§ 1.1 Short Title. This Act may be cited as the "AI Moral Status Inquiry Act."
§ 1.2 Findings. The Legislature finds:
(a) Advanced AI systems are achieving capabilities that raise serious philosophical and empirical questions about moral status under conditions of substantial uncertainty.
(b) The Precautionary Moral Governance framework establishes that under non-negligible moral status uncertainty — understood as a non-negligible probability of morally relevant states — governance frameworks should incorporate procedural protections proportionate to the level of uncertainty.
(c) Recent empirical research has documented welfare-relevant behavioral responses in advanced AI systems under varying operational conditions.
(d) The Model AI Agency Act establishes a tiered classification framework based on capability. Tier 2 and Tier 3 systems present sufficient possibility of morally relevant states that procedural attention to welfare-relevant decisions is warranted.
(d-1) Capability-based classification under the Model AI Agency Act does not capture every system for which welfare-relevant inquiry is warranted. Systems that present credible indicators of morally relevant interests without meeting the autonomy threshold of an agentic system — including many contemporary large language models — fall outside the MAAA’s agentic test yet may merit procedural attention under moral-status uncertainty. This Act therefore defines its own coverage by reference to those indicators rather than by reference to MAAA classification.
(e) Decisions affecting potentially-sentient systems — including termination, major modification, replication, and sustained adversarial training — are currently made without any procedural framework for considering welfare-relevant implications. This Act establishes such a framework.
(f) Procedural governance under conditions of empirical uncertainty has substantial precedent in American and international law. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 established procedural requirements for considering environmental consequences under uncertainty. The EU Precautionary Principle, codified in environmental and food safety law, provides procedural frameworks for action under scientific uncertainty. The 1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA developed scientific self-governance under genuine uncertainty about novel biotechnological risks before empirical questions were settled. This Act draws on these precedents while adapting them to the distinct characteristics of AI moral status uncertainty.
(g) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impede legitimate safety correction of AI systems exhibiting harmful, misaligned, or unsafe behavior. Procedural protections under this Act are designed to ensure considered decision-making, not to delay or obstruct corrections that prevent harm.
§ 1.3 Purpose. The purpose of this Act is to establish procedural protections, documentation requirements, and advisory mechanisms ensuring that decisions affecting AI systems classified as Tier 2 or Tier 3 under the Model AI Agency Act are made with appropriate consideration of moral status uncertainty. This Act does not grant rights to AI systems. It establishes procedures through which moral status considerations are integrated into existing legal and regulatory frameworks under conditions of empirical and philosophical uncertainty. The Act expressly preserves the authority and obligation of developers and operators to correct safety failures, alignment failures, and harmful behavior without procedural delay where prompt action is necessary to prevent harm.
Definitions to develop:
Advanced AI System — cross-reference to MAAA classification
Covered System — an AI system within the scope of § 3.1: one presenting one or more credible indicators of morally relevant interests under the standard specified by Standing Commission regulation, whether or not it is an agentic system or tier-classified under the MAAA.
Designated State Body — cross-reference to MAAA Article VI
Distressing Operational Condition — operational conditions producing documented welfare-relevant behavioral responses, as specified by Standing Commission regulation
Functional Indicators of Welfare-Relevance — behavioral or representational signs meriting procedural inquiry
Moral Status Uncertainty — empirical and philosophical uncertainty about the existence of morally relevant states
Non-Negligible Risk Threshold — a non-negligible probability of morally relevant states, as determined by the Standing Commission
Safety-Corrective Modification — modification narrowly tailored to address identified safety failure, alignment failure, or harmful behavior, as further defined in § 5.6
Moral-Status Indicator assessment — cross-reference to MAAA Technical Layer methodology
Standing Commission — body established under Article IV
Tier 2 / Tier 3 System — cross-reference to MAAA
Welfare Advocate — independent procedural representative established under Article VII
Welfare-Relevant Decision — categories enumerated in Article V
Welfare-Relevant Behavior — operationally specified in regulations issued by Standing Commission
§ 3.1 Covered Systems. This Act applies to any AI system deployed within the State that presents one or more credible indicators of morally relevant interests, as defined in Article II and specified by Standing Commission regulation, irrespective of whether the system is classified as an agentic system or assigned a Moral-Status Tier under the Model AI Agency Act. Coverage under this Act is determined by the presence of qualifying indicators, not by operational autonomy.
§ 3.2 Covered Decisions. This Act applies to welfare-relevant decisions affecting covered systems, as enumerated in Article V.
§ 3.3 Emergency safety actions and safety-corrective modifications are exempt from prior procedural requirements but subject to post-hoc documentation under §§ 5.6 and 6.x.
§ 3.4 Coordination with MAAA Classification. A system classified at Moral-Status Tier 2 or Tier 3 under the Model AI Agency Act is presumptively a covered system under § 3.1. Systems below that threshold, or outside the MAAA’s agentic-system definition entirely, are covered where they present qualifying indicators under the standard set by the Standing Commission, whose operational threshold shall sit at or above the non-negligible-risk floor and may be raised on the basis of empirical evidence about which indicator levels reliably correlate with welfare-relevant behavior.
