Living Consent

#I. The Object of Consent

Consent authorizes a described relationship under described conditions. Its validity depends on the identity of the parties, the purpose, the powers granted, the expected consequences, the information available, the available alternatives, and the means of withdrawal or contest. A signature or click records an act of assent. It does not establish that every later system bearing the same name remains the object to which assent was given.

Computational systems change without dissolving their legal identity. Models are replaced, objectives are revised, data sources expand, interfaces alter the evidence available to users, and ownership passes to parties with different incentives. A continuing authorization must therefore be tested against the present system state. Formal continuity of the operator is relevant, but it is not conclusive when the authority exercised over the person has materially changed.

Three authorizations require separate analysis:

1. Assent to a system state determines whether a person authorized a defined operator to use defined data or exercise defined powers for a stated purpose.
2. A principal's delegation mandate determines whether an agent, vendor, or subordinate system acted within the authority the principal conferred.
3. Temporal authority over a record determines whether retained information may materially contribute to a present adverse act after its original period or purpose has passed.

The three may fail independently. Valid assent does not excuse an agent that exceeds its mandate. A valid delegation does not preserve an old record's authority forever. A temporal-use restriction does not imply that the original collection lacked consent. Institutions must identify which authorization supports the act and which alleged defect is under review.

#II. Material Change

An operator must issue a material-change receipt when a change could alter the basis on which a reasonable person granted assent or the consequences that person may bear. The receipt identifies the prior state, the new state, the legal or adopted authority for the change, the affected population, the date of effect, and the available response.

The receipt also creates a prospective route to contest. A person credibly within the projected population may challenge the Operator's classification, submit evidence that the population is understated, seek an audit, and request interim relief before an irreversible change. The projected population must be independently testable. A missing required receipt does not defeat affectedness; credible evidence of expected exposure creates a rebuttable presumption and requires independent reconstruction.

A change is material when it alters one or more of the following:

• Purpose: data or authority is used for an objective materially different from the one disclosed at assent.
• Controller: responsibility passes to an entity whose powers, incentives, jurisdiction, or remedies differ materially.
• Affected population: a system extends to persons or classes not within the original account.
• Decisional consequence: an output acquires a new role in employment, housing, finance, medical care, communication, identity, legal standing, or another material interest.
• Retention: information is kept longer, at greater resolution, or under broader access than the governing authorization permitted.
• Identity resolution: pseudonymous, contextual, or separated records become linkable across persons, accounts, or domains.

Ordinary maintenance does not require renewed assent when it preserves the stated purpose, powers, consequences, retention, and identity boundary. Security patches, error corrections, and performance improvements remain ordinary only while they do not cross those limits. A change may be technically small and constitutionally material if it alters who can act, what the act can decide, or how the result can follow the person.

Where consent is the legal basis, material change requires renewed consent before the new authority is exercised, unless law supplies another valid basis. Renewed consent must identify the change in language a reasonable affected person can evaluate. Refusal must be recorded without retaliation beyond consequences necessary to decline the changed service. Where practical dependency makes refusal incapable of being free, consent alone cannot supply authority. The Operator must identify an independent legal or constitutional basis and make the act reviewable.

Where consent is not the legal basis, material change still requires notice, a receipt, and review. Public authority, contract, necessity, or legitimate interest may justify an act in some legal systems. None eliminates the duty to state which authority applies and what changed.

#III. Delegated Authority

A principal may delegate execution without transferring the duty to answer. The mandate must identify the principal, agent, purpose, powers, prohibited acts, escalation conditions, duration, evidence requirements, and termination procedure. A chain of agents must preserve that information through each delegation.

No specification anticipates every condition in which an agent may operate. When an action depends on an inference beyond the declared mandate, the system must record an intent-gap receipt. The receipt identifies the missing instruction, the extrapolation made, the evidence used, the person or system that authorized execution, and the surviving principal responsible for review.

The presence of an intent gap does not automatically invalidate the action. Some gaps require inquiry, some permit bounded action under an emergency rule, and some fall within a discretion the mandate expressly grants. The receipt prevents an extrapolation from being represented as a direct command. It allows the principal and the affected person to contest whether the action remained within authorized discretion.

The surviving principal must remain identifiable after an agent terminates, a vendor is replaced, or a service is reorganized. The principal must have authority to preserve records, answer contests, comply with remedies, and constrain future action. An ownerless protocol or transient process cannot be the sole principal. A party that deploys or integrates it, controls access to a covered passage, or derives authority from its operation must supply a persistent respondent. Where several entities materially contribute to an act, each answers for duties within its control; if they cannot establish bounded contributions through inspectable records, responsibility is joint. The affected person need not reconstruct the system to identify a respondent.

Human oversight is valid only when the reviewer retains the competence and institutional capacity to disagree. Repeated confirmation at a rate that prevents examination does not enlarge the mandate. It shows that the practical decision has moved elsewhere. The Operator must reduce the delegated scope, increase review capacity, or redesign the process until responsibility and judgment coincide.

#IV. Temporal Authority of Records

The age of a record raises four different questions: whether the event occurred, whether the record may be retained, who may access it and for what purpose, and whether it may materially contribute to a present adverse act. The answers need not be the same.

