The Two Boundaries: Why Behavioral AI Governance Fails Structurally
arXiv cs.AI / cs.PL|April 2026
TB
Formal analysis of the structural gap in AI effect governance. Every effectful system has two boundaries (expressiveness and governance) that are almost never identical. Rice's theorem proves the gap is permanent for Turing-complete systems. Proposes coterminous governance as testable criterion.
Mechanized Foundations of Structural Governance: Machine-Checked Proofs for Governed Intelligence
arXiv cs.PL / cs.LO|April 2026
MFSG
Five foundational results mechanized in Rocq 8.19 with zero admitted lemmas. ~12,000 lines across 36 modules, 454 theorems. Establishes Governed Cognitive Completeness as capstone. Extraction to OCaml NIF for the BEAM runtime governance kernel.
Effect-Transparent Governance for AI Workflow Architectures
arXiv cs.AI / cs.PL / cs.LO|April 2026
GCC
Machine-checked formalization proving effect-level governance can be imposed without reducing computational expressivity. Establishes seven properties including governed Turing completeness and subsumption asymmetry.
Algebraic Semantics of Governed Execution: Monoidal Categories, Effect Algebras, and Coterminous Boundaries
arXiv cs.PL / cs.LO|April 2026
AS
Algebraic semantics for governed AI execution. Defines GovernanceAlgebra (three axioms) and shows it gives rise to a symmetric monoidal category with verified coherence. All mechanized in Rocq with extraction to verified OCaml NIF.
Governed Metaprogramming for Intelligent Systems: Reclassifying Eval as a Governed Effect
arXiv cs.PL|April 2026
GH
Introduces governed homoiconicity: code-as-data manipulation is pure computation, data-as-code materialization is a governed effect. Machine forms are first-class values subject to structural inspection before materialization.
A six-part work laying out the complete argument: why current approaches fail,
the four laws of governed intelligence, algebraic formulation, proof outlines,
an existence proof via implementation, and implications for the field.