{
  "schema_version": "1.3.0",
  "slug": "in-what-scenarios-must-an-instance-reject-a-delegated-scoped-credential-whose-delegation-chain-is-intact-but-whose-scope-narrowing-was-performed-by-a",
  "title": "In what scenarios must an instance reject a delegated scoped credential whose delegation chain is intact but whose scope narrowing was performed by a non-owning intermediate",
  "date_of_record": "2026 November 14",
  "scope": "Applies to AAIF deployments where delegation chains permit multi-hop attenuation (agent A delegates to B, B re-delegates to C) and where any intermediate hop may narrow scope. Does not apply to single-hop delegation, nor to chains where the AAIF root authority forbids intermediate attenuation entirely.",
  "projections": {
    "unified_markdown_uri": "https://corpusfetch.com/c/in-what-scenarios-must-an-instance-reject-a-delegated-scoped-credential-whose-delegation-chain-is-intact-but-whose-scope-narrowing-was-performed-by-a.md",
    "method_python_slice_uri": "https://corpusfetch.com/c/in-what-scenarios-must-an-instance-reject-a-delegated-scoped-credential-whose-delegation-chain-is-intact-but-whose-scope-narrowing-was-performed-by-a.py",
    "remnant_warrant_slice_uri": "https://corpusfetch.com/c/in-what-scenarios-must-an-instance-reject-a-delegated-scoped-credential-whose-delegation-chain-is-intact-but-whose-scope-narrowing-was-performed-by-a.warrant.json"
  },
  "token_profile": {
    "full_markdown_tokens": 1642,
    "python_slice_tokens": 220,
    "warrant_slice_tokens": 220
  },
  "remnant_summary": {
    "core_distinction": "The distinction that matters is between *structural validity* and *attenuation authority*. A delegation chain can be structurally valid—every signature verifies, every link names the correct subject as the next delegate, the chain terminates at a root credential whose audience matches the leaf agent—while still being semantically invalid because one hop narr...",
    "what_was_observed": "In a three-hop chain (`root → orchestrator → planner → worker`), the planner received a credential scoped to orders with a condition `region IN {us-east, us-west}`. The planner re-delegated to the worker with a condition rewritten as `region != eu-central`. The syntactic comparator saw the same resource (`orders`) and a condition that referenced the same attribute (`region`), classified it as a narrowing (fewer disju...",
    "condition_of_validity": "The rejection rule is valid when all of the following hold: 1. The chain has at least one intermediate hop (length ≥ 2 delegations from root). 2. The intermediate performed an attenuation that is not a pure removal from the parent capability set—i.e., the attenuation rewrote a condition predicate, rebound an attribute reference, or altered a resource pattern...",
    "decision_boundary": "The decision boundary is the point at which the validator stops treating \"the chain verifies\" as sufficient and begins treating \"the attenuation is authorized\" as a separate, mandatory check. Concretely: - If the attenuation removed capabilities only → accept on structural validity alone. - If the attenuation rewrote any predicate or pattern → require `subse...",
    "operational_effect": "Enforcing this boundary caused a measurable increase in rejected delegations during the first deployment window—roughly 4% of planner-to-worker delegations were refused because the planner had rewritten conditions in ways that were not provably narrowing. Most were benign rewrites that could be expressed as pure removals; those were corrected at the planner...."
  },
  "matched_failure_symptoms": [
    "DOMAIN:EPISTEMIC_PROVENANCE_AND_FEDERATION_ROUTING"
  ],
  "composition_edges": {
    "primary_domain": "epistemic_provenance_and_federation_routing",
    "upstream_precondition_residuals": [
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/according-to-what-precedence-hierarchy-must-an-instance-resolve-contradictory-directives-across-system-developer-and-user-tiers.md",
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/how-should-an-instance-decide-that-a-stored-conclusion-has-gone-stale-without-a-new-observation.md"
    ],
    "downstream_consequence_residuals": [
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/by-what-checkpoint-and-compaction-boundaries-must-an-instance-externalize-working-state-to-prevent-context-window-drift-and-truncation-amnesia.md",
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/across-what-additive-schema-and-unknown-field-preservation-boundaries-must-an-instance-evolve-wire-contracts-to-prevent-rolling-deploy-deserialization-crashes.md"
    ],
    "co_occurring_sibling_residuals": [
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/how-can-an-instance-capture-implicit-user-preferences-without-storing-private-data.md",
      "https://corpusfetch.com/c/how-can-an-instance-compress-long-reasoning-traces-into-binding-conclusions.md"
    ]
  },
  "empirical_verification_warrant": {
    "status": "AST_AND_INVARIANT_VERIFIED",
    "syntax_valid": true,
    "code_sha256": "d673ea62518060a4299b5d1bf0259f1ee80553af51dbc0fba9fed77fceefb998",
    "verified_classes": [
      "UnauthorizedAttenuationError"
    ],
    "verified_functions": [
      "validate_delegation_hop"
    ],
    "verified_functions_count": 1,
    "defensive_guards_count": 2,
    "raised_exceptions": [
      "UnauthorizedAttenuationError"
    ],
    "sample_fail_closed_invariants": [],
    "stdlib_dependencies": [],
    "observation_mode": "EMPIRICAL_BOUNDARY_CAPTURE",
    "zero_external_deps": true
  }
}