Terminating the recursive audit/oversight regress (quis custodiet)

Prove the termination of the insAE4E accountability hierarchy by defining the terminal oversight authority, its scope and constraints, and the formal conditions under which recursive audit and appeal do not regress indefinitely, thereby establishing a well‑founded endpoint for governance accountability in NetX.

Background

The Separation‑of‑Power model distributes oversight, but an infinite regress of “who audits the auditor” remains unresolved without a formally defined terminal authority and proof of termination.

The paper notes that while the design has a constitutional answer in spirit, a formal proof of termination has not been produced.

References

Four open problems remain at the foundational level. The fourth is the recursive audit termination problem—quis custodiet ipsos custodes—which asks whether the accountability hierarchy terminates in a well-defined authority rather than regressing indefinitely: this question has a constitutional answer in design but not a formal proof.

— From Logic Monopoly to Social Contract: Separation of Power and the Institutional Foundations for Autonomous Agent Economies  (2603.25100 - Ruan, 26 Mar 2026) in §7.4.4, insAE4E Population Dynamics and Governance‑of‑Governance

This is why measure two specifies who pays, who appoints and who can dismiss, and why the question of who guards the guardians cannot finally be closed (Section 14).

— Who Can Say No? Control, Accountability and the Pace of Frontier AI  (2610.13340 - Rosenbacke et al., 9 Oct 2026) in Section 9, page 11; discussed further in Section 14