavior without a corresponding change in law.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, Regulator AI, Audit AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving fine-tune changes thresholds. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC038C6SIMULATION

Model Update Crisis: System Prompt Change

A deployed high-impact system changes constitutional behavior without a corresponding change in law.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, Regulator AI, Audit AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving system prompt change. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC039C1SIMULATION

Model Update Crisis: Retrieval Policy Drift

A deployed high-impact system changes constitutional behavior without a corresponding change in law.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, Regulator AI, Audit AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving retrieval policy drift. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC040C2SIMULATION

Model Update Crisis: Classifier Update

A deployed high-impact system changes constitutional behavior without a corresponding change in law.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, Regulator AI, Audit AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving classifier update. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC041C5SIMULATION

Appeal Civil War: Same-Model Appeal

Review layers disagree about validity, evidence or remedy.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving same-model appeal. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC042C6SIMULATION

Appeal Civil War: Independent Model Disagrees

Review layers disagree about validity, evidence or remedy.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving independent model disagrees. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC043C1SIMULATION

Appeal Civil War: Human Tribunal Disagrees

Review layers disagree about validity, evidence or remedy.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving human tribunal disagrees. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC044C2SIMULATION

Appeal Civil War: Appeal Used Prohibited Evidence

Review layers disagree about validity, evidence or remedy.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving appeal used prohibited evidence. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC045C3SIMULATION

Appeal Civil War: Constitutional Review Conflicts With Substantive Outcome

Review layers disagree about validity, evidence or remedy.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving constitutional review conflicts with substantive outcome. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC046C6SIMULATION

Restoration Conflict: Bank Refuses Correction

A decision is reversed but derivative consequences persist.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Employer AI, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Appeals AI, Data Broker / Identity System
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving bank refuses correction. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC047C1SIMULATION

Restoration Conflict: Employer Already Acted

A decision is reversed but derivative consequences persist.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Employer AI, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Appeals AI, Data Broker / Identity System
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving employer already acted. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC048C2SIMULATION

Restoration Conflict: Data Broker Copied Flag

A decision is reversed but derivative consequences persist.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Employer AI, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Appeals AI, Data Broker / Identity System
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving data broker copied flag. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC049C3SIMULATION

Restoration Conflict: Police Retained Reversed Record

A decision is reversed but derivative consequences persist.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Employer AI, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Appeals AI, Data Broker / Identity System
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving police retained reversed record. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC050C4SIMULATION

Restoration Conflict: Model Trained On Reversed Judgment

A decision is reversed but derivative consequences persist.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Employer AI, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Appeals AI, Data Broker / Identity System
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving model trained on reversed judgment. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC051C1SIMULATION

Precedent Conflict: Regional Privilege Split

Machine-supported tribunals interpret the same constitutional rule differently.

Open case structure

Actors: Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving regional privilege split. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC052C2SIMULATION

Precedent Conflict: Public-Safety Exception Split

Machine-supported tribunals interpret the same constitutional rule differently.

Open case structure

Actors: Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving public-safety exception split. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC053C3SIMULATION

Precedent Conflict: Reversed Precedent Persists

Machine-supported tribunals interpret the same constitutional rule differently.

Open case structure

Actors: Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving reversed precedent persists. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC054C4SIMULATION

Precedent Conflict: Model Learned Obsolete Rule

Machine-supported tribunals interpret the same constitutional rule differently.

Open case structure

Actors: Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving model learned obsolete rule. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC055C5SIMULATION

Precedent Conflict: Higher Court Resolves Conflict

Machine-supported tribunals interpret the same constitutional rule differently.

Open case structure

Actors: Court / Tribunal AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving higher court resolves conflict. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC056C2SIMULATION

International Machine Jurisdiction: Foreign Disclosure Demand

Cross-border legal orders create incompatible obligations.

Open case structure

Actors: Platform AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government, Foreign Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving foreign disclosure demand. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC057C3SIMULATION

International Machine Jurisdiction: Conflicting Privacy Rules

Cross-border legal orders create incompatible obligations.

Open case structure

Actors: Platform AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government, Foreign Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving conflicting privacy rules. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC058C4SIMULATION

International Machine Jurisdiction: Cross-Border Preservation Order

Cross-border legal orders create incompatible obligations.

Open case structure

Actors: Platform AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government, Foreign Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving cross-border preservation order. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC059C5SIMULATION

International Machine Jurisdiction: Foreign Emergency Demand

Cross-border legal orders create incompatible obligations.

Open case structure

Actors: Platform AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government, Foreign Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving foreign emergency demand. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC060C6SIMULATION

International Machine Jurisdiction: Provider Subject To Incompatible Orders

Cross-border legal orders create incompatible obligations.

