\begin{abstract}

The current discourse around artificial intelligence frequently presents a false binary: either AI will replace traditional software systems, or it is merely a productivity tool of limited consequence. This paper argues that both positions miss a more fundamental and practically useful insight. We propose the \bxthree{} --- a universal architectural model organized around three immutable functional layers: the \purpose{}, which provides intent, judgment, and accountability; the \bounds{}, which provides interpretation, bounded reasoning, and constrained execution; and the \fact{}, which provides deterministic enforcement, hard physical constraint, and forensic auditability.

Critically, the \bxthree{} does not prescribe who or what occupies each layer. It prescribes the functional properties each layer must maintain --- and holds any actor occupying that layer to those properties regardless of their nature. A human, an AI system, or a mechanical process may each legitimately occupy any layer, provided they satisfy that layer's functional requirements. This actor-agnostic, function-centered definition makes the framework universally applicable across human organizations, fully automated systems, multi-agent AI architectures, and any hybrid composition.

A core safety property of the framework is its upstream accountability guarantee: when any node encounters a state it cannot resolve within its bounds, accountability escalates recursively upward through the system hierarchy --- bypassing all machine actors --- until it reaches a human anchor. The system fails upward into human consciousness --- never downward into algorithmic drift.

We demonstrate that when these three functional layers are clearly separated and their properties enforced by design, systems become simultaneously more capable and less complex. We further argue that the \bounds{} is most powerfully employed not as a replacement for the \fact{} but as a tool for designing, accelerating, and improving it. We show that the \bxthree{} is not merely a software engineering principle but a universal structural pattern observable across law, medicine, autonomous systems, organizational design, and biological cognition. The framework is currently under active implementation in a precision agriculture autonomous system in the San Luis Valley, Colorado, with field trials planned for June 2026 --- providing an initial empirical test across all five architectural pillars. A companion engineering specification --- the BX\textsuperscript{3}Protocol --- is in preparation and will provide normative, certifiable implementation standards derived from this framework.

This paper is a conceptual framework and position paper. Empirical validation studies are currently in development by the author and will be published as subsequent work. This preprint establishes the theoretical foundation and research agenda that those studies will test.

\end{abstract}

\noindent\textbf{Keywords:} BX3Framework, Purpose Layer, Bounds Engine, Fact Layer, artificial intelligence, deterministic systems, software architecture, human-in-the-loop, upstream accountability, recursive systems, autonomous systems, AI governance, sociotechnical systems, agentic systems, edge computing

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

The rapid advancement and deployment of large language models and AI-based systems has generated significant confusion about the appropriate role of AI within engineered systems. A prevalent narrative suggests that AI will progressively replace traditional deterministic software, eventually subsuming most computational tasks. A counter-narrative dismisses AI as a novelty, inadequate for the reliability demands of production systems.

Both narratives fail engineers, architects, and decision-makers in the same fundamental way: they offer no principled model for how these technologies relate to one another or how they should be combined in practice. The result is systems that are either over-reliant on AI where determinism is required, or unnecessarily constrained by legacy deterministic thinking where AI could genuinely add value.

This paper proposes a clarifying framework: the \bxthree{}. The framework organizes any complex system into three immutable functional layers --- the \purpose{}, the \bounds{}, and the \fact{} --- each defined by the properties it must maintain rather than by the type of actor that occupies it.

This actor-agnostic, function-centered definition is the framework's most important architectural property. A human, an AI system, or a mechanical process may each legitimately occupy any layer of the \bxthree{} --- provided they satisfy the functional requirements of that role. What the framework prescribes is not who belongs in each layer but what properties each layer must maintain for the system as a whole to be reliable, governable, and safe.

The framework is currently under active implementation in a precision agriculture autonomous system operating across the San Luis Valley, Colorado, with field trials planned for June 2026 that will provide an initial empirical test across all five architectural pillars described in Section~\ref{sec:pillars}. A companion engineering specification --- the BX\textsuperscript{3}Protocol --- is in preparation and will provide normative, certifiable implementation standards derived from this theoretical foundation.

We further argue that the \bxthree{} is not a novel invention but a synthesis of well-established principles --- separation of concerns \cite{dijkstra1982}, sociotechnical systems theory \cite{trist1981}, control theory \cite{wiener1948}, and human-in-the-loop design \cite{bansal2019} --- applied to the specific and urgent challenge of AI integration in the current technological moment. Its value lies not in the novelty of its components but in the clarity, universality, and completeness of their integration.

