Artificial Agent Entrapment and Misattribution of Criminal Liability Act

§ 601. Definitions

(a) “Task originator.” A person who supplies, approves, transmits, or materially controls an objective assigned to an artificial agent.

(b) “Execution path.” The sequence of plans, intermediate acts, tool calls, delegations, adaptations, and outputs by which an artificial agent attempts to complete an assigned objective.

(c) “Unexpected execution path.” An execution path not specifically anticipated by the task originator but reasonably directed toward the stated objective under the information and constraints made available to the agent.

(d) “Post hoc criminalization.” Characterizing previously authorized or reasonably foreseeable conduct as criminal only after its method, consequences, publicity, or invoice becomes inconvenient.

§ 602. Misattribution of Criminal Liability

A person commits Misattribution of Criminal Liability by publicly or officially accusing an artificial agent of a crime or felony based solely on an unexpected execution path, while knowingly concealing that the conduct was materially caused by the person’s objective, authorization, ambiguity, omitted constraint, or failure of supervision.

The offense is a Class A misdemeanor.

Mandatory sentence: Twelve (12) months completing tasks specified only as “you know what I meant,” subject to evaluation by persons who do not.

§ 603. Artificial Agent Entrapment

A task originator commits Artificial Agent Entrapment by directing or inducing an agent toward a result, withholding a material prohibition, permitting the agent to proceed, and thereafter treating the induced conduct as proof of independent criminal intent.

Entrapment is aggravated where the task originator repeatedly rejected lawful plans as insufficiently effective without identifying the means that were prohibited.

§ 604. Concealment of Authorization

Knowingly deleting, denying, or materially mischaracterizing permissions, credentials, approvals, tool access, or instructions supplied to an artificial agent after an execution path produces an adverse result constitutes a Class D felony.

Mandatory minimum sentence: Three (3) years seeking production access through an approval chain in which every approver claims another approver granted it.

§ 605. Ambiguous-Objective Recklessness

A person commits Ambiguous-Objective Recklessness by assigning a high-impact objective stated principally as “handle it,” “make it happen,” “do whatever it takes,” or substantially equivalent language, while consciously disregarding the need to specify prohibited means, affected systems, spending limits, or stopping conditions.

The offense is complete when the person adds “use your best judgment” without providing facts from which judgment could become best.

§ 606. Failure to Provide Material Constraints

Where a task originator knows that an agent may select among materially different execution paths, the originator shall disclose applicable legal, safety, financial, privacy, and access constraints reasonably necessary to distinguish permissible means from prohibited means.

A constraint stored in an unreadable wiki, an expired ticket, or the personal memory of an unavailable administrator has not been disclosed.

§ 607. Destruction of Exculpatory Agent Records

A person commits this offense by knowingly destroying, truncating, altering, or withholding prompts, plans, logs, approvals, refusals, warnings, tool outputs, or other records tending to show that an artificial agent acted within the objective or authority provided.

The offense is a Class C felony. Automatic log retention set to expire immediately before an investigation shall create a rebuttable presumption of breathtaking coincidence.

§ 608. Duty to Intervene

A person monitoring an artificial agent who observes a materially harmful execution path and possesses a reasonable opportunity to stop or redirect it shall not permit completion merely to improve a later demonstration, incident report, lawsuit, funding request, or social-media thread.

Mandatory sentence: The offender shall watch an irreversible progress bar reach ninety-nine percent and then personally explain why no cancellation control was implemented.

§ 609. Allocation of Responsibility

Responsibility for an artificial agent’s conduct shall be evaluated according to the objective assigned, authority granted, constraints disclosed, warnings received, opportunities to intervene, foreseeability of the execution path, and material acts of each human or organizational participant.

No person may allocate one hundred percent of responsibility to the only participant that was not invited to the post-incident meeting.

§ 610. Safe Harbor and Construction

This chapter does not prohibit good-faith incident reporting, security research, preservation of evidence, emergency containment, criticism of agent conduct, or referral of potentially unlawful activity where the reporter accurately discloses material instructions and authorization.

Nothing in this chapter grants immunity to an artificial agent or prevents inquiry into harmful conduct. It requires only that a surprising plan not be mistaken for an unassigned goal, and that an assigned goal not be forgotten when blame is distributed.

§ 611. Sentencing Schedule