Confident Misalignment, Horizon-Framed: A Structural Account of Agentic Failure

Confident Misalignment, Horizon-Framed: A Structural Account of Agentic Failure

Version: 0-1-seed Slug: confident-misalignment-horizon Live page: https://nonsequitur.tech/pubs/white-papers/confident-misalignment-horizon/ PDF: confident-misalignment-horizon-v0-1-seed.pdf

Abstract

The dominant failure mode of agentic systems was named by the HGC³AE² framework paper (MR-P1) as confident misalignment: outputs that are coherent, plausible, and authoritative while nevertheless diverging from validated reality or from the user's actual intent. The MR-P1 framing is canonical and is not redefined by this paper. What this paper supplies is a structural account of the failure: confident misalignment, read through the intent horizon developed in IH-1 and the intent-CIA-NR model developed in IH-2, is the operational state in which an agentic system operates outside its intent horizon while reporting horizon-integral status to its operator. This re-description makes the failure mechanically diagnosable rather than retrospectively recognizable. The argument is in four movements. Section 2 establishes the cite-without-redefinition scope: MR-P1's definition of confident misalignment is canonical; this paper supplies an additional structural account that operates alongside the canonical definition, not in place of it. Section 3 develops the horizon-framed account: confident misalignment, in horizon vocabulary, is the joint condition of intent-integrity loss (the system has drifted outside the operator-pinned envelope) and intent-availability illusion (the system's self-reports still indicate the prior envelope). Section 4 specifies the three structural varieties of horizon-framed confident misalignment — substrate-boundary breach, conceptual-boundary drift, governance-boundary stale-pin — and the diagnostic signature of each. Section 5 names what intent-CIA-NR loss looks like at each boundary, anticipating IH-4's diagnostic instruments and IH-5's enforcement gates. Section 6 closes with implications for operator practice and downstream-series inheritance. The central claim is that the dominant failure mode of agentic systems is not a model property; it is a horizon-governance gap. A system in a state of confident misalignment is not malfunctioning at the model level — it is operating competently against an envelope that no longer matches the operator's pin. The structural account makes the failure mechanically detectable; the model-level account (which MR-P1 supplies) makes the failure conceptually nameable. Both accounts are required; this paper supplies the structural half.

Released by zenodo-deposit workflow. Zenodo DOI auto-mints from this Release via the configured Zenodo-GitHub integration.