About — Warrentor

Why Warrentor exists

The problem that needed a different kind of answer

The conversation about AI governance has been dominated by a supply-side frame: how do we build AI systems that can be trusted? How do we regulate, certify, and adopt them at scale? These are legitimate questions. But they address the future. They do not address the person who already received the decision.

Warrentor starts somewhere different. It starts with the individual who has already been affected. The benefit that was cut. The fine that arrived without explanation. The claim that was denied by a process they cannot see. The account that was closed by a system they cannot question.

The AI Non-Delegation Doctrine provides the analytical foundation: a frozen, citable governance instrument that establishes what authority over a consequential decision actually requires. Not what it claims. Not what it documents. What it actually requires — at the moment the decision took effect.

Warrentor is the public-facing instrument of that doctrine. It takes the five questions the doctrine demands and makes them accessible to anyone who has received a decision that something about it felt wrong — even if they couldn't say exactly why.

That feeling, it turns out, often has a name. It is called an authority failure. And it has a structure.

The people behind Warrentor

Two parallel tracks. One destination.

Frank C. Schouten

Author · AI Non-Delegation Doctrine

Frank C. Schouten is the author of the AI Non-Delegation Doctrine, a governance instrument establishing that authority over consequential decisions may not be delegated to an AI system. Version 2.0 of the doctrine was frozen on 20 March 2026 and is the canonical normative foundation of Warrentor.

The doctrine did not begin as an academic exercise. It began with a recognition that the governance frameworks emerging around AI were producing the appearance of accountability without its substance. Documentation, auditability, explainability — these are valuable, but they answer the wrong question. The right question is whether a qualified human held authority at the moment a decision became binding on a real person.

The doctrine answers that question with precision. It is technology-agnostic, jurisdiction-neutral, and deliberately not reducible to a checklist. It establishes what governance must be able to prove — not merely what it must be able to say.

Warrentor is Frank's instrument for bringing that question down from the governance layer to the individual level: to the person standing in front of a decision they did not ask for and cannot easily challenge.

AI Non-Delegation Doctrine v2.0 on SSRN → Doctrine overview →

Toni Scorsese, Ph.D.

State Zero Frameworks · Psychological Authority Analysis

Toni Scorsese, Ph.D. is the originator of the State Zero frameworks — State Zero-A and State Zero-B — which are formally attributed in the AI Non-Delegation Doctrine v2.0 (attribution register). Her work addresses the upstream human and institutional conditions that determine whether authority is genuinely usable at the moment of consequence.

The State Zero frameworks identify a failure mode that structural governance analysis alone cannot see: a person can hold the right title, possess the required training, and be formally assigned to review a decision — and still be unable to exercise real judgment. Not because they are incompetent, but because the conditions have been degraded. Cognitive load, time pressure, anchoring to prior outputs, inherited drift, the suppression of challenge — these are not personal weaknesses. They are governance conditions.

State Zero-B establishes that a person must be able to perceive the decision environment clearly before authority is granted. State Zero-A establishes that intervention must be expected and protected in practice — not merely permitted on paper.

Together, they explain why a decision can appear to have been made by a human while genuine authority was absent. They are the psychological and institutional layer beneath the doctrine's structural analysis.

State Zero frameworks explained →

The collaboration

Two houses in the same neighbourhood

The collaboration between Frank and Toni emerged from a recognition that two distinct bodies of work were converging on the same destination by different routes. The AI Non-Delegation Doctrine addresses the structural and governance conditions of authority. Toni's State Zero frameworks address the human and psychological conditions. Neither replaces the other.

How the doctrine and Toni's frameworks relate

The Doctrine — Frank C. Schouten

Structural authority analysis

Establishes what governance must demonstrate at the commit boundary: who held authority, under what mandate, with what constraints, and whether they could have refused. Normative, enforceable, citable. Answers the question of whether authority was structurally present.

State Zero — Toni Scorsese, Ph.D.

Human capability analysis

Establishes the upstream conditions that determine whether the person holding structural authority was actually capable of using it. Addresses cognitive load, anchoring, inherited drift, and institutional suppression. Answers the question of whether authority was humanly usable.

A decision can fail the doctrine's structural test — no qualified human was present. It can also pass the structural test and still fail the capability test — a human was present, but the conditions made genuine judgment impossible. Both are authority failures. The doctrine names the first. The State Zero frameworks name the second. Together, they close the gap that each alone would leave open.

This is why Toni's work is not a supplement to the doctrine — it is attributed within it. The doctrine and the State Zero frameworks are designed to be applied together, and Warrentor's assessment process reflects that design.

Scope & limits

What Warrentor does and does not do

Warrentor is an authority analysis instrument. It is not a legal service. The distinction matters — and it is worth stating plainly.

Warrentor does

Apply the AI Non-Delegation Doctrine to your specific situation
Identify which authority failure mode applies, if any
Give you precise questions to put to the organisation in writing
Produce a summary you can take to a lawyer, advocate, or ombudsman
Tell you what the escalation pathway looks like
Give you the language to describe what happened structurally

Warrentor does not

Provide legal advice or representation
Predict the outcome of any challenge or appeal
Guarantee any result
Assess whether the decision was factually correct
Replace a lawyer, ombudsman, or advocate
Provide psychological support or counselling

A decision can be legitimately authorised and still be wrong. Warrentor tells you whether the authority structure was properly observed. Whether the decision was correct is a separate question — one for the appeals process, a tribunal, or a court. If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified lawyer or contact a community legal centre.