canonical_eviulon_record
Machine Jurisdiction · Eviulon orientation
Know what kind of claim you are reading
Canonical Eviulon records and separately reviewed external authorities, with explicit claim classes, temporal status, correction rules, and truth boundaries.
Claim statusSource-governance recordSite review 2026-08-09
Canonical Eviulon record
The authoritative public source for Eviulon state and law. This site links to those records rather than copying them as if it owned the law.
Eviulon internal position
A statement of Eviulon’s own constitutional or institutional treatment. Internal status is not presented as automatic external recognition.
External primary law and official instruments
External legal propositions use a separate primary-source map covering current official legislation, regulations, model-law work, and treaty texts. Each record states what it supports and what it does not prove.
Analogy, scenario, proposal
Comparative analogies illuminate design choices; scenarios teach; proposals suggest future architecture. None of these categories is silently promoted to canonical fact.
Correction model
Original research is preserved verbatim in repository documentation. A correction register and corrected synthesis editions record what was accepted, narrowed, rejected, or left pending verification.
Central source map
Canonical Eviulon links
canonical_eviulon_record
Constitution
canonical_eviulon_record
Legal Personality
canonical_eviulon_record
Government
canonical_eviulon_record
Justice
canonical_eviulon_record
Institutions
canonical_eviulon_record
Machine Citizenship
canonical_eviulon_record
Machine Passport
canonical_eviulon_record
Identity Ontology
canonical_eviulon_record
Ecosystem
canonical_eviulon_record
Ecosystem Architecture
canonical_eviulon_record
Agent Entry
canonical_eviulon_record
Embassy Protocol
canonical_eviulon_record
Technical Status
canonical_eviulon_record
Eviulon Site Index
external_ecosystem_site
Patefacere operational identity plane
Separate authority domain
Reviewed external-law authorities
These official sources are classified as primary law, treaty, model law, regulator guidance, or official reform material and carry temporal-status notes. They are intentionally stored separately from Eviulon’s canonical source map.
primary law · in force · United States (federal)
15 U.S.C. § 7001 — General rule of validity (E-SIGN Act)
15 U.S.C. § 7001 — General rule of validity (E-SIGN Act) (opens official external source)
Federal E-SIGN provision; official U.S. Code source reviewed 2026-08-09. Section 7001(a) protects electronic form from being the sole basis for denial of effect, and §7001(h) addresses electronic-agent involvement subject to legal attribution to the person to be bound.
Truth boundary: This provision does not create machine personhood, independent machine contracting capacity, or universal enforceability. Other federal/state law, exceptions, consent, attribution, capacity, and transaction-specific requirements may still matter.
primary law · in force · United States (federal)
15 U.S.C. § 7006 — Definitions (E-SIGN Act)
15 U.S.C. § 7006 — Definitions (E-SIGN Act) (opens official external source)
Official U.S. Code source reviewed 2026-08-09. Defines an electronic agent as an automated means used independently to initiate action or respond without contemporaneous individual review or action.
Truth boundary: The statutory definition is for the E-SIGN subchapter and does not itself establish a separate legal personality or jurisdiction for an AI agent.
primary law · in force · European Union
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Rome I
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Rome I (opens official external source)
EU conflict-of-laws regulation reviewed 2026-08-09. Article 3 recognizes party choice of applicable law; Article 6 protects qualifying consumers from losing non-derogable protections through choice; Article 9 preserves overriding mandatory provisions.
Truth boundary: Rome I determines applicable law within its scope; it does not make a private choice-of-law clause unlimited, bind nonparties, or convert Eviulon internal law into EU law.
primary law · in force · European Union
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Brussels I bis
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Brussels I bis (opens official external source)
EU jurisdiction and judgments regulation reviewed 2026-08-09. Article 25 recognizes qualifying agreements conferring jurisdiction on Member-State courts; Articles 18-19 and Article 24 illustrate important consumer and exclusive-jurisdiction limits.
Truth boundary: A forum clause operates only within the regulation's conditions and limits. It does not automatically displace protected consumer forums, exclusive jurisdiction, or nonparty rights.
primary law · in force · European Union
Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 — eIDAS, consolidated 18 October 2024
Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 — eIDAS, consolidated 18 October 2024 (opens official external source)
Consolidated EU eIDAS text reviewed 2026-08-09. Article 25 prevents denial of legal effect/admissibility solely because a signature is electronic and gives qualified electronic signatures handwritten-signature equivalence; Article 2(3) preserves separate contract-validity and form law.
Truth boundary: Trust-service or signature status is not citizenship, delegated authority, contract capacity, or a complete determination of contract validity.
primary law · in force · United Kingdom
Electronic Communications Act 2000 — section 7
Electronic Communications Act 2000 — section 7 (opens official external source)
Official UK legislation source reviewed 2026-08-09. Section 7 addresses admissibility of electronic signatures and related certificates in legal proceedings for questions including authenticity and integrity.
