What must stay true for a decision to remain valid.
A handful of plain conditions describe when a decision is still entitled to the authorization it was given. This page names them as principles — not as a formal rule catalogue with pass/fail logic.
A system can look stable — same outputs, same format, same performance — while the thing that actually justified its authorization has quietly stopped being true. These principles name the conditions worth checking before relying further on a decision.
Identity
The decision being executed today should still be recognizably the decision that was authorized — not a different one wearing the same label.
Continuity
Authorization does not renew itself silently. If the conditions it depended on changed, the authorization needs to be looked at again.
Non-equivalence
Two decisions can look identical on the surface and still not be entitled to rely on the same evidence or the same authority.
Independence from performance
A decision can keep performing well by every visible measure while no longer being the one it was authorized to be. Performance is not proof of continued authorization.
Witnessability
If a decision cannot show what it relied on, who approved it, and when, it cannot be meaningfully reviewed later — regardless of how it performed.
None of this replaces monitoring or compliance. It adds the one question neither typically asks: is this still the decision it was authorized to be?