IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2608.30519.html

Authority-Inference Separation in Agentic Finance: First-Line Control, Blockchain Enforcement, and Replayable Assurance

Author

Listed:
  • Hui Gong
  • Michail Samawi
  • Francesca Medda

Abstract

AI agents can select tools, counterparties, and transaction parameters, yet inference should not itself confer authority to execute a financial action. This study develops and evaluates Authority-Inference Separation (AIS), an intent-centered architecture for bounded agentic finance. AIS treats a financial action intent as the control object: a machine-generated proposal can receive temporary executable authority only after an independent deterministic control plane validates registered agent identity, accountable ownership, mandate and risk-appetite lineage, policy version, state, approvals, and exact economic semantics. Blockchain can then enforce the operational representation of granted authority and record portable settlement evidence, while institutional legitimacy, service delivery, accounting classification, and human accountability remain off-chain obligations. Evaluation combines four-domain instantiation, official BIS and MAS cases, a 48-fixture executable prototype, and a public-ledger observability test. Across 36 synthetic authorization attacks, a direct-agent baseline accepted 36 attack effects, a prompt-policy baseline accepted 20, and AIS accepted none; all three accepted 8/8 admissible fixtures. AIS also rejected 4/4 token replays and 8/8 recipient or rail substitutions, withheld completion in 4/4 service-delivery failures, and populated all 13 defined evidence fields. A test of 1,700 recent Base transactions associated with public x402 facilitator addresses shows that public ledgers can evidence settlement and selected authorization parameters but cannot establish institutional mandate, legal accountability, service delivery, or accounting treatment. AIS and blockchain are therefore complementary: AIS decides whether a specific intent may act, while blockchain can make granted authority bounded, executable, and independently observable.

Suggested Citation

  • Hui Gong & Michail Samawi & Francesca Medda, 2026. "Authority-Inference Separation in Agentic Finance: First-Line Control, Blockchain Enforcement, and Replayable Assurance," Papers 2608.30519, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2608.30519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.30519
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He, 2019. "Blockchain Disruption and Smart Contracts," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 1754-1797.
    2. Moll, Jodie & Yigitbasioglu, Ogan, 2019. "The role of internet-related technologies in shaping the work of accountants: New directions for accounting research," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    3. Hui Gong, 2026. "Agent-to-Agent Finance: Blockchain Payments and Trust Infrastructure for Autonomous AI Agents," Papers 2607.00245, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2026.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yuk Ming Tang & Ka Yin Chau, 2025. "Blockchain evolution and management theoretical (BEMT) model based on integrated semantic similarity and co-citation analysis for next generation service industry," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 475-494, June.
    2. Kimani, Danson & Adams, Kweku & Attah-Boakye, Rexford & Ullah, Subhan & Frecknall-Hughes, Jane & Kim, Ja, 2020. "Blockchain, business and the fourth industrial revolution: Whence, whither, wherefore and how?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Han, Hongdan & Shiwakoti, Radha K. & Jarvis, Robin & Mordi, Chima & Botchie, David, 2023. "Accounting and auditing with blockchain technology and artificial Intelligence: A literature review," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    4. Li, Haolin & Cheng, Sirui & Hua, Xiuping & Wang, Yong, 2025. "The mitigating effects of blockchain adoption on supply chain financing disruptions under crises: Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(PA).
    5. Erica Pimentel & Emilio Boulianne, 2020. "Blockchain in Accounting Research and Practice: Current Trends and Future Opportunities," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 325-361, December.
    6. Jiao Wang & Lima Zhao & Arnd Huchzermeier, 2021. "Operations‐Finance Interface in Risk Management: Research Evolution and Opportunities," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(2), pages 355-389, February.
    7. Schmück, Kilian & Schückes, Magnus & Gutmann, Tobias & Gassmann, Oliver, 2025. "Less trust, more truth: Implications and design choices for business models and platform ecosystems in the age of Web3," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    8. Ilya Ivaninskiy & Irina Ivashkovskaya & Joseph A. McCahery, 2023. "Does digitalization mitigate or intensify the principal-agent conflict in a firm?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 695-725, September.
    9. Hitoshi Matsushima & Shunya Noda, 2020. "Mechanism Design with Blockchain Enforcement," DSSR Discussion Papers 111, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University.
    10. Aixing Li & Ke Gong & Jiashun Li & Li Zhang & Xueting Luo, 2025. "Is Monopolization Inevitable in Proof-of-Work Blockchains? Insights from Miner Scale Analysis," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 66(3), pages 1825-1850, September.
    11. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He & Jiasun Li & Wei Jiang, 2021. "Decentralized Mining in Centralized Pools [Concentrating on the fall of the labor share]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(3), pages 1191-1235.
    12. Itay Goldstein & Wei Jiang & G Andrew Karolyi, 2019. "To FinTech and Beyond," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 1647-1661.
    13. Agostino Capponi & 'Alvaro Cartea & Fayc{c}al Drissi, 2026. "The Viability of Blockchain Markets under Discrete Clearing and Paid Priority," Papers 2605.17425, arXiv.org.
    14. Pantazi Marius, 2021. "In order to thrive, first we need to fix accounting and management Then, we must report what matters," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Paradigm, vol. 15(1), pages 723-736, December.
    15. Guo, Li & Sang, Bo & Tu, Jun & Wang, Yu, 2024. "Cross-cryptocurrency return predictability," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    16. Xiaoqian Zhu & Huidong Wu & Yanpeng Chang & Jianping Li, 2025. "Accounting fraud detection through textual risk disclosures in annual reports: From the perspective of SEC guidelines," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 65(2), pages 1837-1862, June.
    17. Pavel Ciaian & d’Artis Kancs & Miroslava Rajcaniova, 2021. "The economic dependency of bitcoin security," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(49), pages 5738-5755, October.
    18. Cahill, Daniel & G. Baur, Dirk & (Frank) Liu, Zhangxin & W. Yang, Joey, 2020. "I am a blockchain too: How does the market respond to companies’ interest in blockchain?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    19. Adriana Tiron-Tudor & Delia Deliu, 2021. "Big Data’s Disruptive Effect on Job Profiles: Management Accountants’ Case Study," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-26, August.
    20. Anil Donmez & Alexander Karaivanov, 2022. "Transaction fee economics in the Ethereum blockchain," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 265-292, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2608.30519. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.