Authorization Artifact

Class term of the FERZ corpus. The threshold the record must meet is stated in The Authorization Artifact Test (2026); the reconstruction property in The Authorization Boundary Integrity Model (2026).

Why the concept exists

Most governance systems produce records that a decision occurred: a timestamp, an outcome, a reviewer. Such a record answers the question of what happened. A pre-execution authorization requirement asks a different question: whether a specific proposed action was determined permissible before it ran, and whether anyone other than the system that made that determination can confirm it. The inability to produce a record that answers the second question is the authorization artifact gap identified in FERZ Technical Advisory TA-2026-01, and the record that closes it is the authorization artifact.

The concept exists to keep two objects apart. The verdict is the determination the boundary emits: ALLOW, DENY, or ABSTAIN, over one proposed action, before execution. The artifact is the record that represents that verdict and binds it to everything the verdict depended on. Release depends on the verdict. The artifact is what makes the verdict reconstructable afterward by a party that was not present and does not trust the evaluator.

What the artifact binds

The corpus binds the verdict to six elements. Each is bound to the single proposed action.

1. The proposed action, represented sufficiently to identify what was to be released.
2. The inputs materially relied upon, fixed to their decision-time representations or authenticated references. Binding identifies the evidence used; it does not, by itself, establish its provenance or admissibility.
3. The applicable policy and its version state.
4. The authority chain under which the evaluation ran, including any override authority.
5. The authorization time.
6. The verdict, in the space ALLOW, DENY, ABSTAIN.

Three integrity conditions complete the definition: the artifact binds every listed element to the single proposed action; the artifact is tamper-evident, so that post-issuance alteration of any bound element is detectable; and the artifact permits independent reconstruction of the verdict. Published evidence specifications add the materials reconstruction needs in practice, such as the evaluator version, the canonicalization specification, the structured evaluation trace, and chain-of-custody metadata. Those materials may be carried in the artifact or referenced through authenticated bindings.

The threshold

The Authorization Artifact Test states the requirement in its shortest operational form.

The first prong is emission: the runtime authorization boundary must emit the action-bound verdict, represented in an authorization artifact, before execution of the action it authorizes. A retrospective occurrence record does not become an authorization artifact merely because it is complete or tamper-evident. A later record may, however, preserve a genuine authorization artifact. The relevant questions are whether the required action-bound verdict and its bindings existed before release and whether an independent party can reconstruct the determination from the preserved evidence.

The second prong is reconstruction: an independent third party must be able to reproduce the verdict from the artifact and its bound materials, under a declared replay mode, without observing the governed system, replaying it, inspecting its internal states, or asking the vendor what the verdict meant.

The Authorization Artifact Test specifies independent reconstruction under a declared replay mode. In State-Replay, reconstruction reproduces the canonical authorization artifact byte for byte, with the identical artifact hash. In Protocol-Replay, an independent verifier deterministically re-evaluates the frozen decision materials under the declared protocol; the reconstructed artifact need not be byte-identical, but the verdict must match. The Five Tests Standard separately requires independent reconstruction under the declared mode. Passing the Authorization Artifact Test alone does not establish full ABIM Replay Integrity or conformance with the Five Tests Standard.

Binding is not admissibility

The authorization artifact binds the inputs used by the verdict and may carry evidence concerning their origin, integrity, freshness, and other admissibility conditions. Binding those inputs does not establish that the applicable conditions were satisfied. Input Integrity requires a separate, supported conclusion concerning decision-time admissibility. Provenance establishes origin, not truth.

Reconstruction therefore establishes exactly one thing: that the same bound inputs, under the same policy and version state, produce the same verdict. It does not establish that the policy was correct or that the action was wise. That is the difference between demonstrating that authorization occurred and describing that it did.

Integrity properties and register

The doctrine requires an authorization artifact to be tamper-evident and independently reconstructable from its bound decision materials. Those properties do not establish the cryptographic, signing, or key-management capabilities of any particular implementation. The integrity mechanisms and evidence necessary to support a deployment-specific assurance claim must be separately specified and evaluated.

Authorization artifact is the FERZ doctrine-level class term. A Proof-Carrying Decision is one standard-specific implementation form of an authorization artifact under the Five Tests Standard. The terminology identifies different levels of specification, not interchangeable definitions. An implementation must satisfy the applicable artifact and evidence requirements; its name does not establish conformance.

What this concept is not

Related concepts

Frequently asked questions

References

@misc{ferz2026authzartifact,
 author = {{FERZ, Inc.}},
 title = {Authorization Artifact},
 year = {2026},
 url = {https://ferz.ai/governance/concepts/authorization-artifact}
}