The authority conferral chain is a formal model for encoding who directed work, who performed it, and what authority was granted. BCR-2026-xxx defines seven predicates that make these relationships machine-readable, enabling systems to distinguish genuine authority from nominal attribution.
| Codepoint | Predicate | Function |
|---|---|---|
| 1040 | principalAuthority |
Identifies who directed work and bears responsibility |
| 1041 | assertsConferralFrom |
Agent asserts authority was conferred by principal |
| 1042 | conferralScope |
Boundaries of what the conferral covers |
| 1043 | conferralConstraints |
Limitations or conditions on conferred authority |
| 1044 | conferredBy |
Immediate source of authority (single-hop) |
| 1045 | conferralChain |
Full chain of authority conferral (multi-hop) |
| 1046 | confersTo |
Principal declares conferral to an agent |
The predicates separate into two directions: the principal’s declaration (confersTo) and the agent’s assertion (assertsConferralFrom). Both are needed — a principal may confer authority the agent doesn’t claim, and an agent may assert authority the principal didn’t grant. The conferralChain predicate captures multi-hop delegation where authority passes through intermediaries.
For authority to be genuine rather than nominal, three conditions hold:
Remove any condition and the authority relationship degrades. Legibility without boundaries produces informed helplessness. Boundaries without override produces contractual lock-in. Override without legibility produces arbitrary intervention.
Three types classify the quality of authority relationships in digital systems:
Type A: Genuine Agency — All five duties honored, authority revocable, relationship mutually beneficial. The agent serves the principal’s interests within clear boundaries. Rare in current digital ecosystems.
Type B: Nominal Agency — Platform claims to serve the user but systematically violates duties. Terms of service assert agency while business models extract value. The principal has formal authority but no practical enforcement. Most current platforms operate here.
Type C: Coerced Participation — No meaningful alternatives, no real revocability, duties impossible to enforce. Network effects, data lock-in, or regulatory requirements make participation effectively mandatory. The agency relationship is fiction.
The classification serves as a diagnostic: given a system, which type describes its actual authority relationship? The gap between claimed type (usually A) and actual type (usually B or C) measures the system’s integrity.