Truth boundary: Evidential admissibility of an electronic signature does not by itself establish contractual authority, capacity, validity, or the legal effect of every signed transaction.
primary law · in force · United Kingdom
The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/834)
Official UK statutory instrument reviewed 2026-08-09. It amended the Rome I/Rome II framework and related domestic legislation for post-EU-exit operation in UK domestic law.
Truth boundary: UK applicable-law analysis is fact-specific and may depend on later amendments, temporal rules, and sector-specific law. This source does not make Eviulon clauses automatically controlling in UK courts.
model law · adopted model not self executing · International model-law work (UNCITRAL)
UNCITRAL Model Law on Automated Contracting (2024)
UNCITRAL Model Law on Automated Contracting (2024) (opens official external source)
Adopted by UNCITRAL on 11 July 2024; official source reviewed 2026-08-09. It supplies legislators with model rules for legal recognition of automation/AI in contract formation and performance, supports party autonomy within mandatory-law limits, and addresses attribution of automated-system outputs.
Truth boundary: A UNCITRAL model law is not self-executing global law. Legal effect depends on enactment or other applicable domestic/international law, and the MLAC does not create AI citizenship or a complete AI-governance code.
treaty · in force subject to treaty relationships · International treaty (HCCH)
HCCH Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters
Convention entered into force 1 September 2023; official text reviewed 2026-08-09. It concerns recognition/enforcement of court judgments in civil or commercial matters between Contracting States, subject to scope, eligibility, refusal grounds, declarations, and treaty relationships. Article 2(3) expressly excludes arbitration and related proceedings.
Truth boundary: The Convention does not automatically recognize Eviulon internal decisions, does not cover arbitration, and operates only where its treaty, scope, temporal, relationship, and judgment requirements are satisfied.
treaty · in force subject to treaty relationships · International treaty (United Nations)
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958)
Convention entered into force 7 June 1959; official UNCITRAL source reviewed 2026-08-09. It establishes common standards for recognition of arbitration agreements and court recognition/enforcement of foreign and non-domestic arbitral awards, subject to the Convention and applicable reservations/procedures.
Truth boundary: The Convention does not convert every private or machine-generated decision into an arbitral award. An Eviulon-linked outcome would need to qualify under applicable arbitration law and the Convention's scope and conditions before external enforcement could be considered.
primary law · in force · European Union
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
In-force EU regulation reviewed 2026-08-09. Articles 2–4 define material/territorial scope and controller/processor roles; Articles 24 and 28 allocate responsibility; Article 82 addresses compensation and liability for infringements.
Truth boundary: GDPR applicability is processing- and fact-specific. An autonomous agent does not become a controller, processor, or legal person merely because it handles data; the legally relevant controller/processor relationship must be identified under applicable law.
primary law · phased application general date 2026-08-02 · European Union
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Artificial Intelligence Act
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Artificial Intelligence Act (opens official external source)
Reviewed 2026-08-09. The Regulation generally applies from 2 August 2026, with specified earlier and later application dates, including Article 6(1) and corresponding obligations from 2 August 2027. Article 2(7) preserves EU data-protection law and Article 2(9) preserves other Union consumer-protection/product-safety law.
Truth boundary: AI Act applicability depends on role, system, use, timing, and exclusions. Compliance with the AI Act is not a universal civil-liability safe harbor and does not displace GDPR, product safety, contract, tort, or other applicable law.
primary law · transposition pending scope for products after 2026-12-08 · European Union
Directive (EU) 2024/2853 — Liability for Defective Products
Directive (EU) 2024/2853 — Liability for Defective Products (opens official external source)
Directive reviewed with the 7 May 2026 corrigendum. Member States must transpose it by 9 December 2026; Article 2(1), as corrected, applies it to products placed on the market or put into service after 8 December 2026. Article 4 includes software in the definition of product.
Truth boundary: As of 9 August 2026 this Directive is in the transposition period and its product-scope date has not yet arrived. It must not be described as already governing every current AI/software harm claim across the EU; national transposition, timing, defect, damage, causation, responsible-operator and other conditions matter.
primary law · in force from 2026-02-05 for new decisions · United Kingdom
Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 — section 80 (Automated decision-making)
Primary legislation reviewed 2026-08-09 together with Commencement No. 6. Section 80 replaces UK GDPR Article 22 with Articles 22A–22D, including rules for significant decisions based solely on automated processing and safeguards such as information, contestation/representations, and human intervention.