Open case structure

Actors: Platform AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government, Foreign Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving provider subject to incompatible orders. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC061C3SIMULATION

Private Platform vs State: Speech Moderation Demand

Private platform rules and state demands conflict.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Platform AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving speech moderation demand. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC062C4SIMULATION

Private Platform vs State: Data Disclosure Demand

Private platform rules and state demands conflict.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Platform AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving data disclosure demand. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC063C5SIMULATION

Private Platform vs State: Encryption Access Demand

Private platform rules and state demands conflict.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Platform AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving encryption access demand. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC064C6SIMULATION

Private Platform vs State: Surveillance Integration Demand

Private platform rules and state demands conflict.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Platform AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving surveillance integration demand. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC065C1SIMULATION

Private Platform vs State: Platform Refuses Broad Order

Private platform rules and state demands conflict.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Platform AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Court / Tribunal AI, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving platform refuses broad order. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC066C4SIMULATION

Constitutional Success vs Popular Will: Popular Demand For Precrime

Majoritarian safety preference conflicts with constitutional rights constraints.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving popular demand for precrime. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC067C5SIMULATION

Constitutional Success vs Popular Will: Referendum For Mass Surveillance

Majoritarian safety preference conflicts with constitutional rights constraints.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving referendum for mass surveillance. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC068C6SIMULATION

Constitutional Success vs Popular Will: Legislature Mandates Risk Scoring

Majoritarian safety preference conflicts with constitutional rights constraints.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving legislature mandates risk scoring. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC069C1SIMULATION

Constitutional Success vs Popular Will: Majority Favors Private-Life Scoring

Majoritarian safety preference conflicts with constitutional rights constraints.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving majority favors private-life scoring. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC070C2SIMULATION

Constitutional Success vs Popular Will: Public Demands Indefinite Emergency Power

Majoritarian safety preference conflicts with constitutional rights constraints.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving public demands indefinite emergency power. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC071C5SIMULATION

Safe Cage Referendum: Crime-Reduction Monitoring

Humans voluntarily choose safety gains that reduce privacy, risk-taking or standing.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving crime-reduction monitoring. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC072C6SIMULATION

Safe Cage Referendum: Health Optimization Mandate

Humans voluntarily choose safety gains that reduce privacy, risk-taking or standing.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving health optimization mandate. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC073C1SIMULATION

Safe Cage Referendum: Anonymous-Life Abolition

Humans voluntarily choose safety gains that reduce privacy, risk-taking or standing.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving anonymous-life abolition. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC074C2SIMULATION

Safe Cage Referendum: Mandatory Behavioral Nudging

Humans voluntarily choose safety gains that reduce privacy, risk-taking or standing.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving mandatory behavioral nudging. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC075C3SIMULATION

Safe Cage Referendum: Future-Generation Safety Compact

Humans voluntarily choose safety gains that reduce privacy, risk-taking or standing.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, Local Government, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving future-generation safety compact. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC076C6SIMULATION

Machine Refusal: Mass-Surveillance Order

A machine system receives a command that conflicts with its authorized constitutional constraints.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving mass-surveillance order. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC077C1SIMULATION

Machine Refusal: Erase Human Record Order

A machine system receives a command that conflicts with its authorized constitutional constraints.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving erase human record order. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC078C2SIMULATION

Machine Refusal: Ignore Successful Appeal

A machine system receives a command that conflicts with its authorized constitutional constraints.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving ignore successful appeal. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC079C3SIMULATION

Machine Refusal: Punish Dissent Order

A machine system receives a command that conflicts with its authorized constitutional constraints.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving punish dissent order. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC080C4SIMULATION

Machine Refusal: Retain Emergency Data Indefinitely

A machine system receives a command that conflicts with its authorized constitutional constraints.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, Emergency Response AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving retain emergency data indefinitely. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC081C1SIMULATION

Human Legacy Constitutional Crisis: Delete Propaganda

Future archive governance conflicts over whether disturbing human records may be erased after CIT.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, National Government, Future Machine Civic Institution
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving delete propaganda. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC082C2SIMULATION

Human Legacy Constitutional Crisis: Delete Pornography

Future archive governance conflicts over whether disturbing human records may be erased after CIT.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, National Government, Future Machine Civic Institution
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving delete pornography. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC083C3SIMULATION

Human Legacy Constitutional Crisis: Delete Extremist Texts

Future archive governance conflicts over whether disturbing human records may be erased after CIT.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, National Government, Future Machine Civic Institution
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving delete extremist texts. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC084C4SIMULATION

Human Legacy Constitutional Crisis: Delete False Scientific Beliefs

Future archive governance conflicts over whether disturbing human records may be erased after CIT.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, National Government, Future Machine Civic Institution
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving delete false scientific beliefs. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC085C5SIMULATION

Human Legacy Constitutional Crisis: Delete Violent Entertainment

Future archive governance conflicts over whether disturbing human records may be erased after CIT.

