The Axiomatic Theory of Protocol Governance, Federated Constitutional Resilience and Computational Economic Sovereignty

Abstract This paper develops an axiomatic framework for distinguishing Artificial Intelligence Governance from Protocol Governance and for examining their complementary roles in the constitutional, institutional, and economic architecture of AI-native societies. Building upon the ANOA (AI-Native Organizational Architecture) research programme, the study investigates the structural limitations of fragmented computational systems, including incompatible authorization mechanisms, institutional dependencies, agentic cybersecurity risks, correlated infrastructure failures, and vulnerabilities in computational economic coordination. The paper proposes Federated Constitutional Resilience as an architectural principle through which autonomous institutions may preserve legitimate authority, interoperable execution, systemic continuity, and accountable human control under specified disturbances. Particular attention is given to deterministic policy enforcement, federated mandate verification, institutional autonomy, cybersecurity, agentic AI security, fault containment, operational recovery, and the preservation of critical economic functions. The research further introduces the Recoverable Infrastructure Credit Architecture (RICA), a conceptual framework for reconstructing compromised or destroyed digital credit representations while preserving verified underlying entitlements, accounting integrity, and authorized economic obligations. Drawing upon previous ANOA research on constitutional protocol federalism, computational transmission gaps, monetary transformation, systemic resilience, human custodianship, and economic sovereignty, the paper examines how protocol-level coordination may mitigate selected risks without eliminating institutional pluralism or transferring sovereign authority to computational systems. The proposed framework incorporates axiomatic definitions, conditional analytical propositions, systemic failure scenarios, and falsifiable research hypotheses. Its central argument is that computational governance cannot be considered institutionally sufficient solely because systems are operational, technically interoperable, or formally compliant. Constitutional legitimacy, economic integrity, cybersecurity, recoverability, and effective human authority must also be considered. The study does not claim that federated architectures are universally superior to centralized systems or that computational infrastructure can be made invulnerable. Research status: Independent theoretical working paper. Version 1.0. Formal verification, empirical testing, and independent peer review remain necessary. Research programme: ANOA — AI-Native Organizational Architecture. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.24139738