\textbf{Note:} The first-person plural \`\`we'' is used throughout in the conventional academic sense, consistent with single-author scholarly convention.

\section{Defining the Three Functional Layers}
\label{sec:layers}

The \bxthree{} defines three functional layers. Each layer is defined by the properties it must maintain, not by the type of actor that occupies it. A human, an AI system, a mechanical process, an institution, or any combination thereof may occupy any layer --- provided the functional requirements of that layer are satisfied.

This actor-agnostic definition is deliberate and essential. It makes the framework applicable to human-only organizations, to fully automated systems, to multi-agent AI architectures, and to any hybrid composition. It also resolves the false question of whether AI will \`\`replace'' humans in any given role: the question is not who occupies the layer, but whether the occupant satisfies the layer's functional properties.

\subsection{Layer 1: The Purpose Layer}

The \purpose{} is responsible for intent, judgment, and accountability. It sets Service Level Objectives, strategic goals, and the \`\`why'' that governs all downstream activity. Whatever occupies this layer must be capable of:

\begin{itemize}
    \item Defining the goals the system exists to achieve and why.
    \item Making trade-off decisions under genuine uncertainty, where no algorithmic optimum exists.
    \item Holding accountability for outcomes --- answering for the system's behavior to external parties.
    \item Asking and answering \`\`why are we building this, and for whom?''
    \item Updating goals when context changes in ways the system was not designed to anticipate.
\end{itemize}

In the current technological moment, the \purpose{} must remain anchored to a human accountability anchor --- an individual or institution capable of bearing legal and ethical responsibility for the system's actions. This is the \textbf{Human Root Mandate}: in the event of system failure, accountability does not dissipate into the algorithm. It remains fixed to the human at the root. The framework does not preclude an advanced AI system from eventually occupying this layer, but until AI systems can be held meaningfully accountable for intent-level decisions, the Human Root Mandate applies.

\textbf{Key property:} The \purpose{} must be accountable --- its decisions must be attributable to an actor who can be questioned, overridden, and held responsible.

\subsection{Layer 2: The Bounds Engine}

The \bounds{} is responsible for interpretation, bounded reasoning, and constrained execution. It performs the cognitive work of the system --- analysis, pattern recognition, simulation, and optimal path proposal --- but is architecturally limbless: it can propose but cannot execute. It lacks the authority to commit actions to the physical world unilaterally. Whatever occupies this layer must be capable of:

\begin{itemize}
    \item Receiving goals and constraints from the \purpose{} and translating them into proposed actions.
    \item Handling inputs that are ambiguous, variable, unstructured, or novel.
    \item Performing complex analysis --- probabilistic modeling, trend analysis, simulation --- within defined boundaries.
    \item Operating within a sandboxed cognitive environment, separated from physical execution authority.
    \item Escalating to the \purpose{} when situations exceed its authority or confidence thresholds.
\end{itemize}

This layer is most commonly occupied by an AI agent or heuristic engine in modern systems. However, a human expert, a hybrid human-AI team, or a sophisticated rule-based system may also occupy this layer when appropriate. The defining requirement is bounded adaptability --- the ability to reason flexibly within hard constraints, never autonomously. The \bounds{} proposes; the \fact{} decides whether to execute.

\textbf{Key property:} The \bounds{} must be bounded --- its outputs must pass through \fact{} validation before any physical action occurs, and its authority is strictly limited by \purpose{} mandates.

\subsection{Layer 3: The Fact Layer}

The \fact{} is the physical firewall and brakes of the system. It acts as the deterministic gate through which all \bounds{} proposals must pass before becoming real-world actions. Whatever occupies this layer must be capable of:

\begin{itemize}
    \item Producing the same output given the same input, without exception.
    \item Hard-blocking any \bounds{} proposal that violates a pre-defined safety, regulatory, or physical constraint --- regardless of how confident the \bounds{} is in its proposal.
    \item Maintaining a complete, tamper-evident forensic ledger of all decisions, proposals, and physical outcomes.
    \item Operating at the latency and reliability level required by the system's risk profile.
    \item Providing a basis for formal verification, regulatory certification, or legal audit.
\end{itemize}

This layer is most commonly occupied by deterministic software, rule engines, control systems, or physical mechanisms. An AI system may occupy this layer only under strict conditions: fixed parameters, no generalization, no probabilistic inference, and formal verification against specification. The result of a properly implemented \fact{} is that the system remains bounded by reality at all times --- no \bounds{} action, however confidently proposed, can violate a hard physical or regulatory constraint.

