{
  "abstract": "A human operator and an automated system can each perform strictly as intended, while the action reaching physical consequence no longer rests on the conditions the human examined. Because system state updates, human deliberation, and physical intervention windows proceed along three independent timescales—the System's Clock, the Human's Clock, and the Consequence's Clock—review completion does not by itself establish continuing applicability. An earlier judgment may remain correct on its original basis even when support for its application to a revised candidate action has become unresolved.\n\nThis conceptual working paper develops that problem in two distinct parts. Part I presents the originating Three-Clock problem and distinguishes three operational boundary problems often flattened into \"delay\": recognition, availability, and consequential reach. Part II offers an independent proposed formal extension that explores one way in which selected aspects of the Three-Clock boundary might be represented and examined at commit time. Extending classical concurrency and time-of-check-to-time-of-use (TOCTOU) concepts across the human-system boundary, Part II models human review as a state- and scope-bound warrant evaluated under trajectory equivalence, model-relative coverage, bounded staleness, independent frame qualification, and pre-authorized bounded fallbacks, clarifying both what formal release conditions can establish within a model and what remains dependent on external qualification.",
  "abstract_shown": true,
  "affiliations": [
    "Independent",
    "ENTRUST AI"
  ],
  "article_type": null,
  "arxiv": null,
  "author_total": 2,
  "authors": [
    {
      "affs": [
        0
      ],
      "name": "Minas Papagiannopoulos"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        1
      ],
      "name": "Abraham Chachamovits"
    }
  ],
  "bibtex": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/dkcvpyd9e1ve0.bib",
  "cited_by": 0,
  "doi": "10.5281/zenodo.23603977",
  "fulltext_url": null,
  "id": "dkcvpyd9e1ve0",
  "issns": [],
  "landing_url": "https://zenodo.org/records/23603977",
  "language": "eng",
  "licence": "CC-BY-4.0",
  "licence_label": "CC BY 4.0",
  "licence_source": "article",
  "licence_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "metadata_licence": null,
  "native_subjects": [],
  "openalex": null,
  "pdf_url": "https://zenodo.org/api/records/23603977/files/Three_Clocks_Working_Paper.pdf/content",
  "pmcid": null,
  "pmid": null,
  "published": "2026-10-23",
  "publisher": null,
  "ris": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/dkcvpyd9e1ve0.ris",
  "sources": [
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-11-06T12:20:55Z",
      "native_id": "23603977",
      "source": "zenodo",
      "url": "https://zenodo.org/records/23603977"
    }
  ],
  "subjects": [],
  "title": "Continuing Applicability and the Three-Clock Boundary: A Conceptual Working Paper with a Proposed Formal Extension for Commit-Time Warrant Evaluation",
  "title_text": "Continuing Applicability and the Three-Clock Boundary: A Conceptual Working Paper with a Proposed Formal Extension for Commit-Time Warrant Evaluation",
  "type": "preprint",
  "updated_at": "2026-11-06T12:20:55Z",
  "url": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/dkcvpyd9e1ve0",
  "venue": "Zenodo",
  "versions": []
}