When Models Acquire the Right to Act-----How Authorization, Halt, and Responsibility Disappear in Modern Systems

This work examines a structural shift in modern systems:models are no longer merely analytical tools, but are increasingly granted de facto action authority. Rather than asking whether models are correct, this document audits how models are allowed to act,how continuation becomes the default outcome,and how responsibility and halt authority disappear across institutional interfaces. The analysis deliberately avoids evaluating mathematical validity or algorithmic performance.Its focus is strictly operational and institutional:who is authorized to let a system continue, under what conditions, and with whose responsibility. Across finance, engineering, and algorithmic governance, the text shows a recurring pattern:conditional truths are silently transformed into operational permissions,model outputs are treated as settlement rather than computation,and “default continuation” replaces explicit authorization. A central claim of this work is that many systemic failures do not arise from incorrect models,but from the absence of explicitly assigned halt authority.When no role is empowered to say “stop,” systems are structurally biased toward continued operation,even as risk accumulates. The document does not propose solutions or alternative governance frameworks.Instead, it provides an audit-oriented framework, including reusable checklists and templates,to expose authorization chains, default behaviors, and responsibility gaps in model-driven systems. 本文审计的是现代系统中的一种结构性变化:模型不再只是分析工具,而是逐步获得了事实上的行动权。 本文不讨论模型是否“正确”,而是聚焦于一个更基础的问题:模型是如何被允许行动的,谁默认它可以继续运行,以及责任与停机权如何在接口处消失。 全文刻意回避对数学正确性或算法性能的评价,仅审计模型在离开其原始假设语境后,如何被接入决策与执行系统,并产生现实后果。 通过金融、工程与算法治理等领域的结构分析,本文指出一种反复出现的模式:条件性结论被默认为操作许可,计算结果被误认为结算结果,“继续运行”被设为零成本的默认选项。 本文的核心判断是:许多系统性失败并非源于模型错误,而是源于停机权未被显性分配。当没有任何角色被授权合法地说“停”,系统在结构上只能选择继续。 本文不提供解决方案,也不提出替代制度设计。其唯一目的,是提供一套运行级审计视角,并通过清单与模板形式,帮助识别模型授权链、默认值与责任断裂点。