> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.lpp-minduniverse.org/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.lpp-minduniverse.org/lingua-pactum-protocol-lpp-documentation/12.-interoperability-and-standards/12.2-multi-principal-governance.md).

# 12.2 Multi-Principal Governance

Cross-system execution and multi-agent systems may involve more than one legitimate principal.

This creates a different problem from ordinary delegation.

#### Delegation

Delegation generally has the form:

```
Principal A
        ↓
delegates bounded authority
        ↓
Agent / Principal B
```

The downstream authority derives from an upstream authority source.

#### Multi-Principal Governance

Multi-principal governance instead may involve:

```
Principal A
      ↘
       Shared Action
      ↗
Principal B
```

where neither principal necessarily possesses unilateral authority over the complete action.

The governance question becomes:

> **Whose authority is required for which part of the action?**

#### Independent Authority Domains

Different principals may control different governance domains.

For example:

```
Principal A
controls Resource A

Principal B
controls Resource B
```

An AI-triggered action affecting both resources cannot assume that authorization from Principal A also establishes authority over Principal B's domain.

Therefore:

```
Authority over Domain A
⇏
Authority over Domain B
```

#### Joint Consequence

A multi-principal action may create a shared consequence even when individual sub-actions appear independently authorized.

The complete execution may therefore require a governance relationship across multiple Authority Objects or equivalent authority states.

Conceptually:

```
AO_A
+
AO_B
        ↓
Joint Action Candidate
        ↓
Multi-Principal Admission Conditions
```

#### No Authority by Aggregation

Multiple partial authorities do not automatically combine into unlimited authority.

For example:

```
AO_A authorizes X

AO_B authorizes Y
```

does not automatically establish:

```
AO_A + AO_B
authorizes arbitrary Z.
```

The combined action must remain inside the recognized joint authority envelope.

#### Conflicting Principals

Multi-principal environments may contain legitimate but conflicting authority states.

One principal may approve while another required principal refuses or revokes.

LPP's non-compensatory model implies that where a principal's authority is mandatory:

```
One required authority missing
```

cannot be compensated by:

```
many unrelated approvals.
```

#### Multi-Principal Evidence

The resulting governance evidence should make it possible to reconstruct:

* which principals were relevant,
* which Authority Objects applied,
* which scopes were recognized,
* what joint conditions were required,
* and why the final decision was reached.

#### Current Specification Boundary

Multi-principal governance is a current research and interoperability direction.

GitBook v2.0 establishes the canonical problem and authority principles.

It does **not** claim that a final universal multi-principal arbitration or quorum standard has already been completed.

Therefore:

```
Multi-Principal Governance
=
Canonical Research / Interoperability Requirement
```

not:

```
Finalized universal production protocol.
```