GOVERNANCE_MAPPING: SUBSTITUTION_GOVERNANCE

Vendor and Runtime Substitution Conformance

Vendor and Runtime Substitution Conformance maps model, runtime, tool, vendor, prompt, and harness substitutions to authority continuity, evidence continuity, accepted outcome continuity, RCCS-M, and ALCS.

BACK_TO: GOVERNANCE CONCEPT_CORE: AGENTIC LIFECYCLE GOVERNANCE AUTHORITY_SOURCE: GAIC WHITE PAPER
SUMMARY

Vendor and Runtime Substitution Conformance asks what must remain stable when a model, runtime, tool, vendor, prompt, or harness changes inside an agent workflow.

Boundary statement

These pages provide author-analytical lifecycle governance mappings. They are not legal advice, legal compliance proof, certification, regulator-approved guidance, procurement recommendation, vendor ranking, or official standards-body guidance.

Lifecycle governance lens

The lifecycle lens treats substitution as a governance event. Evidence, authority, acceptance, review, privacy, and remediation states must remain understandable after the substitution.

Key governance questions

  1. What changed: model, tool, vendor, runtime, prompt, harness, policy, or context source?
  2. Which authority boundary approved or permitted the substitution?
  3. What evidence proves continuity or explains the break in continuity?
  4. Does the accepted outcome still stand after substitution?
  5. How are rollback, remediation, and review triggered if substitution changes risk?

Related lifecycle objects

Substitution RecordAuthority ContinuityEvidence ContinuityAccepted Outcome ContinuityModel Runtime ChangeHarness Configuration

RCCS-M / ALCS relevance

RCCS-M is relevant because substitution requires an expressible substitution record and continuity objects. ALCS is relevant because lifecycle responsibility must remain coherent after the system changes underneath the work.

Enterprise use

Procurement, platform, model risk, and architecture teams can use this page as a non-procurement governance checklist for substitution planning.

Source boundary

This page does not recommend vendors or rank substitution options. It only names lifecycle continuity questions.

WHITE_PAPER_SOURCE_TRACE DIRECT

White paper source trace

Vendor and Runtime Substitution Conformance is traced through GAIC's substitution MRO, RCCS-M, ALCS, and boundary discipline.

The page maps substitution to responsibility continuity without ranking vendors or making procurement recommendations.

Use this mapping to ask which lifecycle object carries authority, evidence, accepted outcome, dispute, remediation, and closure for the governance question at hand.

This source trace is author-analytical. It is not legal advice, certification, legal compliance proof, regulator approval, vendor ranking, procurement guidance, or a claim that MPLP is required.

Chapter 4: Regulatory baseline Regulatory and standards-language context used as cautious mapping input. Chapter 5: Engineering objects Translation from governance language to lifecycle responsibility objects. Chapter 6: Missing Regulatory Objects The MRO object layer for authority, evidence, acceptance, substitution, and closure. RCCS-M MRO-adjusted regulatory coverage for lifecycle responsibility objects. ALCS Lifecycle conformance lens across intent, authority, evidence, acceptance, and closure. Publication boundary Non-legal, non-certification, non-ranking, and non-procurement boundary. MRO-15: Substitution conformance Vendor, model, or runtime substitution as a lifecycle responsibility object.
GAIC white paper hubMissing Regulatory ObjectsRCCS-MALCS