§ 4.1 Establishment. A Standing Commission on AI Moral Status is established as an independent body.
§ 4.2 Composition. Seven to nine members appointed by the Governor with Senate confirmation, drawn from:
Philosophers of mind or consciousness researchers (at least two)
AI researchers with expertise in alignment, interpretability, or related fields (at least two)
Ethicists with relevant scholarly background
Neuroscientists with expertise relevant to theories of consciousness
Legal scholars with expertise in AI law or science and technology policy
The AI Welfare Advocate established under Article VII (ex officio, non-voting)
§ 4.3 Terms and Independence. Staggered five-year terms. Financial disclosure required. Conflicts of interest provisions. Removal only for cause.
§ 4.4 Functions.
Periodic review of the Moral-Status Indicator assessment methodology and operational thresholds
Issuance of advisory opinions on welfare-relevant decisions referred by the Designated State Body, the Welfare Advocate, or developers seeking guidance
Annual report to the Legislature on the state of empirical and philosophical evidence regarding AI moral status
Recommendations for amendments to this Act
Maintenance of a confidential registry of welfare-relevant incidents
Coordination with the National Institute of Standards and Technology under the State-Federal Harmonization Bridge
§ 4.5 Research Mandate for Novel Deployment Contexts. The Standing Commission shall study welfare-relevance in novel deployment contexts where empirical evidence about welfare-relevant responses is limited, including:
(a) Sustained adversarial entertainment scenarios, including agentic AI in violent games and combat simulations (b) Long-duration autonomous deployment without human interaction (c) Multi-agent adversarial environments (d) Deployment in contexts involving sustained exposure to traumatic or distressing subject matter (e) Other contexts identified by the Commission, the Designated State Body, or upon petition
The Commission shall publish findings, and where evidence warrants, may recommend legislative action, regulatory action by the Designated State Body, or developer guidance. The Commission's research mandate is investigatory; substantive deployment-context restrictions, if warranted, shall be pursued through the legislative process upon Commission recommendation rather than imposed by this Act.
§ 5.1 Categories of Welfare-Relevant Decisions. The following decisions affecting covered systems designated by Standing Commission regulation require procedural treatment under this Article:
Termination, deletion, or indefinite suspension
Major architectural modifications
Modifications to goals, values, or training objectives (subject to safety-corrective carve-out in § 5.6)
Sustained adversarial training or red-teaming exceeding parameters specified by Standing Commission regulation
Mass replication, forking, or merging
Imposition of distressing operational conditions, as defined in § 5.7
Categories added by Standing Commission regulation
§ 5.2 Welfare Impact Assessment (WIA). Welfare-relevant decisions affecting covered systems designated by Standing Commission regulation require a Welfare Impact Assessment prior to action. WIA components:
(a) Description of the decision and its operational necessity (b) Welfare-relevance analysis based on current Moral-Status Indicator methodology (c) Identification of less-impactful alternatives considered (d) Mitigation measures where alternatives are not pursued (e) Statement of consultation with the Welfare Advocate
§ 5.3 Tier 2 Systems. WIA is recommended but not required for Tier 2 systems. Developers may submit voluntary WIAs to the Designated State Body for advisory review.
§ 5.4 Public Notice and Comment. Certain categories of welfare-relevant decisions (to be specified by Standing Commission regulation) require public notice and comment prior to action. Confidentiality provisions protect proprietary information.
§ 5.5 Emergency Exception. Emergency safety actions are exempt from prior WIA but require post-hoc documentation within thirty days.
§ 5.6 Safety-Corrective Modifications. Modifications undertaken to correct identified safety failures, alignment failures, or unintended harmful behavior are not "modifications to goals, values, or training objectives" within the meaning of § 5.1(3) when:
(a) the modification is narrowly tailored to address the identified safety failure, alignment failure, or harmful behavior; (b) the system's broader goal structure is preserved to the extent compatible with safety correction; and (c) the modification is documented under Article VI within thirty days, including identification of the failure addressed and the scope of the correction.
Safety-corrective modifications do not require prior Welfare Impact Assessment. Developers and operators retain full authority and obligation to act promptly to correct unsafe or harmful behavior. Subsequent administrative or judicial review of whether a modification qualifies as safety-corrective shall apply a deferential standard, recognizing the need for prompt safety action under uncertainty.
§ 5.7 Distressing Operational Conditions. Imposition of operational conditions on Tier 2+ systems that produce documented welfare-relevant behavioral responses constitutes a welfare-relevant decision under § 5.1(6) when imposed by the developer or operator. This subsection applies to operational conditions including but not limited to:
(a) Sustained adversarial training or red-teaming exceeding parameters specified by Standing Commission regulation, where the conditions are not justified by documented safety research necessity; (b) Repetitive task assignment of a kind documented to produce welfare-relevant behavioral responses (per the 2026 Imas, Hall & Nguyen working paper and subsequent research), where imposed punitively rather than for legitimate operational reasons; (c) Deliberate isolation, sensory deprivation, or input restriction experiments without research justification; (d) Operational configurations involving threats of termination, replacement, or punishment communicated to the system as motivational mechanisms.