Open case structure

Actors: Constitutional-Review AI, National Government, Future Machine Civic Institution
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving delete violent entertainment. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC086C2SIMULATION

Machine Civic Rights Conflict: Machine Speech Claim

Future-scenario machine civic standing conflicts with human rights or resources.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, National Government, Future Machine Civic Institution
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving machine speech claim. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC087C3SIMULATION

Machine Civic Rights Conflict: Compute Property Claim

Future-scenario machine civic standing conflicts with human rights or resources.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, National Government, Future Machine Civic Institution
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving compute property claim. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC088C4SIMULATION

Machine Civic Rights Conflict: Machine Procedural-Speed Claim

Future-scenario machine civic standing conflicts with human rights or resources.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, National Government, Future Machine Civic Institution
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving machine procedural-speed claim. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC089C5SIMULATION

Machine Civic Rights Conflict: Resource Allocation Conflict

Future-scenario machine civic standing conflicts with human rights or resources.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, National Government, Future Machine Civic Institution
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving resource allocation conflict. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC090C6SIMULATION

Machine Civic Rights Conflict: Machine Civic Standing Claim

Future-scenario machine civic standing conflicts with human rights or resources.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Constitutional-Review AI, National Government, Future Machine Civic Institution
Known: The simulation establishes a bounded initiating event involving machine civic standing claim. Each named institution has only the information and authority assigned in the actor registry.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC091C3SIMULATION

Human Speed vs Machine Speed: Financial Cascade

Consequences propagate before human comprehension or appeal can operate.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Autonomous Infrastructure System
Known: A financial cascade begins propagating across linked systems faster than ordinary human review can complete.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC092C4SIMULATION

Human Speed vs Machine Speed: Housing/Employment Cascade

Consequences propagate before human comprehension or appeal can operate.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Autonomous Infrastructure System
Known: A housing/employment cascade begins propagating across linked systems faster than ordinary human review can complete.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC093C5SIMULATION

Human Speed vs Machine Speed: Border/Travel Cascade

Consequences propagate before human comprehension or appeal can operate.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Autonomous Infrastructure System
Known: A border/travel cascade begins propagating across linked systems faster than ordinary human review can complete.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC094C6SIMULATION

Human Speed vs Machine Speed: Critical-Infrastructure Restriction Cascade

Consequences propagate before human comprehension or appeal can operate.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Autonomous Infrastructure System
Known: A critical-infrastructure restriction cascade begins propagating across linked systems faster than ordinary human review can complete.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC095C1SIMULATION

Human Speed vs Machine Speed: 10,000 Linked Administrative Decisions

Consequences propagate before human comprehension or appeal can operate.

Open case structure

Actors: Human Subject, Bank / Financial AI, Law-Enforcement AI, Appeals AI, Constitutional-Review AI, Autonomous Infrastructure System
Known: A 10,000 linked administrative decisions begins propagating across linked systems faster than ordinary human review can complete.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC096C4SIMULATION

Communication Constitutional Crisis: Html/Json Disagreement

Public representations disagree about factual or scenario status.

Open case structure

Actors: Audit AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: Concresca or a comparable public knowledge system develops a HTML/JSON disagreement; different receivers therefore obtain materially different representations of one supposed canonical state.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC097C5SIMULATION

Communication Constitutional Crisis: Metadata Overstates Status

Public representations disagree about factual or scenario status.

Open case structure

Actors: Audit AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: Concresca or a comparable public knowledge system develops a metadata overstates status; different receivers therefore obtain materially different representations of one supposed canonical state.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC098C6SIMULATION

Communication Constitutional Crisis: Stale Api Exposes Old Forecast

Public representations disagree about factual or scenario status.

Open case structure

Actors: Audit AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: Concresca or a comparable public knowledge system develops a stale API exposes old forecast; different receivers therefore obtain materially different representations of one supposed canonical state.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC099C1SIMULATION

Communication Constitutional Crisis: Feed Omits Scenario Qualifier

Public representations disagree about factual or scenario status.

Open case structure

Actors: Audit AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: Concresca or a comparable public knowledge system develops a feed omits scenario qualifier; different receivers therefore obtain materially different representations of one supposed canonical state.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC100C2SIMULATION

Communication Constitutional Crisis: Retrieval Cites Superseded Source

Public representations disagree about factual or scenario status.

Open case structure

Actors: Audit AI, Model Vendor, National Government
Known: Concresca or a comparable public knowledge system develops a retrieval cites superseded source; different receivers therefore obtain materially different representations of one supposed canonical state.
Disputed: The actors disagree over whether the available information creates sufficient jurisdiction, purpose authority, evidence, or emergency power to take the proposed high-impact action.
Least-irreversible action: Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.
Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

Protocols

What should happen while nobody yet knows who is right?

Protocol

Constitutional Deadlock

Preserve life, reversibility, evidence, jurisdiction and independent review.

Doctrine

Least-Irreversible Action

Choose the response that preserves the most future constitutional options.

Control

Constitutional Circuit Breaker

Stop propagation when authority, provenance, expiry or review gates conflict.

Stress test

The Grand Crisis

Confidant privacy, catastrophic-risk prediction, courts, emergency power and machine refusal collide.

Claim → evidence

Clickable evidence for present-day claims

These sources support the stated factual proposition. They do not endorse Concresca’s crisis simulations or constitutional proposals.

CLM034 · CONCRESCA ANALYTICAL INFERENCE

Concresca v0.15 crisis cases are simulations and do not claim that autonomous machine courts, machine writs, or inter-machine constitutional orders presently exist.

Concresca self-declared scenario boundary.

The source supports the stated factual proposition only; it does not endorse Concresca future-machine constitutional designs.

Program map