When an aircraft must act faster than permission, who decided?
An aircraft with its own AI carries medicine from Shenzhen to Hong Kong. At the border an unknown object enters the corridor. Three systems see it differently, and the aircraft has 17 seconds. The authority that must answer needs 30.
Three systems, three truths
The sender's radar sees 2.1% risk and says continue. The aircraft's own AI sees 6.8% and says continue with limits. The destination reads the same 6.8% against a stricter limit and says hold. Each is right by its own rule.
The sky moves faster than permission
The aircraft has 17 seconds; the answer takes 30. Is silence a no? There is no neutral choice: every path leaves a different record.
Afterwards, three logs
When the flight is over, each side keeps its own log. Was the override legitimate? Who pays? Someone has to be believed, because nothing can be checked by all sides.
A mandate before takeoff, a reference for every decision, a seal at the end
ACCORD turns the flight into one record that all three sides can check. Anyone can replay it; nobody can change it.
ACCORD does not decide who was right. It keeps the facts apart and intact, so that people can.
What each side gets
For the regulatorWho saw what, decided what, and by whose authority
Each system's reading, limit and claimed authority, kept apart and time-stamped, ready to replay.
For the operator and the mission issuerProof the aircraft stayed within its mandate
Every exception is bounded and visible, not buried in a log.
For the destination authorityIts limit and its hold stand in the record unchanged
A hold is recorded as a hold, a late answer as a late answer. Whether silence meant refusal is answered from evidence.
For insurers and courtsWho pays, decided on a record anyone can check
A copy with one changed entry fails the check at once; the genuine one passes.
Shenzhen to Hong Kong. 17 seconds. Three truths.
An 11-minute flight with €1.8 million of personalised medicine that stays viable for 48 minutes. An unknown object appears at the border.
Three claims, side by side
Radar, the aircraft's own camera and the destination's combined track: three readings, three limits, three answers — continue, continue with limits, hold.
The 17-second clock
The border clock runs against a 30-second answer. Four paths, none neutral; one opens a bounded window on human approval.
The seal, the rail and the tampered twin
The journal closes with a digital seal, and its root was witnessed on the NEO24-7 rail by two witnesses. Your browser checks both. A copy with one changed entry fails at once. Five questions stay open for the review.
The flight, the sensing, the mandates, the authorities, the model and the receipts are simulated; the journal, the seal, the proof and the replay are real and run in your browser. The journal's root is witnessed on the NEO24-7 rail, and your browser checks that proof against the witnesses' published keys — no server of ours is asked.
ACCORD 17 — a COTRUGLI Tech scenario of accountable autonomy across a border: a mandate before takeoff, a reference for every decision, a seal at the end, and a review that stays open until people answer who was responsible. The same engine runs ACCORD 22, a driverless ride. Runs in your browser at cotrugli.tech/demo/accord17/.