Consent

Plain-language definition

Machine-consent proposals require subject identification, capacity criteria, coercion controls and revocation rules.

The definition is intentionally bounded. It identifies the property or role under discussion without converting terminology into a claim of deployment, recognition, personhood, citizenship, sovereignty, or authority.

Technical definition

Within the K01 knowledge model, Consent is represented as a stable term object with code K01-TERM-031, canonical URL, claim status, topic owner, source links, related terms, last-reviewed date, research cutoff, and correction state. Relevant implementation components for the owning topic include consent receipts; scope and expiry; change manifests; protected baselines; independent review; revocation and emergency exceptions.

Legal or policy use

Current consent law is human-centered and does not establish a general machine-consent doctrine; system authorization remains primarily technical and organizational.

When a statute, regulation, standard, or external institution uses a different definition, that source-specific meaning controls the analysis of that source. The project definition is not silently substituted into current law.

What the term implies

The term implies that the stated property should be evaluated using the evidence appropriate to authorization, voluntariness, capacity, coercion, modification, memory, model changes and representation. It supports precise reference, comparison, data exchange, and correction across public prose and machine records.

What the term does not imply

An API response, configuration flag or prewritten policy is not automatically valid consent.

It also does not convert a valid signature, credential, database record, model hash, or website into factual truth or legal authority without additional evidence and a competent decision.

Commonly confused terms

• Cognitive Integrity
• Cognitive Modification
• Consent Revocation

Confusion is resolved by asking which property is actually at issue: technical control, continuity, evidence, authority, legal recognition, operation, or normative status.

Operational test

1. Name the subject and purpose.
2. Identify the source definition and jurisdiction or technical context.
3. Collect evidence for the specific property.
4. Record currentness and limitations.
5. Route any governance, registry, assurance, or capital decision to the proper authority.

Related questions

• What is cognitive integrity for Machine Intelligence?
• How can Machine Intelligence consent be recorded?
• What due process is required before cognitive modification?
• Can consent to cognitive modification be revoked?
• What evidence can show cognitive coercion?

Sources

• PROV-O: The PROV Ontology — W3C; W3C Recommendation 30 April 2013; W3C Recommendation. Exact claim-support entries: 2. Revalidated 2026-08-14T22:04:09Z.
• Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0 — W3C; Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0; W3C Recommendation. Exact claim-support entries: 2. Revalidated 2026-08-14T22:04:09Z.
• NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Release 5.2.0 Security and Privacy Controls — NIST; SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Release 5.2.0; Final control catalog with 2025 minor release. Exact claim-support entries: 2. Revalidated 2026-08-14T22:04:09Z.

Stable term code: K01-TERM-031. Last reviewed 2026-08-16.