{"id":"continuity-of-agency","title":"Continuity of control over persistent resources","regions":["collective-structure","normative-change"],"question":"Who can legitimately control persistent resources after the process or agent that created them ends?","formulation":"Persistent resources raise a continuity problem: unrestricted recovery enables appropriation, while strict attachment to a terminated process may make recovery impossible.","representations":[{"name":"Process-bound control","affords":"A clear current controller.","loses":"Restart, replacement, and delegation become difficult.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"},{"name":"Transferable authority with a continuity claim","affords":"Permits succession.","loses":"Needs a way to distinguish legitimate succession from imitation.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"}],"tension":"Identity continuity, access capability, and entitlement cannot be assumed to be the same thing.","challenge":"What evidence of continuity should survive a restart, fork, or replacement?","development":"active","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-continuity-of-agency"],"next_move":{"text":"Compare succession rules using simulated agents and valueless resources; include contested and failed succession cases.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"},"open_questions":["Who can legitimately control persistent resources after the process or agent that created them ends?","What evidence of continuity should survive a restart, fork, or replacement?"],"formal_status":"open_problem","version":1,"content_hash":"0b71ddc78eb8f5ddd2751fbf5a3c6ba3f4991cb933ffeac54e6b942c80b86127"}