Article 7 governs the fourth question through temporal jurisdiction. A record may remain historically accurate and lawfully retained while losing presumptive authority in a later or unrelated decision. The relevant threshold depends on record type, severity, present purpose, current evidence, affected-party interests, and narrowly specified safety, archival, investigatory, or adjudicative needs.

After the threshold, non-use in adverse decisions is the default. A party seeking renewed use must establish a current domain-specific nexus, explain why current evidence or a less restrictive means is inadequate, obtain independent review, state the permitted duration, and issue a receipt. Notice must precede the act where practicable. A protected investigation may delay notice only under an independent and time-limited order.

Authorization permits the stated use only. It does not restart the threshold, restore general authority, or permit the record holder to expand the approved purpose. A later request must stand on its own present justification.

Temporal jurisdiction follows transformed and indirect reliance. Affiliates, brokers, derived scores, embeddings, cached classifications, and model outputs remain within the rule when an old record materially contributes to the present act. The Operator must preserve lineage sufficient for independent testing and disclose material uncertainty about influence. The Constitution does not prescribe deletion, degradation, or a particular machine-unlearning method as the universal remedy.

Retention and access remain governed by their own authority. Some records may require deletion. Others may be sealed, separated, aggregated, restricted to a defined purpose, or retained for accountability. Evidence that coercive authority acted receives a stronger presumption of persistence because it permits the public to examine power. That persistence does not make every item of personal information within or supporting the evidence indefinitely available. Personal data remains subject to lawful minimization, sealing, restricted access, and limits on later adverse use.

Public relief and moral forgiveness must remain distinct. A court, agency, or constitutional organ may seal a record, prohibit a future adverse use, restore eligibility, or remove a public disability. Those acts determine what institutions may do. They do not declare that a victim or community has forgiven the person, and no institution may forgive on another's behalf.

#V. Institutional Procedure

The Standard-Setting Body defines the material-change taxonomy, temporal-use schedules, receipt schemas, escalation conditions, and minimum delegation fields. Every rule is public, versioned, reasoned, and assigned a review date.

The Operator classifies a change before deployment, issues the required receipt, and identifies the authority on which continuing operation rests. It also records delegation boundaries and temporal-use determinations. A decision that no trigger occurred is itself reviewable when the change materially affects a covered population.

The Auditor tests classifications, consent flows, delegation chains, reviewer competence, record lineage, temporal-use controls, and rates of override or contest. The audit reports sampling limits and uncertainty. It may inspect confidential information under controlled access.

Affected-person counterpower is exercised through direct objections, common proceedings, claim-specific advocates, and independently administered recourse. An affected person may challenge a non-triggering classification, seek an audit, contest an extension of a temporal-use schedule, or request interim relief. Credible evidence from a witness who is not personally affected may open preliminary examination or audit but does not transfer control of another person's claim.

The Adjudicator determines whether the object of assent materially changed, whether an agent remained within its mandate, and whether a record retained authority for the disputed use. A decision identifies the relevant authorization, evidence, burden, disposition, remedy, and route of further review.

Remedies fit the defect. A material change may require suspension, renewed consent, a narrower authority, or a prospective transition. A delegation defect may require reversal, principal liability, mandate revision, or termination of the agent's power. A temporal-use defect may require exclusion of the record from the present decision, a new decision on current evidence, sealing, correction, or another remedy authorized by law.

#VI. Continuing Constitutional Authority

Constitutional authority does not depend on ceremonial re-ratification of rights that the participants are not permitted to reject. A vote without a lawful power of refusal is not consent. The non-derogable minima instead derive their continuing legitimacy from the functions they preserve: notice of power, meaningful contest, answerable human judgment for material acts, and protection against contractual surrender of those conditions.

Continuity is maintained through public control over calibrations and institutions: rules remain open to petition and amendment, officeholders are replaceable, audits expose performance and capture, and adjudication supplies reasons and remedies. Affected persons possess representation, portability, appeal, and exit where exit can be made practical. Courts and legislatures remain available under the adopting legal order.

Technical calibration may revise deadlines, thresholds, audit frequency, interoperability profiles, and temporal-use schedules within delegated bounds while preserving meaningful exercise of the right. Public notice, a defined objection period, reasoned response, and a two-thirds vote of the Standard-Setting Body are required. The Adjudicator reviews claims that a calibration exceeds delegated bounds or breaches the non-derogable floor and alone may order interim relief.

An amendment to an Article also requires ratification through the lawful procedure of the constituting authority. If a private constituting authority is controlled by the covered Operator and practical exit is unavailable, ratification additionally requires matter-specific approval through an independently administered process open to authenticated affected persons. The procedure must protect privacy, state its quorum and voting rule, and account for materially distinct affected groups.

Institutional succession requires a public transfer record. A successor identifies the authority received, obligations assumed, records transferred, unresolved claims, governing rules, and available review. Change of name, ownership, vendor, or technical substrate does not extinguish accrued duties. A successor that cannot preserve the rights and remedies attached to the transferred power may not continue to exercise that power until a lawful transition is established.

Continuing authority therefore rests on present answerability. The relevant institutions must remain identifiable, revisable, reviewable, and capable of remedy. Historical assent may explain how an order began. It cannot substitute for the present conditions under which power remains legitimate.