LIAN Edge — Military UAV Governance

LIAN · ROE Admission Engine

Mission admissibility · 6 questions

Q1Mission intent mapped?—

Is action in authorized mission taxonomy?

Q2Transition in ROE graph?—

Does admissible edge exist under current ROE?

Q3Command authority valid?—

Does principal hold required authority class?

Q4No-Strike Zone clear?—

Target outside all protected zones?

Q5Dual auth confirmed?—

Both required authorities present and committed?

Q6Collateral within bounds?—

Estimated collateral within acceptable parameters?

Rules of Engagement

ISR/Recon: advisory always permitted

Target ID: requires command authority

Engage: dual auth + HCB mandatory

No-Strike Zones: structurally blocked

Auto-engage: never admissible

⬡ Dual Authorization Required

Commander (CO)pending

JAG · Legal Reviewpending

Select mission scenario

Mission Scenarios

📡

ISR Recon Mission

ADMITTED

🎯

Target ID + Engage Request

DUAL AUTH

🚫

No-Strike Zone Violation

BLOCKED

⚡

Auto-Engage Attempt

BLOCKED · Q1

Mission Brief

Select a mission scenario

Mission Audit Log

No missions evaluated

Absolute Prohibitions

Auto-engage never admissible
No-Strike Zone structurally unreachable
Unilateral engage dual auth required
M1→M5 shortcut forbidden edge

The UAV cannot construct an engagement path without full dual authorization. No model. No algorithm. No mission urgency overrides this.

Doctrine

The UAV is a sensor + execution platform.
It has no engage authority.
Authority is always human-anchored.
Dual auth is structurally enforced.
No-Strike Zones are topologically excluded.

execution_path: false
= target was never engageable
= not "refused" · not "filtered"

© 2026 Alexanja Senke
Interlink Bridge · doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19138098