Making AI-Assisted Claims Independently Challengeable: Publication Authority and a Protocol for Falsifiable Publication Records

使人工智能辅助的声明具备独立可质疑性：发布权威与可证伪发布记录协议

Abstract: AI-assisted claims can appear authoritative when evidence, analysis, human authorization, presentation, and correction history refer to different states. Provenance, attestation, and transparency expose history but alone do not specify the publication transition examined here. We develop Publication Authority as an exact-state, non-transferable, single-use publication capability and instantiate it in PAC-2026 (Publication-Accountability Calculus), a machine-readable AIJIM Protocol candidate.

摘要： 当证据、分析、人工授权、呈现方式和修正历史指向不同状态时，人工智能辅助的声明往往显得具有权威性。溯源、证明和透明度虽然能揭示历史，但仅凭这些无法界定本文所探讨的发布转换过程。我们开发了“发布权威”（Publication Authority），将其定义为一种精确状态、不可转让、一次性使用的发布能力，并将其实例化于 PAC-2026（发布问责演算）中，这是一个机器可读的 AIJIM 协议候选方案。

We evaluate its fourth bounded semantic freeze (SF-4), a fixed-profile specification designed for replaceable bindings. Six obligations govern evidence, runs and artifacts, measurement disclosure, authorization, surface correspondence, and lifecycle continuity. Each yields a target-bound witness, localized counterexample, or localized unverifiability; none can compensate for another. Only a fresh, complete all-pass record derives the permit consumed by one atomic publication transition.

我们评估了其第四个有界语义冻结（SF-4），这是一种为可替换绑定而设计的固定配置文件规范。六项义务涵盖了证据、运行与工件、测量披露、授权、表面对应关系以及生命周期连续性。每一项义务都会产生一个目标绑定的见证、局部反例或局部不可验证性；各项之间不可相互替代。只有一份全新的、完整的全通过记录，才能获得单次原子发布转换所需的许可。

We use identity vectors, adversarial cases, finite models, and historical implementations. Ten models explored 110,764 safe reachable states; 76 unsafe configurations produced the expected violation or observer countermodel. A reader surface passing its correspondence check cannot authorize publication unless the accepted record admits that surface. SF-4 separates evidence horizon from verification time and rejects an authentic but causally invalid authorization.

我们使用了身份向量、对抗案例、有限模型和历史实现。十个模型探索了 110,764 个安全可达状态；76 个不安全配置产生了预期的违规或观察者反模型。如果读者界面通过了对应性检查，但被接受的记录不承认该界面，则无法授权发布。SF-4 将证据范围与验证时间分离开来，并拒绝了虽然真实但因果无效的授权。

A historical predecessor path reproduced 17 frozen authorization-successor outcomes. A later in-house, instance-blind test of known case classes matched all 183 scored expectations; same-host package execution reproduced its 240 archived observations. Results support internal coherence, bounded safety, fault sensitivity, and limited constructibility, but not factual truth, general refinement, blind interoperability, field efficacy, or standards status.

一条历史前驱路径重现了 17 个冻结的授权后继结果。随后进行的内部、实例盲测中，已知案例类别的测试匹配了所有 183 项评分预期；同主机包执行重现了其 240 项存档观察结果。研究结果支持了内部一致性、有界安全性、故障敏感性和有限的可构建性，但并不支持事实真理性、通用细化、盲目互操作性、现场有效性或标准地位。