{
  "canonicalUrl": "https://xn--mwe.com/contradictions/machine-speed-defense-versus-deliberate-authorization/",
  "claimStatus": "PROJECT DOCTRINE",
  "correctionStatus": "CURRENT K05 RELEASE",
  "id": "CON-K04-STRAT-013",
  "lastReviewed": "2026-08-16",
  "machineRecordUrl": "https://xn--mwe.com/data/contradictions/machine-speed-defense-versus-deliberate-authorization.json",
  "name": "Machine-speed defense versus deliberate authorization",
  "propositionA": "Machine-speed attacks can require defensive action before a human can review each event.",
  "propositionB": "High-consequence action requires legal authority, safety analysis, and accountability that cannot be invented by the responding model.",
  "relationship": "LATENCY REQUIREMENT VERSUS AUTHORITY REQUIREMENT",
  "releaseId": "K12-2026-08-16",
  "researchCutoff": "2026-08-16",
  "resolution": "Approve bounded, reversible internal actions in advance; retain separate authorization for external, destructive, or force-related effects.",
  "resolutionStatus": "PROJECT DOCTRINE",
  "slug": "machine-speed-defense-versus-deliberate-authorization",
  "sourceIds": [
    "SRC-NIST-800-82R3",
    "SRC-WH-CYBER-CRIME-MEMO-2026"
  ],
  "sourceRevalidatedAt": "2026-08-15T23:00:00Z",
  "topic": "autonomous-cyber-defense",
  "type": "Contradiction"
}