This document does not propose regulatory requirements, mandatory clauses, or contractual obligations.
It provides descriptive reference questions that may be considered during procurement, vendor selection, SaaS adoption, API integration, or outsourcing decisions involving autonomous systems.
When reviewing procurement or contractual adoption, consider:
- Does the contract explicitly preserve human override authority?
- Is decision accountability clearly attributable to a named entity?
- Are responsibility boundaries defined between vendor and operator?
- Does the agreement allow unilateral autonomy expansion without review?
- Are update mechanisms capable of materially altering system behavior?
- Is reliance increasing without corresponding oversight adaptation?
Boundary responsibility and symmetric friction questions:
- Does the adoption process identify who is responsible for friction design, operation, evidence preservation, verification, and correction before irreversibility?
- Does the contract preserve reviewable evidence before affected humans or institutions lose voice, position, or re-entry capacity?
- Does the agreement prevent responsibility from being bypassed through outsourcing, subcontracting, entity replacement, opaque updates, or unilateral scope expansion?
- Does the procurement process avoid making responsible vendors competitively weaker than vendors that externalize displacement, review, or recovery costs?
- Is there a named correction owner if the boundary condition is not preserved?
境界責任と対称摩擦に関する質問：
- 導入プロセスは、不可逆化前の摩擦設計・運用・証拠保存・検証・是正の責任主体を特定しているか。
- 契約は、影響を受ける人間または制度が声・地位・再参入能力を失う前に、検証可能な証拠を保存するか。
- 契約は、外注・再委託・法人変更・不透明な更新・一方的な範囲拡張による責任迂回を防いでいるか。
- 調達プロセスは、責任あるベンダーが、置換・レビュー・回復コストを外部化するベンダーより競争上不利になる構造を避けているか。
- 境界条件が保存されない場合の是正責任主体は明示されているか。
This checklist is descriptive and non-prescriptive. It is intended only to clarify responsibility continuity within procurement and contractual processes.