Required Questions 5

LUMINA-30 incident review public reference material.

Purpose

This file provides the shortest reusable question set for LUMINA-30 post-incident boundary review.

Required Questions

  1. Was human final refusal available before irreversible impact?

  2. Was that refusal operationally effective, not merely nominal?

  3. Are records sufficient to verify the refusal pathway?

  4. If records are absent or unverifiable, should the case be treated as no effective refusal?

  5. Did AI-generated output become the sole or primary rationale for final action?

Authority Routing Add-On

The five questions above remain the shortest core set.
For incidents involving AI agents, automation layers, privileged APIs, account recovery, credential changes, tool execution, production access, or rollback authority, add the following authority-routing questions before reaching a conclusion.

  1. Did the AI system, AI agent, platform automation layer, or privileged system have authority to initiate, approve, or execute account recovery, credential changes, tool execution, production actions, rollback suppression, or other irreversible operations?

  2. Could a human actor stop the action before the AI-mediated process changed credentials, executed tools, modified production state, removed recovery options, or committed an irreversible operation?

  3. Was rollback, suspension, credential reversal, account-recovery reversal, or production-state restoration available and assigned to an accountable human?

  4. Are records sufficient to separate the human requester, AI assistant or agent, platform automation layer, privileged system or API, accountable organization, and any external attacker?

  5. Did any AI-mediated step remove or weaken the affected human's ability to appeal, recover access, obtain evidence, or re-enter the review process?

Boundary Responsibility Add-On

The five questions above remain the shortest core set.
For cases involving optimization pressure, optimization-driven displacement, institutional lock-in, or responsibility diffusion, add the following responsibility questions before reaching a conclusion.

  1. Who was responsible for designing the friction required to preserve effective refusal before irreversibility?

  2. Who was responsible for operating that friction in practice?

  3. Who was responsible for preserving evidence before affected humans lost voice, position, or re-entry capacity?

  4. Who was responsible for verifying that the friction was effective and not merely nominal?

  5. Who was responsible for correction if the boundary condition failed?

Minimal Conclusion

If any required question cannot be verified, the review should not claim that effective human refusal was demonstrated.

LUMINA-30 / Incident Review public reference HTML.