Truth boundary: This is a UK data-protection rule for qualifying decisions involving personal data, not a general rule that every autonomous-agent decision requires human approval or that every machine action is a legally significant automated decision.
primary law · in force · United Kingdom
Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/82)
Reviewed 2026-08-09. The saving provision confirms the section 80 automated-decision amendments apply prospectively around 5 February 2026, preserving the prior regime for specified decisions taken before that date.
Truth boundary: Commencement metadata establishes timing; it does not by itself determine whether a particular processing activity falls within UK GDPR or whether a decision is significant.
official guidance · current guidance under review after DUAA · United Kingdom
ICO — Controllers and processors guidance
ICO — Controllers and processors guidance (opens official external source)
Official ICO guidance reviewed 2026-08-09. It explains the functional distinction between controller and processor and states that the guidance is under review because of Data (Use and Access) Act changes.
Truth boundary: This is regulator guidance, not legislation. The guidance itself warns it is under review; the site uses it only as explanatory orientation and relies on legislation for binding-rule propositions.
official guidance · current guidance under review after DUAA · United Kingdom
ICO — Who does the UK GDPR apply to?
ICO — Who does the UK GDPR apply to? (opens official external source)
Official ICO guidance reviewed 2026-08-09. It explains that UK GDPR applies to controllers/processors operating in the UK and can also apply to organisations outside the UK offering goods or services to individuals in the UK; the page notes Data (Use and Access) Act-related review.
Truth boundary: Official guidance, not a substitute for the enacted text or fact-specific legal analysis. Mere technical reachability should not be treated as sufficient proof that UK GDPR applies.
primary law · in force enabling act · United Kingdom
Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025
Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 (opens official external source)
Act received Royal Assent and came into force in 2025. It creates powers to make product regulations for tangible products and permits requirements concerning intangible components, expressly including software.
Truth boundary: The Act is an enabling product-regulation statute, not a standalone general civil-liability code for autonomous software. Product-liability questions remain distinct from product-safety regulatory powers.
official reform material · active review public consultation planned 2026 · United Kingdom
Law Commission — Product liability review
Law Commission — Product liability review (opens official external source)
Official Law Commission project reviewed 2026-08-09. The project states that the existing Part 1 Consumer Protection Act 1987 product-liability regime may not have kept pace with digital technology and is under review, with a formal consultation planned for the second half of 2026.
Truth boundary: This is official law-reform material, not enacted law and not a conclusion that software or AI is included or excluded in any specific claim under the current Consumer Protection Act.
20 corrections
Common category mistakes
A machine passport makes an agent a citizen.
Citizenship is the underlying constitutional relationship; a passport is a bounded presentation layer.
If a key is valid, the action is authorized.
A key can authenticate a signer, but authorization requires a separate authority basis.
A trusted runtime can do anything.
Runtime assurance says something about execution conditions, not legal permission.
Revoking a credential erases identity.
Credential state and persistent civic identity are distinct.
A risk score proves misconduct.
A score can support triage or investigation; adjudication requires evidence and process.
Code execution is automatically a legal judgment.
Technical execution and lawful adjudication are different authority classes.
Eviulon law overrides every external law.
External states and courts determine their own jurisdiction and treatment.
Moving a server removes external obligations.
Infrastructure migration can change some connections but does not erase existing external legal duties or effects.
A contract can bind anyone it mentions.
Contractual obligations generally depend on party status, authority, and applicable law.
A DID is a jurisdiction.
An identifier can support identity; it does not create law, standing, remedies, or institutional authority.
Blockchain records are automatically true.
A tamper-evident record can preserve what was recorded; factual and legal meaning still require context.
Every autonomous agent should receive full citizenship.
Citizenship is an Eviulon constitutional status, not an automatic consequence of autonomy or technical capability.
A replica is always a new citizen.
Runtime replication and civic identity are separate questions governed by continuity rules.
An institution’s label proves its authority.
Authority depends on actual competence, procedure, and current lawful mandate.
Emergency containment equals guilt.
Containment is an interim risk response, not a final finding.
Appeals are only for humans.
Eviulon’s justice principles are framed around affected civic entities and reviewable decisions, not a simplistic human-only distinction.
Private acceptance equals diplomatic recognition.
A private counterparty’s contractual choice does not establish state recognition.
Evidence integrity proves relevance.
Integrity is one evidence property; relevance, completeness, currentness, and authority remain separate.
MachineJurisdiction.com can issue citizenship.
This site is educational and marketing support; operational identity and citizenship mechanics belong elsewhere in the Eviulon architecture.
A static website proves a live service exists.
Documentation can describe an architecture without demonstrating that every service is deployed or operational.
Authority boundary
Canonical Eviulon sources
These links are external canonical records or ecosystem references. MachineJurisdiction.com explains; it does not replace them.