Institutional Answerability and Authority
Published October 31, 2026 | Version v7
Preprint Open

Empty Occupancy: Answerability and the Ownership of Machine-Mediated Institutional Commitments

Authors/Creators

  • 1. Independent

Description

Empty Occupancy: Answerability and the Ownership of Machine-Mediated Institutional Commitments examines a fundamental philosophical problem arising from institutional AI: a system can convincingly perform the role of a speaker, adviser, or decision-maker without necessarily being the bearer of the commitments its outputs express.

Situated at the intersection of the philosophy of language, social ontology, normative theory, and AI governance, the paper investigates what distinguishes genuine participation in institutional discourse from its computational appearance, and how responsibility persists when institutions communicate and act through automated systems.

The paper's original contribution is a connected framework of Discursive Ontology, Answerability, Empty Occupancy, and Normative Sponsorship. It distinguishes the absence of a commitment bearer from defective institutional ownership, specifies when machine-mediated outputs may be warrantably adopted, and introduces a paired cross-locus verdict demonstrating how an independent AI interface can lack standing while a corporation remains the actual commitment bearer.

The paper advances this framework through four principal theoretical contributions:

  1. A four-relation criterion of Answerability, establishing attribution continuity, challenge-responsive reconsideration, repair competence, and standing-consequence as jointly necessary for genuine institutional discursive occupancy.
  2. A four-status ontology of discursive participation, distinguishing Actual, Residual, Prospective, and Empty Occupancy according to the temporal and normative relationship between an apparent institutional role and its commitment bearer.
  3. The concepts of the Empty Occupant and Apparent Agency Without Local Bearership, identifying situations in which conversational performance creates the appearance of an answerable participant without establishing the corresponding normative standing.
  4. A theory of Normative Sponsorship, specifying five conditions for warranted institutional adoption of machine-generated commitments: epistemic access, meaningful authority, sufficient review capacity, independent rejection, and effective repair. The framework further separates failures of opacity from failures of institutional capture.
The argument develops the related concepts of Remembered Persona Without Binding Continuity, Simulated Recourse, and Institutional Stewardship, explaining why conversational memory, generated explanations, nominal human oversight, and procedural compliance cannot independently establish genuine accountability.

While bounded real-world documentary analyses of Moffatt v. Air Canada (2024) and Australia's Robodebt Royal Commission (2023) remain evidentially indeterminate on stronger local claims, a fully stipulated fictional contrast case (Meridian–Aster) tests and illustrates the framework's determinate paired verdicts.

The paper's central conclusion is that discursive performance is evidence of possible participation, not sufficient grounds for attributing commitment ownership. Genuine institutional authority requires an identifiable bearer whose commitments remain open to challenge, reconsideration, repair, and normative consequence.

The work contributes a substrate-neutral philosophical framework for examining artificial agency, institutional responsibility, machine-mediated testimony, and the conditions under which automated systems can legitimately participate in practices of reason-giving and institutional authority.

Files

Empty_Occupancy.pdf

Files (143.1 kB)

Name Size
md5:2bcc2b29f6a5539aa852df0f27051dcf
143.1 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Related works

Is referenced by
Preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.23151252 (DOI)
Preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.23153024 (DOI)
Preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.23151128 (DOI)

References

  • Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  • Brandom, R. B. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard University Press.
  • Butlin, P., & Viebahn, E. (2025). AI assertion. Ergo, 12, 969–988. https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.7960
  • Cappelen, H., & Dever, J. (2025). Going whole hog: A philosophical defense of AI cognition [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13988
  • Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. MIT Press.
  • Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What computers still can't do: A critique of artificial reason. MIT Press.
  • Egan, A., & Sundell, T. (2026). Learning from machines. In H. Cappelen & R. Sterken (Eds.), Communicating with AI: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 107–130). Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/63302/chapter/573018670
  • Elden, Å. (2026). When responsibility fails to arise: Institutional conditions of action in algorithmic governance. AI and Ethics, 6, Article 341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-026-01204-1
  • Fricker, E. (2026). On the metaphysical and epistemic contrasts between human and AI testimony. Inquiry, 69(6), 2859–2884. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2025.2553297
  • Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Haugeland, J. (1998). Having thought: Essays in the metaphysics of mind. Harvard University Press.
  • He, J., & Yang, C. (2025). Testimony by LLMs. AI & Society, 40(8), 6201–6213. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00146-025-02366-y
  • Heinrichs, B., & Knell, S. (2021). Aliens in the space of reasons? On the interaction between humans and artificial intelligent agents. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 1569–1580.
  • Kirk, R., Mediratta, I., Nalmpantis, C., Luketina, J., Hambro, E., Grefenstette, E., & Raileanu, R. (2024). Understanding the effects of RLHF on LLM generalisation and diversity. In International Conference on Learning Representations. https://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/hash/ 5a68d05006d5b05dd9463dd9c0219db0-Abstract-Conference.html
  • Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.
  • Löhr, G. (2026). Chatbots and speech act responsibility gaps. In H. Cappelen & R. Sterken (Eds.), Communicating with AI: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 305–323). Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/63302/chapter/573019780
  • Malík, J., & Hubálek, M. (2025). Bounding reason: Inferentialism, naturalism, and the discursive agency of LLMs. Global Philosophy, 35, Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-025-09761-6
  • Massaguer Gómez, G. (2026). Assertion, accountability, and large language models. Philosophy & Technology, 39, Article 123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-026-01136-y
  • Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149 (British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, February 14, 2024). https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2024/2024bccrt149/2024bccrt149.html
  • Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Accountability in a computerized society. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(1), 25–42.
  • Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52(3), 381–410.
  • Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. (2023, July 7). Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme (corrected July 11, 2023). Commonwealth of Australia. https://robodebt. royalcommission.gov.au/publications/report
  • Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424.
  • Sellars, W. (1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. In H. Feigl & M. Scriven (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 1, pp. 253–329). University of Minnesota Press.
  • Shanahan, M., McDonell, K., & Reynolds, L. (2023). Role play with large language models. Nature, 623(7987), 493–498.
  • Shoemaker, D. (2011). Attributability, answerability, and accountability: Toward a wider theory of moral responsibility. Ethics, 121(3), 602–632.
  • Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460.
  • Watson, G. (1996). Two faces of responsibility. Philosophical Topics, 24(2), 227–248.
  • Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to calculation. W. H. Freeman.
  • Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Ablex.