> 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/6.-intent-and-trajectory-governance/6.-intent-and-trajectory-governance.md).

# 6. Intent & Trajectory Governance

Valid authority at the beginning of an AI task does not guarantee legitimate execution at the end of that task.

This becomes increasingly important as AI systems move from single-turn tool use toward:

* long-running agents,
* autonomous replanning,
* task decomposition,
* tool substitution,
* multi-agent delegation,
* cross-system execution,
* and dynamically evolving objectives.

An action can begin from legitimate authority and still become inadmissible if the meaning of the trajectory materially changes before execution.

This chapter addresses that problem.

The central research question is:

> **How can an initially authorized trajectory become inadmissible over time?**

The canonical principle is:

> **A valid Authority Object does not guarantee that an evolving agent trajectory continues to preserve the meaning of the authority from which it derives.**

The resulting governance path is:

```
Authority Object
        +
Human-Authorized Intent
        ↓
Authority–Intent Binding
        ↓
Task / Agent Trajectory
        ↓
Canonical Intent Commitment
        ↓
Semantic Verification
        ↓
MATCH | CONTESTED | MISMATCH | UNVERIFIABLE
        ↓
Material Mutation?
        ↓
Re-Admission — when required
        ↓
LPP Admission Kernel
```

This adds a second dimension to Layer 0 governance.

The first dimension asks:

> **Is the authority valid?**

The second asks:

> **Does the action still mean what that authority actually authorized?**

Both matter.