Autonomy Preservation

1. Hypothesis

A purpose-limited, evidence-backed and revocable approach to autonomy preservation, with explicit authority boundaries and human-readable controls, will improve user agency, reduce misuse and increase decision legitimacy compared with opaque, bundled or non-revocable approaches.

2. Experiment design

Design: Mixed-method human-agency assurance study combining controlled task testing, real-world workflow observation, rights-impact review and adversarial misuse evaluation focused on Autonomy Preservation Methods: policy and standards analysis; consent-flow mapping; identity and access-control testing; user research; threat modelling; adversarial simulation; usability and comprehension testing; audit-log analysis; rights-impact assessment; methods adapted specifically to Autonomy Preservation Independent variables: assurance level; disclosure quality; consent granularity; authority scope; revocation design; human review; auditability; data minimisation; implementation context Dependent variables: comprehension; accuracy; authority fidelity; misuse rate; user control; revocation success; appeal success; trust; privacy impact Confounders: digital literacy; disability; language; urgency; power imbalance; age; service dependency; legal context; prior trust; document availability Measures: comprehension testing; task completion; false acceptance and rejection; scope violations; revocation latency; appeal outcomes; subgroup disparity; user-reported agency; privacy impact Success criteria: Clear and lawful authority; high user comprehension; successful revocation; low false acceptance and rejection; no hidden scope expansion; no disproportionate subgroup harm; traceable evidence; accessible appeal and recovery. Failure conditions: Consent is not understood or freely given; identity assurance creates exclusion; delegation or access exceeds intended scope; revocation fails; records cannot be audited; automated action cannot be contested; privacy or rights harm exceeds benefit.

3. Seed result / current evidence

DEFENSIBLE SEED RESULT — NON-EMPIRICAL. The current evidence supports Autonomy Preservation as a testable research proposition. Problem basis: Autonomy Preservation is often implemented through complex interfaces, weak evidence, implied authority or broad permissions that do not reliably reflect the person’s intention, capacity or continuing consent. Directional expectation: If supported, the proposed approach should improve comprehension; accuracy; authority fidelity; misuse rate; user control; revocation success; appeal success; trust; privacy impact, reduce disputes and unauthorised action, and preserve access, privacy, fairness and accountable human control. Proposed observations: comprehension testing; task completion; false acceptance and rejection; scope violations; revocation latency; appeal outcomes; subgroup disparity; user-reported agency; privacy impact. Seed data profile: Evidence Strength 10/100; Confidence 25/100; Maturity 20/100; Overall Health 35/100; Novelty 75/100; Strategic Importance 95/100. Evidence boundary: No validated results yet.; experiments 0, studies 0, participants 0. This is suitable for protocol formation and baseline comparison, not as a finding of effect.

4. Seed conclusion

DEFENSIBLE SEED CONCLUSION — PROVISIONAL. Autonomy Preservation warrants structured testing because the CSV identifies a defined problem, falsifiable hypothesis, measurable outcomes and relevant literature foundations. The present position is that “A purpose-limited, evidence-backed and revocable approach to autonomy preservation, with explicit authority boundaries and human-readable controls, will improve user agency, reduce misuse and increase decision legitimacy compared with opaque, bundled or non-revocable approaches.” is plausible and decision-relevant, but unvalidated. Proceed to controlled testing against the stated success and failure conditions. Confirm, narrow or reject this seed after effect sizes, uncertainty, subgroup outcomes, adverse effects, persistence and handback performance are observed.

Prior-art search performed before starting

PRIOR-ART SEED BASELINE — PARTIAL. The CSV records these literature domains: Privacy law; digital identity; verifiable credentials; informed consent; access control; human rights; administrative law; delegation; identity fraud; literature specific to Autonomy Preservation. It also records: OECD AI Principles — https://oecd.ai/; UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI — https://www.unesco.org/; EU AI Act — https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/; Australian Human Rights Commission — https://humanrights.gov.au/. Evidence register status: “Seeded; authoritative source register initiated; empirical evidence not yet ingested”. This is defensible as a starting prior-art inventory, but not as proof of a completed systematic search because search dates, databases, exact queries, reviewer, result counts, screening decisions, claim mapping and a replayable receipt are absent.

Prior-art material named: Existing literature: Privacy law; digital identity; verifiable credentials; informed consent; access control; human rights; administrative law; delegation; identity fraud; literature specific to Autonomy Preservation. References: OECD AI Principles — https://oecd.ai/; UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI — https://www.unesco.org/; EU AI Act — https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/; Australian Human Rights Commission — https://humanrights.gov.au/

Critical gap / next action

Create and attach a dated prior-art search log; lock the protocol; execute the proposed study; link raw data and analysis; then replace the results and conclusion placeholders with evidence-bounded findings.