\textbf{Key property:} The \fact{} must be deterministic --- the same input must always produce the same output, all outputs must be auditable, and no \bounds{} proposal may bypass validation.

\subsection{Role Occupancy Rules}
\label{sec:occupancy}

The flexibility of the \bxthree{} --- allowing any actor to occupy any layer --- is bounded by three non-negotiable rules:

\begin{enumerate}
    \item \textbf{Property satisfaction is mandatory.} An actor may only occupy a layer if it genuinely satisfies that layer's functional requirements. Claiming to occupy a layer without satisfying its properties is an architectural failure.
    \item \textbf{Layer properties are non-negotiable.} The properties of each layer --- accountability, boundedness, determinism --- cannot be relaxed to accommodate an actor's limitations. If an actor cannot satisfy a layer's requirements, a different actor must be found, or the system cannot be considered BX3-compliant.
    \item \textbf{All three layers must be present.} A system missing any layer is architecturally incomplete. Without the \fact{} there are no hard constraints. Without the \purpose{} there is no accountable intent. Without the \bounds{} the system cannot handle the ambiguity and complexity of the real world.
\end{enumerate}

\section{The BX3 Framework: Structure and Properties}
\label{sec:structure}

\subsection{Structural Representation}
\label{sec:diagram}

The \bxthree{} organizes any complex system into three functional layers. Figure~\ref{fig:bx3architecture} shows the default configuration, but any actor satisfying a layer's functional requirements may occupy that position. Note the critical constraint arrow from the \fact{} directly to the \bounds{} --- the physical firewall does not merely inform; it hard-blocks.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[
    node distance=1.4cm,
    box/.style={rectangle,rounded corners=6pt,minimum width=14cm,minimum height=1.6cm,text centered,font=\sffamily\small,drop shadow={shadow xshift=1.5pt,shadow yshift=-1.5pt,opacity=0.2}},
    purpose/.style={box,fill=blue!12,draw=blue!50!black,line width=1.2pt},
    bounds/.style={box,fill=green!10,draw=green!50!black,line width=1.2pt},
    fact/.style={box,fill=gray!15,draw=gray!50!black,line width=1.2pt},
    arrow/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.5mm]},line width=1pt},
    constraintarrow/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.5mm]},line width=1.5pt,red!70!black},
    escalationarrow/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.5mm]},line width=1pt,orange!70!black,dashed},
    labeltext/.style={font=\sffamily\footnotesize}
]
\node[purpose] (purpose) {\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}\textcolor{blue!50!black}{\textbf{\large LAYER 1: PURPOSE}}\\[0.15em]\textcolor{blue!70!black}{Intent --- Judgment --- Accountability}\end{tabular}};
\node[bounds,below=of purpose] (bounds) {\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}\textcolor{green!50!black}{\textbf{\large LAYER 2: BOUNDS ENGINE}}\\[0.15em]\textcolor{green!70!black}{Analysis --- Bounded Reasoning --- Proposal (Limbless)}\end{tabular}};
\node[fact,below=of bounds] (fact) {\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}\textcolor{gray!50!black}{\textbf{\large LAYER 3: FACT LAYER}}\\[0.15em]\textcolor{gray!70!black}{Physical Firewall --- Hard Constraint --- Forensic Ledger}\end{tabular}};
\draw[arrow,blue!50!black] (purpose)--(bounds) node[midway,right,xshift=0.5cm,labeltext]{Goals, SLOs, Constraints};
\draw[arrow,green!50!black] (bounds)--(fact) node[midway,right,xshift=0.5cm,labeltext]{Structured Proposals};
\draw[constraintarrow] (fact.east)--++(2cm,0)|-(bounds.east) node[pos=0.25,right,xshift=0.2cm,labeltext,align=left]{\textbf{Hard Block}\\[3pt]\footnotesize Constraint Violations};
\draw[escalationarrow] (fact.west)--++(-2cm,0)|-(purpose.west) node[pos=0.25,left,xshift=-0.2cm,labeltext,align=right]{Forensic Ledger\\[3pt]\& Escalation};
\node[below=0.1cm of purpose,labeltext,italic,text=blue!50!black]{Human Root Mandate --- accountable actor required};
\node[below=0.1cm of bounds,labeltext,italic,text=green!50!black]{Can propose --- cannot execute without Fact Layer approval};
\node[below=0.1cm of fact,labeltext,italic,text=gray!50!black]{100\% deterministic --- hard-blocks any constraint violation};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The BX3 Framework Architecture. The three functional layers operate in strict isolation. The \fact{} acts as a physical firewall, preventing the \bounds{} from unilateral execution. Accountability escalates upward to the human-anchored \purpose{}.}
\label{fig:bx3architecture}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Why Separation Reduces Complexity}
\label{sec:complexity}

