Authority drift becomes a jurisdictional defect when a system answers beyond the perimeter of the authority that should govern the question.
What the phenomenon looks like
A model may sound competent while speaking from no legitimate jurisdiction at all. It extends local rules, internal policy, partial evidence, or domain-specific wording into a broader normative answer than the source can actually support.
Why it happens
This happens because synthesis rewards continuity. If the system can connect one rule, one precedent, or one trusted signal to the current prompt, it tends to treat that bridge as sufficient, even when the authority boundary should block the move.
Why it matters
The result is not just factual error. It is unauthorized norm production: an answer that sounds valid because it borrows the tone of authority while stepping outside the authority that made the statement defensible.
What must be governed
- Define which authority can speak on which perimeter, and under what scope conditions.
- Expose jurisdictional limits as visible constraints, not as hidden legal caveats.
- Treat source extension across domains, territories, or roles as a first-class audit event.
