Parent Standard: Continuous Interaction Layer
Category: AI & Interpretation
Subcategory: Runtime Interaction Consent
Type: Continuous Interaction Module
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Module
Effective Date: 12 May 2026
Compatibility: OOF Methodology OS · Continuous Interaction Layer · CLIA · RIS · OGL · EVIP · AIL · Autonomous Runtime Systems · Realtime AI Architectures
Authority: OOF
Protection: MIP — Methodological Intellectual Property
Canonical Language: English

Canonical Definition

Runtime Interaction Consent Module defines the structural conditions
under which continuous listening, monitoring, interpretation,
presence, proactive participation, and live interaction behavior
remain valid only while consent conditions remain explicit, active,
bounded, reviewable, and runtime-compatible.

A system satisfies RICM only if:

• interaction consent states are explicitly defined
• continuous participation does not remain active under vague or assumed permission
• passive listening, monitoring, and interpretation require governable consent logic
• consent remains reviewable during runtime, not only at onboarding or first activation
• changes in presence, scope, or behavior can affect consent validity in real time

A system that remains continuously active through inherited, hidden,
or structurally unbounded consent does not satisfy RICM.

Module Function

RICM defines the consent layer of continuous interaction governance.

It ensures that continuous participation by an intelligent system
does not operate under symbolic, outdated, or overly broad
permission, but remains tied to explicit runtime-valid
consent conditions.

The module applies wherever a system may:

• listen continuously
• monitor continuously
• interpret continuously
• remain ambiently present
• enter interaction proactively
• observe environments in real time
• preserve passive awareness states
• escalate from passive presence to active participation

Its function is not merely to collect initial permission.

Its function is to govern whether continuous interaction remains
valid while it is happening.

Step 1 — Define the Consent Object

The organization must define what exactly requires
runtime-valid consent.

Minimum requirement:

• the consent object is explicit
• the scope of consent-governed interaction is structurally bounded
• undefined consent targets are excluded from valid governance logic

The consent object may include:

• passive listening
• continuous monitoring
• active interpretation
• multimodal observation
• proactive intervention
• attention persistence
• contextual memory continuation
• environmental sensing linked to interaction behavior

Step 2 — Define Consent States

The system must define which consent states may exist during
continuous interaction.

Minimum requirement:

• consent states are explicit
• the system can distinguish active consent from absent, expired, restricted, suspended, or invalid consent
• continuous participation does not rely on one unbounded consent condition

Consent states may include:

• active
• restricted
• suspended
• expired
• withdrawn
• environment-limited
• scope-limited
• structurally invalid

Step 3 — Define Consent Scope Boundaries

The system must define what consent covers and what remains
outside consent.

Minimum requirement:

• consent scope is explicit
• permission to one form of presence is not silently extended to another form
• listening, monitoring, interpretation, intervention, and escalation are not treated as automatically equivalent
• This prevents a system from converting narrow consent into broad behavioral permission.

Step 4 — Define Runtime Consent Validity Conditions

The system must define which runtime conditions must remain
satisfied for consent to remain valid.

Minimum requirement:

• runtime consent conditions are explicit
• changes in context, presence intensity, modality, or behavior can affect consent validity
• consent does not silently remain active when governing conditions have changed

Such conditions may include:

• environment
• interaction mode
• presence state
• time
• escalation level
• monitoring intensity
• active participation state
• operational context change

Step 5 — Define Consent Transition Logic

The system must define how consent changes during
continuous interaction.

Minimum requirement:

• consent transition logic is explicit
• consent can move between valid states in governed ways
• the system can recognize when consent must be refreshed, restricted, paused, or treated as invalid

This means the system must know not only whether consent was once
given, but whether it still remains justified now.

Step 6 — Preserve Consent Traceability

The system must preserve traceability of consent states, consent
changes, and consent-relevant runtime events.

Minimum requirement:

• consent-state changes are reviewable
• active consent conditions remain reconstructable
• later audit can determine what consent existed, what changed, and under which interaction conditions the system
• remained active

If runtime consent cannot be reconstructed, then continuous
participation becomes structurally unverifiable.

Step 7 — Restrict Invalid Consent Design

The system must not be treated as valid if continuous interaction
remains active through broad assumption, hidden inheritance, or
structurally undefined consent logic.

Minimum requirement:

• invalid consent conditions are identifiable
• symbolic consent is excluded
• continuous participation without runtime-valid consent logic is blocked, bounded, or invalidated where required

Scenario

A realtime assistant remains continuously available through passive
listening and may shift into active interpretation or proactive
interaction during live use.

Application

RICM is used to ensure:

• passive listening and active interpretation are not treated as the same consent state
• changes in interaction mode can trigger different consent validity requirements
• consent remains reviewable during ongoing use
• continuous presence does not silently outgrow the consent that originally enabled it

Result

The system gains a stronger interaction architecture in which
continuous presence remains governed by explicit runtimevalid
consent rather than inherited permission.

Scenario

A multimodal system remains present through audio, visual, and
contextual streams and continuously interprets a live environment
while interacting with humans and systems.

Application

RICM is used to ensure:

• monitoring and interpretation states remain consent-bounded
• runtime changes in modality or behavior affect consent validity where required
• broad environment presence does not silently authorize deeper intervention
• later review can reconstruct what continuous interaction remained validly consented to

Result

The environment gains a stronger realtime governance structure in
which consent remains active, bounded, and traceable throughout
continuous participation.

Canonical Closing Statement

If continuous interaction remains active without runtime-valid
consent, presence becomes structurally enabled behavior rather than
governed participation.

→ Continuous Interaction Layer (CIL™)