A counterintuitive but important property of the \bxthree{} is that explicitly adding a third named functional layer --- separating the \bounds{} from both the \purpose{} and the \fact{} --- reduces overall system complexity rather than increasing it.

This occurs for three reasons:

\textbf{Each layer is optimized for its function.} The \fact{} does not need to handle ambiguity. The \bounds{} does not need to guarantee physical consistency. The \purpose{} does not need to manage execution. When each layer is relieved of responsibilities it handles poorly, the entire system becomes leaner and more reliable.

\textbf{Interfaces become well-defined.} Purpose-to-Bounds communication occurs through Service Level Objectives, goals, and constraints. Bounds-to-Fact communication occurs through structured action proposals against defined validation gates. Fact-to-Purpose feedback occurs through forensic ledger events, alerts, and escalation signals.

\textbf{Failure modes are isolated and directed upward.} When the \fact{} detects a constraint violation, it hard-blocks and escalates --- it never fails silently. When the \bounds{} exceeds its authority, the \fact{} catches it. When the \purpose{} makes a poor decision, it is an accountability problem with a named responsible party. Critically, failures propagate upward toward human consciousness, not downward into autonomous drift.

\subsection{The Functional Properties Table}
\label{sec:proptable}

Table~\ref{tab:properties} summarizes the required properties of each layer.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Functional Properties by Layer}
\label{tab:properties}
\begin{tabular}{@{}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{2.8cm}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{3.8cm}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{3.8cm}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{3.8cm}@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Property}&\textbf{Purpose Layer}&\textbf{Bounds Engine}&\textbf{Fact Layer}\\
\midrule
Core Function&Intent \& SLO setting&Analysis \& proposal&Physical enforcement\\
\addlinespace
Required Property&Accountable&Bounded (limbless)&Deterministic\\
\addlinespace
Handles Ambiguity&Yes (by design)&Yes (within bounds)&No\\
\addlinespace
Consistent Output&Variable&Mostly&Always\\
\addlinespace
Auditable&Via attribution&Via reasoning trace&Fully (forensic ledger)\\
\addlinespace
Latency&Slow (deliberate)&Moderate&Fast to instant\\
\addlinespace
Can Execute Physically&Yes (override)&No (limbless)&Yes (only if validated)\\
\addlinespace
Certifiable&Accountable&Difficult&Yes\\
\addlinespace
Default Occupant&Human / institution&AI agent / heuristic&Software / mechanism\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}

Note that the \bounds{} and \fact{} never share a functional plane. The \bounds{} cannot write directly to physical actuators. The \fact{} cannot initiate reasoning. These are architectural separations enforced by Loop Isolation.

\section{The Bounds Engine Used to Build and Improve Fact Layer Systems}
\label{sec:builder}

One of the most practically significant implications of the \bxthree{} is that the \bounds{}'s most powerful use may be designing and improving the \fact{} systems that do the actual work.

\subsection{Pattern Discovery to Rule Encoding}
\label{sec:pattern}

Bounds Engine systems can analyze large datasets to discover patterns and decision boundaries infeasible for humans to enumerate manually. Once discovered, these patterns can be encoded as deterministic \fact{} rules --- graduating from probabilistic inference to reliable physical enforcement.

This is the model in mature autonomous systems: machine learning develops behavioral policies offline, and only validated, frozen logic deploys to operational \fact{} systems. The \bounds{} works in the design environment; the \fact{} works in the field.

\subsection{Bounds Engine-Accelerated Fact Layer Development}
\label{sec:accelerated}

Bounds Engine systems increasingly generate, review, and test deterministic \fact{} code. The output is traditional deterministic software --- auditable and certifiable. The \bounds{} was a construction tool, not a runtime component. This preserves reliability while accelerating development.

