OpenKedge: Governing Agentic Mutation with Execution-Bound Safety and Evidence Chains
arXiv AIArchived Apr 13, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2604.08601v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The rise of autonomous AI agents exposes a fundamental flaw in API-centric architectures: probabilistic systems directly execute state mutations without sufficient context, coordination, or safety guarantees. We introduce OpenKedge, a protocol that redefines mutation as a governed process rather than an immediate consequence of API invocation. OpenKedge requires actors to submit declarative intent proposals, which are evaluated against deterministi
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 7 Apr 2026]
OpenKedge: Governing Agentic Mutation with Execution-Bound Safety and Evidence Chains
Jun He, Deying Yu
The rise of autonomous AI agents exposes a fundamental flaw in API-centric architectures: probabilistic systems directly execute state mutations without sufficient context, coordination, or safety guarantees. We introduce OpenKedge, a protocol that redefines mutation as a governed process rather than an immediate consequence of API invocation. OpenKedge requires actors to submit declarative intent proposals, which are evaluated against deterministically derived system state, temporal signals, and policy constraints prior to execution. Approved intents are compiled into execution contracts that strictly bound permitted actions, resource scope, and time, and are enforced via ephemeral, task-oriented identities. This shifts safety from reactive filtering to preventative, execution-bound enforcement. Crucially, OpenKedge introduces an Intent-to-Execution Evidence Chain (IEEC), which cryptographically links intent, context, policy decisions, execution bounds, and outcomes into a unified lineage. This transforms mutation into a verifiable and reconstructable process, enabling deterministic auditability and reasoning about system behavior. We evaluate OpenKedge across multi-agent conflict scenarios and cloud infrastructure mutations. Results show that the protocol deterministically arbitrates competing intents and cages unsafe execution while maintaining high throughput, establishing a principled foundation for safely operating agentic systems at scale.
Comments: 17 pages, 3 figures, 2 tables
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
Cite as: arXiv:2604.08601 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2604.08601v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.08601
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Jun He [view email]
[v1] Tue, 7 Apr 2026 22:51:08 UTC (29 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-04
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.LG
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)