Module 6 · Days 35–40
What institutions look like when authority itself is computable, portable and interoperable — and where the discipline sits alongside the standards already in the field.
7 lectures
Lecture 6.1
An institution whose authority is computable by default operates differently: rules ship as artifacts, human and machine actors share one source of authority, and change propagates through issuance rather than memo.
Read lecture →
Lecture 6.2
Authority does not stop at a border. This lecture examines what is required for artifacts issued by different jurisdictions to be evaluated together without collapsing their differences.
Read lecture →
Lecture 6.3
Computable authority is not the first attempt to make law machine-tractable, and it does not replace the work that exists. This lecture situates it against Akoma Ntoso, LegalRuleML, Catala, the Rules-as-Code movement, and the emerging work on agent identity — what each does well, and the specific gap computable authority is aimed at.
Read lecture →
Lecture 6.5
A discipline is only as strong as its answers to the obvious challenges. This lecture takes the five that recur — that this is just access control, just policy-as-code, unworkable if the encoding is wrong, impossible because law needs interpretation, or unnecessary with a human in the loop — and answers each on its merits.
Read lecture →
Lecture 6.6
Artifacts do not exist alone. This lecture examines registries, dependencies, and what happens when one institution's artifact becomes another's input.
Read lecture →
Lecture 6.7
The discipline needs practitioners. This lecture describes the emerging role: its competencies, its position between legal and engineering functions, and the professional questions still unanswered.
Read lecture →