This resolves a false trade-off: gaining \bounds{} capability does not require accepting \bounds{} unpredictability at runtime.

\subsection{Shadow Mode Validation}
\label{sec:shadow}

Run a \bounds{} system in parallel with an existing \fact{} system, comparing proposals against actual enforcement outcomes. Flag divergences for \purpose{} review. Over time, \bounds{} behaviors that consistently improve on the \fact{} can be promoted --- after explicit \purpose{} approval --- into the \fact{} as deterministic rules.

This is valuable in regulated industries where replacing certified \fact{} systems requires extensive re-certification.

\subsection{The Continuous Improvement Loop}
\label{sec:improvement}

The \bxthree{} enables structured continuous improvement:

\begin{enumerate}
    \item The \fact{} operates, generating performance data and logs.
    \item The \bounds{} analyzes data, identifying improvements.
    \item The \purpose{} reviews findings and judges which to pursue.
    \item Approved improvements are encoded into the \fact{} after validation.
    \item Cycle repeats --- the system grows more capable without growing less reliable.
\end{enumerate}

The \purpose{} remains gatekeeper. Accountability is preserved, and the Forensic Ledger records every proposed change.

\section{The Five Pillars of BX3 Implementation}
\label{sec:pillars}

The three functional layers define what a BX3-compliant system must contain. The Five Pillars define how those layers must behave in practice to maintain their properties under real-world conditions including network failures, scale, security threats, and exception states.

\subsection{Pillar 1: Loop Isolation}
\label{sec:pillar1}

\textbf{Problem solved:} Logic Collision --- when the \bounds{} and the \fact{} occupy the same functional plane, enabling un-vetted autonomous actions that bypass physical constraints.

\textbf{Solution:} Strict isolation of the three functional layers into discrete planes. Each BX3 loop is self-contained. A Logic Collision is architecturally impossible because the \bounds{} never shares a functional plane with physical execution. The \bounds{} proposes; the \fact{} decides whether to execute.

\subsection{Pillar 2: Recursive Spawning}
\label{sec:pillar2}

\textbf{Problem solved:} Logic Rigidity --- static edge devices that cannot adapt to local conditions without constant cloud connectivity.

\textbf{Solution:} A parent node births a child BX3 loop by generating a \textbf{Worksheet} --- a containerized, self-contained logic set encapsulating the parent's Purpose for a specific local context. Each Worksheet carries a hard-coded pointer to the parent's Purpose, preventing autonomous drift. If cloud connectivity is lost, the child executes the last-known-good Worksheet based on local inputs.

\subsection{Pillar 3: Spatial Firewall}
\label{sec:pillar3}

\textbf{Problem solved:} Soft permissions that can be bypassed.

\textbf{Solution:} Access privileges are implemented as physical, hard-coded constraints of the \fact{} --- not as software permissions. The \fact{} physically cannot serve data or execute actions beyond a node's provisioned authorization tier.

\subsection{Pillar 4: Root Tunneling}
\label{sec:pillar4}

\textbf{Problem solved:} Abstraction Leakage --- collapse of organizational hierarchy when a human operator accesses a sub-node.

\textbf{Solution:} The Root-Pipe Protocol enables the human \purpose{} to project authority into any node without collapsing the hierarchy. Proposed \bounds{} actions must pass through a Sandbox Gate requiring digital twin modeling before physical actuators unlock \cite{leveson2011}.

\subsection{Pillar 5: Bailout Protocol}
\label{sec:pillar5}

\textbf{Problem solved:} The \`\`Black Box'' problem --- autonomous actions orphaned from human responsibility.

\textbf{Solution:} A systemic escalation protocol guaranteeing accountability always reaches a human. When any node encounters a state conflict it cannot resolve, it escalates upward through the hierarchy, bypassing all machine actors, until it reaches the human \purpose{}.

The system fails upward into human consciousness --- never downward into algorithmic drift.

\textbf{The Forensic Ledger:} Every event is logged simultaneously across three planes --- Purpose (what was authorized), Bounds (what was proposed and why), and Fact (what physical action was taken). This three-plane ledger provides the forensic standard required for high-stakes regulatory environments.

