DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18306201
title: Anisotropic Compute and Constraint-First Governance A Public-Safe Structural Paradigm for Stability in Agentic AI Systems

description: Anisotropic Compute and Constraint-First Governance

A Public-Safe Structural Paradigm for Stability in Agentic AI Systems

(Architecture-Only • Non-Operational • No Physical or Cyber-Physical Coupling)

Author: Mark Anthony BrewerAffiliation: Immortal Tek Inc / Brewtanius Ink LLCStatus: Public-Safe Architectural AnalysisVersion: v1.1 (Public-Safe)

 



 

Abstract

As artificial intelligence systems transition from passive tools to agentic systems capable of proposing, sequencing, and executing actions, the dominant challenge shifts from output quality to stability under authority. Many contemporary AI architectures optimize for speed and throughput while relying on downstream software policies to prevent unsafe behavior. This paper argues that such approaches are structurally insufficient for agentic contexts.

We introduce anisotropic compute as a public-safe architectural principle: the intentional separation of fast, exploratory computation from slower, auditable, and permissioned commitment. When combined with constraint-first governance, this separation enables agentic systems that remain capable while being structurally resistant to runaway error, reflex escalation, and unbounded drift.

This paper is architectural and conceptual only. It does not describe hardware designs, control mechanisms, enforcement systems, or physical applications.

 



 

1. The Stability Problem in Agentic AI

Most large-scale AI systems were designed for generation, not authority. In such systems, incorrect outputs are typically low-cost: a fabricated citation or an imprecise answer. However, as AI systems are increasingly embedded in workflows that can alter state—such as modifying configurations, triggering transactions, or orchestrating other tools—the cost of error changes qualitatively.

In agentic contexts, the failure mode is no longer “wrong output,” but premature commitment.

The core issue is structural: in many systems, speculative reasoning and authoritative action share the same execution pathways, timing assumptions, and privilege levels. This creates a latent instability where speed and confidence can overpower verification.

 



 

2. Isotropic Execution as a Structural Risk

Most contemporary compute environments are effectively isotropic with respect to authority: information moves quickly and uniformly, regardless of whether it represents tentative exploration or validated decision.

In such environments:





exploratory reasoning can propagate as easily as verified conclusions,




safety checks are disadvantaged because they add latency,




and there is no intrinsic resistance to escalating provisional states into committed ones.



This is not a moral failing or an alignment error; it is a mismatch between system physics and governance requirements.

 



 

3. Drift as a Measure of Misalignment

To reason about stability, we introduce drift as an abstract metric of misalignment between a system’s current state and its constraint-compliant state.

D(x)=∥x−C(x)∥D(x) = \|x - C(x)\|D(x)=∥x−C(x)∥

Where:





xxx is the current internal state (belief, plan, or proposal),




C(x)C(x)C(x) is the nearest state that satisfies the system’s declared constraints.



Drift is not random noise. It can be internally coherent, plausible, and wrong. In unconstrained systems, drift can accumulate across reasoning steps or agent interactions, eventually producing confident but invalid commitments.

 



 

4. Constraint-First Governance (Public-Safe Framing)

Constraint-first governance reverses the usual order of operations. Instead of generating actions freely and filtering them afterward, the system:





Defines a lawful space of allowed states,




Treats constraint compliance as a prerequisite for commitment,




Treats refusal or non-action as a valid outcome.



This framing does not require new physics or novel hardware. It is a systems-level discipline that prioritizes survivability and auditability over raw throughput.

 



 

5. Anisotropic Compute (Architecture-Only Definition)

In this paper, anisotropic compute is defined as:

An architectural pattern in which exploratory computation and authoritative commitment are intentionally non-equivalent in speed, privilege, and mutability.

The goal is not to slow down intelligence, but to ensure that only certain pathways are allowed to change durable state.

This anisotropy may be realized through software architecture, scheduling policy, permission models, or governance workflows. The specific mechanisms are outside the scope of this publication.

 



 

6. Separation of Exploration and Commitment

A public-safe conceptual model distinguishes two planes of operation:

6.1 Exploratory Plane





Generates hypotheses, candidate actions, or plans




May be probabilistic or heuristic




Explicitly non-authoritative




Outputs are provisional



6.2 Governance Plane





Verifies candidates against constraints




Requires provenance and context




Controls durable or high-impact state changes




Produces auditable outcomes



The essential invariant is:

Exploration alone must never be sufficient to produce commitment.

 



 

7. Temporal Separation of Authority

To prevent reflex escalation, execution may be organized into temporal lanes with increasing authority:





Reflex Lane: fast, reversible responses




Deliberate Lane: constraint verification and drift reduction




Authoritative Lane: irreversible or high-impact commitment



A proposal must pass through deliberation before it can become authoritative. If verification cannot be completed within a bounded time, the system must defer, downgrade, or refuse.

 



 

8. Multi-Source Reasoning Without Consensus Drift

Agentic systems often integrate multiple internal or external signals. Treating all inputs as equally authoritative creates fragility.

A public-safe pattern is to weight inputs by historical alignment and contextual reliability rather than treating them as binary truth. Over time, consistently misaligned sources lose influence automatically, reducing the risk of collective drift without requiring centralized suppression.

 



 

9. Silence and the Right to Stop

A stable agentic system must be allowed to not act.

If no action satisfies declared constraints, or if verification cannot be completed safely, the correct outcome is refusal or no-op. This “right to stop” is not a failure; it is a success condition indicating that governance is functioning.

 



 

10. Implications

Anisotropic compute combined with constraint-first governance yields agentic systems that:





remain fast for exploration but cautious for commitment,




degrade gracefully under uncertainty,




generate auditability by construction,




and resist escalation from speculation to authority.



These properties are essential for AI systems that interact with real workflows, even when those workflows are purely digital.

 



 

11. Scope and Limitations

This paper intentionally excludes:





physical systems or embodiments,




cyber-physical control loops,




hardware enforcement mechanisms,




performance thresholds or tuning methods,




military, surveillance, or coercive applications.



The work is architectural and conceptual only.

 



 

12. Conclusion

As AI systems gain agency, the central challenge is no longer whether they can act, but whether they can act lawfully under uncertainty. Anisotropic compute, as a public-safe architectural principle, provides a way to embed governance into the structure of execution itself.

The future of agentic AI will not be decided by who can compute fastest, but by who can separate speed from authority and preserve the ability to stop.

 



 

End of Public-Safe v1.1