The planning interview is human-only by rule, so an autonomous run has no sanctioned way to record that the human delegated it.

The planning interview is human-only by rule, so an autonomous run has no sanctioned way to record that the human delegated it.

Observed in an autonomous run that took one intent from filing through planning to implementation without the human interview. The convention is right — planning is where the human's intent is fixed, and an agent inventing it is the failure the interview exists to prevent — but delegation is a real and legitimate case: a human who has decided to let the agent plan a specific intent on a specific date has made a decision, and the record has nowhere to put it. The only available shape was a free-text line in the decisions log, which is unauditable: nothing distinguishes it from an agent asserting delegation that never happened, and nothing links it to the intent it authorises.

The asymmetry is the point. Every other authority-bearing act in abcd is recorded as a field on the record it affects, checkable by a gate. Delegated planning is recorded, when it is recorded, as prose.

Wanted: a flag on the planning path — abcd intent plan --delegated-by <who> or similar — that stamps the intent with who delegated and when, so a reader of the planned intent can see that a human authorised the agent to plan it, and a gate can require the stamp before accepting a plan that no interview produced. That turns an unverifiable claim in a log into a field on the record it belongs to.

Remedy grounds (2026-09-29)

Why: every other authority-bearing act is a field on the record it affects, so delegation becomes one too and a gate can read it. Rejected: a decisions-log line alone, which the record shows is indistinguishable from an agent asserting a delegation that never happened.