A proposed authority layer for agent actions

A proposal for defining the authority behind an agent action.

HANRIA is an in-development product concept for a dedicated control boundary between AI agents and consequential tools or transactions. The planned runtime would evaluate a proposed action against delegated authority, mediate access to protected operations, and preserve a structured record of the decision and outcome.

The control gap

Capability and permission are different questions.

An agent may be able to plan, negotiate, call an API, or prepare a transaction. That does not establish who authorized the action, which limits apply, whether a protected credential should be used, or what evidence should remain afterward.

HANRIA is being explored as a technical boundary for answering those questions before and after an agent acts. It is not an AI model, a source of legal authority, or a substitute for sound policy, secure implementation, human judgment, or accountable operations.

Proposed control path

From delegated intent to evidence-rich execution.

The steps below describe a proposed design. None of them is implemented, available, or offered for use, and none has been demonstrated.

Describe the action
An agent would submit a typed description of a proposed operation rather than receiving unrestricted access to a tool or credential.
Evaluate the mandate
The proposed action would be checked against an owner-defined mandate expressing purpose, scope, limits, duration, and approval conditions.
Check the context (open design question)
What technical context a decision should depend on, and what that context would prove, remains undecided and unspecified.
Mediate the operation
Where permitted, the operation would be performed through the boundary rather than by handing the agent the underlying credential.
Record the outcome
A structured record would link the proposed action, the governing inputs, the decision, the operation, and the result.

Owner priorities

Autonomy becomes more useful when its limits are explicit.

The following describes intended outcomes of a concept in development. None of it is implemented, available, or offered for use, and none of it has been demonstrated.

Limit exposure

A narrowly defined mandate could reduce reliance on broad, reusable credentials and make the intended scope of delegation explicit.

Separate policy from the model

A dedicated control boundary could keep critical authorization rules outside a model prompt or a single agent framework.

Preserve reviewable records

Structured decision records could make it easier to reconstruct which inputs and policy version informed a protected operation.

Escalate rather than improvise

Requests outside a defined mandate could pause for an additional decision instead of being resolved only by model behavior.

Retain owner control across tools

A stable authorization interface could help owners apply consistent delegation concepts as models, frameworks, and action surfaces change.

A design thesis for agentic commerce

Agents that transact may need explicit mandates and reviewable evidence.

This section presents a design thesis, not a prediction of adoption or a claim that existing systems cannot address agent authorization.

Agentic commerce may involve software agents discovering services, negotiating terms, purchasing resources, invoking paid APIs, or coordinating with other agents. Wallets and payment rails move value, but existing and emerging rails vary in how much delegated authority, policy context, or software path they express behind an agent-initiated action; this concept explores that gap rather than asserting it is unaddressed.

HANRIA is being designed around a limited thesis: a dedicated technical runtime could connect an owner-defined mandate to a controlled operation and a structured record. HANRIA would not determine whether a transaction is legally binding, commercially wise, factually correct, or compliant with every applicable rule.

Present boundaries

What this concept page does — and does not — claim.

HANRIA is in development. No capability described here is released or offered for use.
The HANRIA name is a candidate under internal trademark review. No registration, completed clearance, or exclusive rights are claimed.
No third-party security audit, penetration test, certification, product attestation, or regulatory approval is claimed.
No cryptographic receipt format, public verifier, interoperability standard, or third-party acceptance commitment has been published.
Hardware-backed protection and runtime attestation are research and design directions, not implemented or certified product properties.
Under the present concept, HANRIA would not hold customer funds or digital assets and is not offered as a bank, wallet, exchange, money transmitter, financial custodian, or regulated financial service.
Technical verification would establish only facts defined by a future specification. It would not establish legal validity, business wisdom, regulatory compliance, or truth outside the verified system.
No described capability would prevent, detect, reverse, or indemnify unauthorized, fraudulent, mistaken, or loss-causing transactions, and no security, fraud-prevention, or loss-prevention outcome is claimed or promised.
This informational page does not offer services, solicit transactions, or announce a release date.
This page is static informational content with no forms, accounts, or sign-ups, and does not request personal information from you. It is intended to operate without site-owned analytics, tag managers, remote fonts, embedded beacons, or trackers; hosting and content-delivery providers may still generate routine request logs, which can include IP addresses.

FAQ

Questions a reader or an agent may have.

Is HANRIA an AI model or agent framework?

No. HANRIA is a proposed, unimplemented control runtime that would be intended to complement models and orchestration frameworks by mediating consequential operations. Nothing described is implemented or available.

What does HANRIA stand for?

Nothing. HANRIA is a coined name. It is not an acronym or abbreviation, and no expansion, derivation, or translation is published or intended.

Does HANRIA make an agent trustworthy?

No. The concept focuses on narrower authority, explicit policy checks, controlled credential use, and reviewable records. Security would still depend on correct design, implementation, integration, infrastructure, and operations.

Are HANRIA records legally binding or independently verified?

No such claim is made. Any future record would need a defined format, signing model, verifier, evidence semantics, and threat model. Legal effect would depend on applicable law and facts outside the runtime.

Does HANRIA custody keys, money, or digital assets?

The present concept contemplates mediating protected key operations without giving an agent unrestricted access to raw keys. Where such keys would reside, and who would control them, is undecided; no key-holding, key-generation, or signing architecture has been specified or implemented. It does not contemplate HANRIA holding customer funds or digital assets.

Is HANRIA available now?

No. HANRIA is in development. Architecture, capabilities, integrations, terminology, and timing may change.

An in-development control layer for agent actions

A concept aimed at making delegated action more explicit, bounded, and reviewable.

HANRIA is a product concept focused on policy-mediated operations and evidence-rich agent execution.