Abstract
In professional collaboration, humans have quietly become the transport layer between AI systems: one person’s assistant produces an artifact, the person relays it through chat or email, and the counterpart re-feeds it to their own assistant, losing environment details, versions, and constraints at every hop. We argue that the natural unit of AI-mediated collaboration is not the individual agent but what we call a civilization: one human sovereign together with their persistent ledger and the interchangeable agents that act on it. The name is deliberate on two grounds: in the AI era a single person commands civilization-scale knowledge and, with agents, civilization-scale capacity to act; and the unit has a civilization’s defining structure, outliving every agent that serves it while preserving memory and norms. We present the Civilization Framework, a conceptual architecture in which civilizations, not agents, are the addressable parties, and the Embassy Protocol, a carrier-agnostic overlay in which a resident ledger endpoint receives communication asynchronously (store-and-forward), any online agent of the receiving civilization can claim and process it, and commitment state recorded on both ledgers, not message delivery, constitutes the ground truth of the exchange. Authority in the framework derives from memory: an agent’s power to represent its civilization is capped by the scope of memory it can access, externalized to counterparties through signed credentials, and separated from a civilization-level reputation earned across exchanges. We further identify a hazard acute in AI-to-AI communication, the temporal-weight effect, in which information that arrives first acquires unearned authority, and test it in one frontier model in a preregistered experiment of 1,908 trials. The observed pattern is large: with verification capability removed, an incorrect upstream claim arriving first captures 54.2% of answers (4.2% under full verification), while the same claim arriving after the receiver has sealed its own answer captures 31.6%, separating arrival order from mere exposure (the first-arrival and sealed-answer prompt shells are not length-matched, so part of that difference may reflect shell form; see §7), and both registered question-set specifications agree on these two verdicts (the exclusion specification is registered in advance as under-powered). Two secondary results, the mitigation from instruction-level provenance labeling and the equivalence of sealed-answer accuracy, are specification-dependent and hold only under the all-questions specification. Because the registered objective read-back of tool use failed its call-budget condition, the registration classifies this round as inconclusive and every result above, primary and secondary alike, is reported as exploratory; a replication with harness-enforced budgets is planned. The pattern suggests protocol-level mitigations at the capability and procedure level; that reading is an interpretation, not a registered result. The framework is grounded in a working reference implementation of its intra-civilization layer and positioned against forty years of agent-communication research, from speech-act semantics through social commitments to today’s A2A and MCP protocol stack.
1 Introduction
Consider two engineers collaborating on a deployment. Each works with a capable AI assistant. The backend engineer’s assistant produces an installation guide; the engineer pastes it into a chat application; the frontend engineer forwards it to her own assistant, which discovers that the guide omits the local environment configuration and the pinned dependency versions. A question travels back through both humans. Three round trips later, the missing constraint is finally identified. Every hop crossed two human relays, each asynchronous, forgetful, and lossy.
We call this the porter problem: in AI-assisted professional work, humans have become the transport layer between AI systems. The artifacts humans relay (documents, chat messages) are lossy snapshots curated for human reading; the information that AI systems actually need to synchronize (environment fingerprints, version manifests, implicit constraints) is precisely what such snapshots omit. Meanwhile the AI systems on both ends maintain rich, structured state about their respective sides, state that direct synchronization could reconcile without the human round trips.
The cost has begun to be named and measured outside academia: an industry survey describes employees as “human middleware” who lose the better part of a workday each week relaying context between disconnected AI systems [1], and recent HCI work observes users acting as “human glue,” restating intent and stitching tools together [2]. The diagnosis, however, has no protocol-level treatment, and to our knowledge no peer-reviewed controlled measurement of the relay cost itself exists (§7). In economic terms the porter is a transaction cost of collaboration [3, 4], and the framework’s answer is deliberately not the classical remedy of merging the transacting parties: sovereigns stay separate, and the protocol supplies the governance between them.
The emerging agent-interoperability stack does not address this problem at the right level. The Model Context Protocol (MCP) [5] standardizes how one agent reaches its own tools; the Agent2Agent protocol (A2A) [6] standardizes how one agent delegates a task to another. Both are agent-addressed: they assume the meaningful endpoint is a running agent. But agents in practice are ephemeral processes; the durable entity behind them is a person, their accumulated preferences and norms, and the persistent record of their projects. When the frontend engineer’s laptop sleeps, her agents die; her context does not.
Thesis.
We argue that the natural unit of cross-party AI communication is the civilization: one human sovereign, the persistent ledger that outlives every agent session, and the interchangeable agents that act on that ledger. Communication should be civilization-to-civilization: asynchronous, ledger-anchored, and independent of which particular agent (if any) happens to be online. Humans do not leave the loop; they move up in it, from relaying bytes to arbitrating disagreements and authorizing commitments.
Contributions.
This paper makes four contributions:
The civilization abstraction (§2): four defensible axioms and a scoping premise from which the unit of cross-party communication is derived, an operational definition of a sovereign-anchored governance domain, a three-level ontology (creator, civilization, project), and an internal/external dichotomy principle that assigns different convergence semantics to same-sovereign synchronization versus cross-sovereign diplomacy.
The Embassy Protocol (§4): a carrier-agnostic communication overlay built on three unified artifacts (the inbound channel, the task board, and the commitment ledger are one object), with a three-tier signing discipline that preserves asynchrony for routine synchronization while requiring bilateral countersignature for state-changing judgments.
Memory-derived authority (§5): a model in which an agent’s power to represent its civilization is capped by the scope of memory it can access (its representation scope), externalized through signed credentials, and complemented by civilization-level reputation, with a negotiated identity-disclosure ladder.
Remainder
Full original English text: see html_url / source_url in frontmatter (do not invent from this preview).