Why we do not infer intent

Statement

We do not infer intent because inferred intent cannot be proven. Any system that derives intent from prompts, behavior, or outcomes replaces authorization with interpretation.

Failure Mode

Most AI governance systems attempt to determine intent by analyzing prompts, logs, or downstream actions after execution.

This approach fails under scrutiny. Prompts are ambiguous, behavior is contextual, and outcomes reflect model dynamics rather than user authorization.

When incidents occur, intent is reconstructed retroactively. Reconstruction produces narratives, not evidence.

Constraint

Intent is a declaration of authority, not a property of text or behavior. Authority cannot be inferred without introducing subjective judgment.

Any system that infers intent must choose between multiple plausible interpretations. That choice is neither deterministic nor reproducible.

As a result, inferred intent cannot serve as a stable audit artifact.

Implication

If intent must be provable, it must be declared explicitly before execution. The system’s role is to record the declaration verbatim, not to interpret it.

Governance systems that rely on inference will always fail audits that require evidence of authorization at execution time.

Boundary

This document does not claim that inferred intent is useless for product optimization, UX analysis, or research.

It claims only that inferred intent cannot function as an auditable authorization record.