Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces policy-centroid routing, a novel approach that organizes and compresses complex policy regimes into representative centroids to facilitate intelligent systems in determining the appropriateness of proposed actions. By addressing the challenge of overlapping and ambiguous rules expressed in natural language, the method enhances attention allocation before adjudication, ultimately generating a review agenda for actions rather than binary permission or prohibition. The authors outline six falsifiable propositions and conduct seven follow-on studies to evaluate the effectiveness of this routing mechanism in recovering applicable regimes while managing the risks of losing critical obligations.
Policy-centroid routing reveals how intelligent systems can effectively navigate complex regulatory landscapes by transforming overlapping rules into actionable review agendas.
Before an intelligent system can decide whether an action is allowed, it must first know which rules the action has approached. A single proposed action can implicate several policy regimes at once. Their requirements may stack, overlap, or qualify one another, yet many remain written in natural language while the action itself arrives as an incomplete description of intent. The first problem is not judgment. It is attention. Policy-centroid routing creates a layer before adjudication. It compresses expressions within each policy regime into one or more representative centroids, places the proposed action in the same semantic space, applies a declared measure, and routes every regime crossing a declared threshold to authoritative review. Several regimes may trigger at once. The output is a review agenda, not permission, prohibition, legality, breach, compliance, certification, or enforcement. The paper develops six falsifiable propositions and seven follow-on studies comparing the hypothesis with structured workflows, lexical and semantic retrieval, hierarchical and direct classification, and selective prediction under matched review burden. The studies are designed to identify where policy geometry recovers applicable regimes, where compression loses rare or overlapping obligations, and where the mechanism should abstain. The paper includes a synthetic worked example and reports no empirical efficacy result.
