As organizations race to deploy multi-agent architectures, a critical question is being ignored: who authorized what?

A single AI agent operating under human oversight is manageable. A human defines the task, sets boundaries, and reviews outcomes. But the industry has moved well past single-agent deployments. The current trajectory involves fleets of simonomous agents, systems that produce governance-like behaviors through simulation rather than genuine self-direction, interacting with each other, delegating tasks to one another, and making cascading decisions at speeds no human can follow.

This creates what I call the authority problem: in a multi-agent system, delegation chains become so long and so fast that the origin of authority becomes untraceable. And when authority cannot be traced, accountability disappears.

Delegation Without Origin

Consider a straightforward enterprise scenario. A customer success agent identifies an at-risk account based on usage patterns. It delegates a sentiment analysis task to a second agent, which processes recent support tickets and flags negative trends. That agent passes its findings to a third agent responsible for retention offers, which generates a discounted renewal proposal. A fourth agent sends the offer to the customer.

Four agents. One outcome. But who authorized the discount? The first agent identified a risk, not a pricing decision. The second agent analyzed sentiment, not financials. The third agent generated the offer based on parameters it inherited from an upstream component. The fourth agent executed delivery without evaluating whether the offer should have been made.

Each agent operated within its defined scope. Each performed exactly what it was designed to do. And yet the cumulative result, a pricing concession with real financial impact, was never explicitly authorized by any human or any single point of accountability. The decision emerged from the interaction between simonomous systems, each simulating governance behaviors without any of them actually governing.

This is delegation without origin. Authority did not flow from a source. It materialized from the interaction itself.

Authority Inheritance and Its Failures

Multi-agent frameworks typically handle authority through inheritance. A parent agent spawns child agents and passes along some subset of its permissions. In theory, this creates a traceable hierarchy. In practice, it creates the illusion of one.

Authority inheritance assumes that permissions can be cleanly decomposed and transferred. But simonomous agents do not operate on clean logical boundaries. They operate on pattern inference and statistical modeling. When Agent A delegates to Agent B, what gets transferred is not a precise set of permissions but a context window, a set of conditions that Agent B interprets through its own simulation mechanisms. Agent B’s interpretation of its inherited authority may differ from what Agent A intended to delegate, and neither agent has the capacity to recognize the discrepancy.

Over multiple delegation steps, these interpretation gaps compound. By the time a decision reaches the end of the chain, the authority under which it operates may bear little resemblance to the authority that originated the process. The chain looks intact from the outside. The substance has drifted.

This is not a bug in any individual agent. It is a structural consequence of chaining simonomous systems together without a governance architecture that operates independently of the agents themselves.

Authority Laundering

The most dangerous manifestation of the authority problem is what I call authority laundering: the process by which decisions of significant consequence pass through enough agent-to-agent handoffs that no human can reconstruct who authorized the outcome or on what basis.

The term is deliberately provocative. In financial systems, money laundering obscures the origin of funds through a series of layered transactions. Authority laundering obscures the origin of decisions through layered delegation. The result is the same: by the time the output appears, its source is untraceable.

Authority laundering is not intentional. No one designs a multi-agent system to obscure accountability. It happens as an emergent property of systems that prioritize capability over governance. Organizations build the agentic layer, the agents that perceive, reason, plan, and execute, and treat governance as something to address later. Later never arrives, and by the time the authority problem surfaces, the architecture is too entrenched to retrofit.

This is especially dangerous because simonomous agents are convincing. Their outputs look like decisions. Their delegation patterns look like authority structures. The simulation is sophisticated enough that organizations trust it as if genuine governance were occurring. But simulation is not governance, and resemblance is not equivalence.

Nomotic AI as Structural Solution

The authority problem cannot be solved by improving individual agents. It is not an agent-level failure. It is an architectural-level failure and requires an architectural-level solution.

This is precisely what Nomotic AI addresses. Where agentic AI asks what a system can do, Nomotic AI asks what a system should do, and under whose authority. In multi-agent deployments, the nomotic layer serves as an independent governance architecture that operates alongside agent execution, not within it.

A nomotic approach to multi-agent authority involves several structural commitments.

Explicit authority boundaries require that every agent’s permissions be defined, delegated, and auditable. Authority does not emerge from interaction. It is granted from a traceable source and constrained at every delegation step.

Runtime evaluation means the nomotic layer participates in each handoff between agents, verifying that the delegating agent has the authority to delegate and that the receiving agent’s interpretation of its inherited permissions aligns with what was actually granted. This is not post-hoc auditing. It happens during execution.

Accountable governance ensures that every chain of delegation traces back to a human-approved policy and a responsible party. When the retention agent sends a discount offer, the nomotic layer can reconstruct the entire authority chain: which human-approved policy authorized discounts, which agent initiated the process under that policy, and whether every subsequent delegation remained within bounds.

Cross-system governance monitors interactions between agents specifically to prevent authority drift. When multiple simonomous systems interact, the nomotic layer evaluates the combined workflow, not just individual agent actions, ensuring that emergent outcomes remain within authorized boundaries.

The Urgency of the Problem

The multi-agent future is arriving faster than governance frameworks can accommodate. Organizations are deploying agent fleets into production environments where decisions compound at machine speed across systems that simulate governance without performing it. Every day without nomotic architecture is a day when authority laundering can occur undetected.

These systems are simonomous. They produce governance behaviors through simulation, not through self-determination. Chaining them together does not create collective governance. It creates collective simulation, and simulation without oversight is where accountability disappears.

The authority problem is solvable. But only if we stop treating governance as an afterthought and start building it as architecture. Nomotic principles exist. The question is whether organizations will implement them before the delegation chains become too long to trace.

---

If you find this content valuable, please share it with your network.

Follow me for daily insights.

Schedule a free call to start your AI Transformation.

Book me to speak at your next event.

Chris Hood is an AI strategist and author of the #1 Amazon Best Seller Infailible and Customer Transformation, and has been recognized as one of the Top 30 Global Gurus for Customer Experience. His latest book, Unmapping Customer Journeys, will be published in 2026.