Ownership and Accountability

Purpose

This page defines how authority is distributed between M45 and human engineers.

It clarifies who decides, who is accountable, and what the system does and does not claim.

Authority model

M45 operates under a simple rule:

M45 proposes meaning. Humans decide meaning.

The system:

Humans:

Human ownership of intent

Engineers own system intent.

Specifically:

  • Engineers decide which inferred intent elements are accepted (see Decision Records)
  • Engineers define corrections and refinements
  • Engineers control when intent is considered stable

No inferred intent element is authoritative without human acceptance.

Accountability boundaries

M45 does not:

  • Assert correctness
  • Replace engineering judgment
  • Make certification decisions
  • Interpret standards on behalf of an organization

M45 makes interpretation explicit.

Responsibility remains human.

Auditability

This authority model supports audit because:

Auditors can inspect:

  • What intent was inferred
  • Who reviewed it
  • What decisions were made
  • When and why interpretations changed

Separation of meaning and compliance

M45 distinguishes between:

  • Meaning: what the system appears to be intended to do
  • Compliance: whether that intent satisfies external standards

Decision records operate at the level of meaning.

Compliance assessments may reference decision records, but are not embedded in them.

Why this matters in safety-critical systems

In safety-critical engineering:

  • Unclear authority is a risk
  • Implicit decisions are a liability
  • Lost rationale creates rework and re-certification cost

By recording decisions explicitly, M45 reduces ambiguity without automating judgment.

Key principle

M45 does not aim to be right.

M45 aims to make it clear:

  • What is believed
  • Why it is believed
  • Who decided

That clarity is what allows systems to evolve without losing control.