PAT-0100
Authority Collision
A structural condition where multiple authorities claim governance over the same region without a declared precedence or resolution rule.
Primary Lenses
Conflict Lens
Detects mutually incompatible constraints, claims, states, or declarations that cannot be simultaneously satisfied.
Lens Application
The Conflict Lens is a primary inspection mechanism for Authority Collision because it examines where multiple authorities issue incompatible claims, constraints, or declarations over the same governed space. It helps reveal whether governance responsibilities, enforcement powers, or decision rights collide without a visible resolution rule.
Inspect For
- Overlapping jurisdictional claims
- Conflicting mandates or directives
- Missing precedence or escalation rules
- Competing enforcement authority
Avoid
Treat disagreement between authorities as an inspection signal, not confirmation of Authority Collision, until the specific incompatible claims and missing resolution mechanisms are identified.
Authority Overlay Lens
Maps declared authority hierarchies onto observed structure to detect absence, override, or conflict.
Lens Application
The Authority Overlay Lens is a primary inspection mechanism for Authority Collision because it maps stated governance relationships against actual structural control. It helps identify where multiple authorities govern the same region, where hierarchy is missing, or where observed override behavior conflicts with declared authority.
Inspect For
- Overlapping authority claims over the same governed region
- Missing precedence rules between governing actors
- Observed override behavior that conflicts with declared hierarchy
- Declared authority structures that do not match actual control
Avoid
Treat overlapping authority as an inspection signal, not confirmation of Authority Collision, until the conflicting claims and missing resolution rule are identified.
Secondary Lenses
Reconciliation Lens
Evaluates whether structural changes align with declared authority updates, version changes, or reconciliation rules.
Lens Application
The Reconciliation Lens applies indirectly to Authority Collision by inspecting whether shared or overlapping authority claims have been reconciled through explicit structural updates. It can surface gaps where governance changes, authority versions, or handoff rules fail to align, supporting inspection of a possible unresolved authority conflict.
Inspect For
- Conflicting authority versions governing the same region
- Missing reconciliation rules after authority changes
- Structural updates without matching governance updates
- Unclear handoff, precedence, or override records
Avoid
Treat reconciliation gaps as inspection signals, not confirmation that Authority Collision is present.
Invariant Lens
Verifies that declared invariants are structurally enforceable and not contradicted by observed structure.
Lens Application
The Invariant Lens applies indirectly to Authority Collision by examining whether required governance invariants still hold when multiple authorities govern the same region. It can surface stress points where enforcement assumptions, precedence expectations, or consistency requirements are undermined by unresolved authority overlap.
Inspect For
- Invariants depending on a single governing authority
- Conflicting rules applied to the same governed region
- Missing precedence or escalation conditions
- Enforcement paths blocked by overlapping authority claims
Avoid
Treat invariant tension as a supporting inspection signal, not confirmation that Authority Collision exists.
Primary Issue Matches
Agent Gets Conflicting Tool Authority
An agent receives conflicting authority signals about whether, when, or how it may use a tool, connector, function, or integration.
Conflicting Instructions From Different Authorities
Instructions from different sources, roles, policies, prompts, tools, or workflow authorities conflict without a clear rule for which one governs.
Human Review and Automation Disagree
A human review result and an automated AI or workflow result disagree without a declared rule for resolving the difference.
Permissions Conflict After Being Combined
Permissions, approvals, roles, policies, or authority rules that seem valid separately conflict when combined in the same workflow or AI action.
Same Case Has Conflicting Policies
The same case appears to be governed by multiple policies, rules, or standards that point to incompatible outcomes.
Tool Rules and Prompt Rules Conflict
Tool, connector, function, or MCP rules conflict with prompt instructions, causing the AI or agent to face incompatible requirements.
Supporting Issue Matches
Approval Depends on Output That Needs Approval
A required approval depends on an AI output or workflow result that itself cannot be produced or trusted until approval is granted.
Hidden Rule Overrides Visible Instruction
A hidden, upstream, system, policy, tool, or product rule changes or overrides the visible instruction the user expects the AI to follow.
Parallel Reviews Never Agree
Parallel AI, human, workflow, or tool reviews keep producing different results without resolving into a shared decision state.
Policy Decision Depends on Itself
A policy decision requires the outcome of the same policy decision before it can be made.