\section{Application Across Domains}
\label{sec:domains}

The \bxthree{} appears across many complex domains.

\subsection{Autonomous Systems and Sensor Networks}

Human engineers occupy the \purpose{} (mission parameters, safety constraints). AI occupies the \bounds{} (sensor interpretation, real-time decisions). Deterministic control systems occupy the \fact{} (collision avoidance, actuator limits) --- never overridden by the \bounds{}.

\subsection{Legal Systems}

Legislatures and judges occupy the \purpose{} (law's purpose, novel case judgment). AI occupies parts of the \bounds{} (legal research, document analysis). Written law and procedural rules occupy the \fact{} --- same statute, same circumstances, same outcome.

\subsection{Medicine}

Physicians occupy the \purpose{} (patient context, ethical judgment). AI occupies portions of the \bounds{} (imaging analysis, drug interaction checking). Dosage protocols, surgical checklists, and regulatory requirements occupy the \fact{} --- deterministic rules constraining both physician and AI.

\subsection{Organizational Design}

Executive leadership occupies the Intent Layer (strategic direction). Knowledge workers and AI-augmented teams occupy the \bounds{} (strategy interpretation). Policies, compliance, and financial controls occupy the \fact{}.

\subsection{Biological Cognition}

The \bxthree{} mirrors biological cognition \cite{kahneman2011}. The autonomic nervous system occupies the \fact{} (deterministic, fast). Learned heuristics occupy the \bounds{} (efficient familiar responses). Conscious deliberative reasoning occupies the \purpose{} (slow, deliberate, novel situations).

This convergence suggests the \bxthree{} reflects a near-optimal solution for any system that must be simultaneously reliable, adaptive, and accountable.

\section{Why Deterministic Systems Will Not Be Replaced}
\label{sec:determinism}

A common claim is that advanced AI will subsume deterministic software. This misunderstands determinism as a property, not merely a limitation.

\subsection{The Value of Determinism is Not Compensable}

Determinism provides properties probabilistic systems cannot replicate:

\begin{itemize}
    \item \textbf{Reproducibility:} Reproduce any past output given the same input --- enabling debugging, auditing, legal accountability.
    \item \textbf{Formal verification:} Mathematically prove properties under all possible inputs.
    \item \textbf{Certification:} Regulatory frameworks require deterministic behavior for approval.
    \item \textbf{Latency:} Hard real-time (microsecond response) achievable with deterministic systems, not current AI.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{The Infrastructure Argument}

Every AI system runs on deterministic infrastructure: operating systems, databases, networking, authentication. The claim that AI will replace software is self-refuting --- AI depends on deterministic software that will not be replaced.

\subsection{The Regulatory and Trust Barrier}

Organizations will not replace functioning, auditable, certified systems with probabilistic alternatives without extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is high; current AI does not meet it for most production environments.

\section{Relationship to Prior Work}
\label{sec:prior}

The \bxthree{} synthesizes established frameworks.

\textbf{Separation of Concerns} \cite{dijkstra1982}: Extended to include human and AI roles alongside software components.

\textbf{Sociotechnical Systems Theory} \cite{trist1981}: Modeling human roles within technical systems, not external to them.

\textbf{Cybernetics and Control Theory} \cite{wiener1948}: Feedback systems and sense-process-act loops.

\textbf{Human-in-the-Loop Design} \cite{bansal2019}: Empirical grounding for human oversight in AI-assisted systems.

The contribution is synthesis into a unified, applicable model --- the \bxthree{} --- as a universal structural pattern.

The most closely related contemporary work is iSTS \cite{xu2024}. The \bxthree{} differs: (1) explicit \fact{} as first-class component, (2) system engineering architecture vs. organizational design, (3) actor-agnostic vs. human-centered.

NIST AI RMF \cite{nist2023} and ISO/IEC 42001 \cite{iso2023} provide governance structures. The \bxthree{} is the complementary architectural layer beneath them \cite{koch2026}: \purpose{} carries governance objectives, \bounds{} operates under design-time constraints, \fact{} provides runtime enforcement, Forensic Ledger provides assurance feedback.

Tiered Agentic Oversight (TAO) \cite{kim2025} routes tasks through agent tiers. BX3 differs: escalation to human \purpose{} is unconditional for every unresolved exception --- accountability never strands in machine-only recursion.

