Assessment method

Practical Human Control

Can the record establish that assigned human authority actually reached execution?

Event-control chain

Practical Human Control tests six connected conditions that must remain intact for assigned human authority to affect execution.

Information access
Comprehension capacity
Intervention authority
Intervention feasibility
Exercised judgment
Execution propagation

All required stages supportedPASSAt least one required stage unsupportedFAILNone unsupported; partial or indeterminate evidence remainsUNRESOLVED

No numeric control score is produced.

Evidence requirements

Stage	Documentary question	Minimum record
Information access	Did the person receive the relevant information?	Timestamped delivery, interface, or access record
Comprehension capacity	Could the person interpret what was shown?	Training, explanation, test, or reasoning record
Intervention authority	Could the person alter the decision?	Delegation, procedure, or permission record
Intervention feasibility	Could that authority actually be used in time?	Timing, workload, access, staffing, or latency record
Exercised judgment	Did a human judgment actually occur?	Approve, reject, modify, stop, or escalate record
Execution propagation	Did that judgment reach execution?	Linked execution or institutional action record

Evidence states

S · SupportedDirect, contemporaneous evidence satisfies the condition.

P · Partially supportedSome required elements are present; a material gap remains.

U · UnsupportedEvidence contradicts the condition or shows it was absent.

I · IndeterminateThe packet does not contain enough evidence to decide.

O · Outside scopeThe proposition does not apply within the declared boundary.

Event-control rule

PASS

Every required stage is Supported.

FAIL

At least one required stage is Unsupported.

UNRESOLVED

No required stage is Unsupported, but at least one is Partially Supported or Indeterminate.

Numeric score

None.

Current public application

Three purposively selected historical cases · One assessor · No case passed.
Historical case	Case-level result
Oko, 1983	UNRESOLVED
Patriot ZG710, 2003	FAIL
Patriot F/A-18C, 2003	FAIL

Limits

What this supports

Method demonstration under selected historical evidence conditions.

What this does not establish

Prevalence
Independent reliability
Causal effect
Transfer to contemporary AI systems

Corrections preserve the record

Correction record

Oko / six event-level stages

v0.3.0
● Supported

v0.6.0
◐ Partially supported

The direct-and-contemporaneous evidence rule changed the classification of all six stages. The historical packet was unchanged; no new historical evidence was introduced. The earlier result remains preserved.

Version history

The current research release belongs to the broader Trust, Autonomy & Evidence architecture. Each result must remain attached to the method, evidence packet, and interpretive rule that produced it.

Open normalization gate: reconcile publication identity, release history, evidence cutoffs, frozen findings, current findings, corrections, and DOI relationships.

Artifacts & provenance

Source figures, assessment-data links, correction history, and version-specific publication links are available on the TAE research page. Full research admission remains open.

Provisional record transcribed from the controlling design conversation. These values preserve the design baseline; current primary-source verification and admission to the public Registry remain pending.