From the hash-bound evidence releases
Recorded claims
Each claim states what the inspected source says, at the recorded location—bounded by its scope and graded by its confidence. Nothing here is a synthesis across works.
The abstract develops a firm-level theory of human-on-the-loop governance for AI agents, modeling oversight as a capacity-constrained organizational resource and distinguishing constitutive oversight from control oversight.
Scope: conceptual theory of firm governance and oversight of AI agents
The conceptual abstract recasts human-on-the-loop governance as an authority configuration constrained by response latency, treats oversight as a consumable organizational capacity, and argues that only constitutive oversight remains solvent as AI-agent throughput rises.
Scope: firm governance, delegation, verification, and oversight of AI agents
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (0)
No in-corpus outgoing citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Cited by (0)
No in-corpus incoming citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- abstract-level evidence only; full text not inspected
- the abstract states that the paper is conceptual and generates no new data
- Abstract-level evidence only; full text was not inspected.
- The abstract explicitly describes the work as conceptual and states that it generates no new data.
- Cross-lane re-find: recorded independently by E1-L02 and E1-L04 (same platform; identity keyed by SSRN id in REGISTRY.md).
Source independence
ssrn-only