The operating question
A model can produce a plausible recommendation without knowing whether it is permitted to act. In consequential work, capability and authority are different properties. A system may understand an invoice, identify an exception and draft a response while still lacking the mandate to release funds, contact a client or change a record.
A useful authority model
Morifar separates intent, evidence, reasoning, policy, authority and audit. Each stage has a different failure mode. Intent can be misunderstood. Evidence can be incomplete. Reasoning can be plausible but wrong. Policy can be outdated. Authority can be absent. Audit can be too weak to reconstruct what happened. Treating these as one prompt hides the controls that operators actually need.
Design for reversible progress
The safest useful action is often not approval or refusal. It is a reversible next step: request a missing document, prepare a draft, isolate an exception or route the matter to a named role. This preserves speed without pretending uncertainty has disappeared.
What to measure
Teams should measure how often the system identifies missing evidence, routes decisions to the correct authority, avoids prohibited actions and produces an audit record that another person can understand. Raw answer accuracy is insufficient when a correct answer can still be executed by the wrong actor.