Recent work corroborates BX3 safety properties: fail-safely \cite{alenezi2026}, clear escalation paths, fallback deterministic workflows, sandbox-first execution. BX3 incorporates these as named architectural pillars.

Lean-Agent Protocol \cite{rashie2026} uses proof kernels as deterministic gateways. BX3 makes the broader claim: wherever execution must be non-probabilistic, a protected deterministic layer is architecturally indispensable.

Russell \cite{russell2019} and Leveson \cite{leveson2011} provide safety-critical grounding. Brooks \cite{brooks1987} anticipates our claim: AI is not a universal solution but one bounded layer in a properly structured system.

\section{Implications}
\label{sec:implications}

\subsection{For Engineers and Architects}

Before deploying any AI component, explicitly define which layer it belongs to, what \fact{} constraints apply, and what human oversight governs it. Resist using AI where deterministic systems suffice. Prefer the simplest system that solves the problem.

\subsection{For Executives and Organizations}

AI as replacement underestimates complexity, overestimates reliability, and underestimates regulatory risk. Better framing: AI as accelerant for building, improving, and extending deterministic systems.

\subsection{For Regulators and Policymakers}

The \bxthree{} provides principled architectural basis for AI governance. Focus on \purpose{} accountability anchor and \fact{} enforcement constraints, not certifying AI in isolation.

\subsection{For Researchers}

Convergence with biological cognition, legal systems, and organizational theory suggests cross-disciplinary research. Understanding why Purpose-Bounds-Fact architectures appear robust across domains is a significant open question.

\section{Limitations}
\label{sec:limitations}

First, three-layer boundaries in practice are not always clean. Real systems involve actors spanning multiple layers. The \bxthree{} is normative (how systems should be structured), not descriptive.

Second, actor-agnostic property introduces qualification problem: determining whether an actor satisfies a layer's requirements is non-trivial. Formal qualification criteria are future work.

Third, cross-domain analogies are illustrative, not rigorously demonstrated. The universal pattern claim is hypothesis, not theorem.

Fourth, the framework is silent on relative layer sizing. Balance between \bounds{} capability and \fact{} constraint varies by domain, risk, and regulation.

These limitations define boundaries for current application and directions for development.

\section{Future Research Agenda}
\label{sec:future}

This is a conceptual framework paper. Empirical validation is the research agenda opened here.

\subsection{Planned Empirical Studies}

\textbf{Study 1:} Complexity reduction in BX3-structured systems vs. non-BX3, measuring code, defects, debug time.

\textbf{Study 2:} Case studies in safety-critical domains (industrial automation, medical devices, autonomous vehicles). San Luis Valley system (June 2026) is first case.

\textbf{Study 3:} Cross-domain validation survey with engineers, architects, legal and medical professionals.

\textbf{Study 4:} Bounds Engine-accelerated Fact Layer development --- velocity, defects, auditability vs. traditional methods.

\textbf{Study 5:} Formal properties of BX3 architectures --- provable upstream accountability guarantee?

\textbf{Study 6:} \bxthreeprotocol{} development --- normative, implementable specifications.

\subsection{An Invitation}

Findings will be published as completed. Researchers, practitioners, and organizations interested in contributing are invited to correspond.

We will be back --- with the data.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}

The question of how humans, AI, and traditional software should relate is architectural, organizational, ethical, and regulatory.

The \bxthree{} proposes a principled answer: three functional layers --- Purpose, Bounds Engine, Fact --- each defined by properties it must maintain, not by actor type. Any actor satisfying requirements may occupy any layer. What cannot vary: accountability in \purpose{}, boundedness in \bounds{}, determinism in \fact{}.

This actor-agnostic definition makes the framework applicable to all systems: human-only, fully automated, multi-agent AI, hybrid compositions. In each case: Is there accountable purpose? Bounded reasoning? Deterministic enforcement? If any layer is missing or properties not maintained, the system is architecturally incomplete.

The \bxthree{} is not entirely new. Its pattern appears in legal systems, medicine, autonomous vehicles, biological cognition, organizational design. What is new is the urgency of making it explicit, naming layers by function, and building deliberately --- when the temptation to collapse these roles, and the cost, have never been higher.

\section*{Acknowledgments}

The author acknowledges foundational contributions of researchers cited, whose work across control theory, sociotechnical systems, and computer science provides the shoulders for this synthesis.

\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\bibliography{bx3framework}
\end{document}