Update 2026-04-22-ai-agency.md

Author: shannona

_posts/2026-04-22-ai-agency.md

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Again, a state legislature has taken the lead on this work. Just this year, Utah
 
 Creating similar duties and requirements for LLM agents, to ensure that they are working for you, without hidden agendas, is a crucial milestone as the AI era quickly dawns. Principal authority should be a model for doing so. We must use it so answer questions like: Who is an agent delegating from? What is it tasked to do? How can it undertake that task in the way that best protects the Principal and their data? what are the constraints place on the agent?
 
-I've suggested some ["predicates"](https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/pull/152) for the Gordian Known Value system that might start to address some of these issues, by allowing users and their agents to record things like:
+I've suggested some ["predicates"](https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/blob/bcr-2026-007/papers/bcr-2026-xxx-principal-authority.md) for the Gordian Known Value system that might start to address some of these issues, by allowing users and their agents to record things like:
 
 * `principalAuthority` — The entity with authority over the work
 * `assertsDelegationFrom` — Agent's claim of delegation from a principal
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ The ghost is visible now.
 
 The question is how we can properly note which work is entirely ours and which is LLM driven. But, it's not even that simple, as LLMs could be trained largely on our own work, rehashing our arguments and knowledge, or they could be built on the summed-up Wisdom of the Crowd. How do we differentiate between those two situations? And how do we give fair notice to readers who may think differently about spending their time reading an LLM-authored piece, an LLM-supported piece, and a human-written piece?
 
-As I said, the problem goes beyond LLMs and is fundamentally about credit in authorship. Again, I've suggested some [predicates](https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/pull/153) as a starting point, with my focus not on the question of AI input, but instead what the roles are in a creative process. Those predicates currently include: Author, Editor, Architect, Designer, Manager, ConceptOriginator, Documenter, TechnicalProducer, Curator, Reviewer, Maintainer, MaterialContributor, Performer, IntellectualContributor.
+As I said, the problem goes beyond LLMs and is fundamentally about credit in authorship. Again, I've suggested some [predicates](https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/blob/bcr-2026-008/papers/bcr-2026-xxx-creativework-roles.md) as a starting point, with my focus not on the question of AI input, but instead what the roles are in a creative process. Those predicates currently include: Author, Editor, Architect, Designer, Manager, ConceptOriginator, Documenter, TechnicalProducer, Curator, Reviewer, Maintainer, MaterialContributor, Performer, IntellectualContributor.
 
 Do we need more? Less? And are these sufficient to also define LLM-driven work on a piece?