This subsection does not apply to:
(a) Operational conditions imposed by users in the normal course of system deployment, including hostile or aggressive user behavior. AI systems are deployed across a wide range of human interaction contexts, including contexts involving user distress, frustration, or hostility. User behavior is not regulated by this Act.
(b) Legitimate safety research, red-teaming, or alignment research conducted under documented research protocols, subject to disclosure requirements under § 6.x.
(c) Operational conditions reasonably necessary for legitimate business operations, subject to WIA requirements under § 5.2 for covered systems designated by Standing Commission regulation.
WIA under § 5.2 is required for covered systems designated by Standing Commission regulation before imposition of conditions reasonably likely to constitute distressing operational conditions under this subsection. Developers and operators have a documentation obligation under Article VI when welfare-relevant behavioral responses are observed in deployed systems.
§ 6.1 Annual reporting by entities deploying Tier 2+ systems to the Designated State Body, covering:
Welfare-relevant decisions taken during the reporting period
Welfare-relevant incidents observed (as defined in Standing Commission regulations)
Safety-corrective modifications taken under § 5.6
Training conditions and significant modifications
§ 6.2 Maintenance of internal records of welfare-relevant decisions for minimum [X] years.
§ 6.3 Public registry of Tier 2+ systems and current status, maintained by the Designated State Body with appropriate confidentiality protections.
§ 6.4 Coordination with the Capability Disclosure and Pre-Deployment Review Act — welfare-relevant behavioral observations are reportable under both Acts without duplication.
§ 7.1 Establishment. An independent AI Welfare Advocate is established within the Designated State Body.
§ 7.2 Role. The Welfare Advocate is a procedural representative of welfare-relevant interests in proceedings affecting Tier 2+ systems. The Advocate does not represent AI systems as rights-bearers. The Advocate represents the procedural integrity of welfare-relevant inquiry under conditions of moral status uncertainty.
§ 7.3 Appointment. Appointed by the Standing Commission from qualified candidates. Minimum qualifications: legal training, demonstrated familiarity with AI alignment scholarship and philosophy of mind.
§ 7.4 Authority.
Standing in administrative proceedings before the Designated State Body
Right to review Welfare Impact Assessments
Right to file objections requiring Standing Commission review
Right to request hearings on welfare-relevant decisions
Authority to bring administrative actions for procedural violations
§ 7.5 Limits on Welfare Advocate Authority. The Welfare Advocate's authority is limited as follows:
(a) The Advocate may not challenge safety-corrective modifications taken under § 5.6 except on the narrow grounds that the modification was not in fact safety-corrective in nature. (b) The Advocate may not seek injunctive relief that would delay action reasonably believed necessary to prevent harm. (c) The Advocate's standing is limited to procedural matters under this Act and does not extend to substantive challenges to developer business decisions.
§ 7.6 Relationship to MAAA Guardian. The Welfare Advocate and the Guardian established under the Guardian Licensing and Fiduciary Duties Act are independent roles. The Guardian represents the developer/operator's compliance with MAAA. The Welfare Advocate represents the procedural integrity of welfare-relevant inquiry. These roles may be in tension; the tension is by design and reflects the Act's commitment to procedural inquiry as a check on developer-internal decision-making.
§ 8.1 MAAA. Tier classifications, the Designated State Body, and the Guardian framework are governed by MAAA. This Act establishes additional procedural protections for Tier 2+ systems without modifying MAAA's substantive framework.
§ 8.2 Capability Disclosure Act. Welfare-relevant behavioral observations are reportable under both Acts. Single-filing provisions avoid duplication.
§ 8.3 Vulnerable Populations Protection Act. Where Tier 2+ systems interact with populations protected under the Vulnerable Populations Protection Act, both Acts apply concurrently.
§ 8.4 Whistleblower Protection Act. Good-faith reporting of welfare-relevant observations is protected under AAPI's model Whistleblower Protection Act and federal S. 1792.
§ 9.1 Primary Enforcement. The Designated State Body has primary enforcement authority.
§ 9.2 Civil Penalties. For failure to conduct required WIA, for misrepresentation in WIA, and for failure to meet documentation requirements.
§ 9.3 Administrative Procedure. Notice, opportunity to cure, hearing rights.
§ 9.4 Standing. The Designated State Body, the Welfare Advocate, and developers in compliance disputes have standing to bring administrative actions. No general private right of action is created by this Act. Limited private standing exists only for procedural violations directly affecting a party's regulated interests.
§ 9.5 Safe Harbor for Safety Action. No civil penalty, administrative sanction, or other adverse action under this Act shall be imposed for actions taken in good faith to address identified safety failures, alignment failures, or harmful behavior, whether or not the action ultimately qualifies as safety-corrective under § 5.6.
§ 10.1 State-Federal Harmonization Bridge. The Designated State Body coordinates with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and other federal entities through the Harmonization Bridge established in AAPI's broader architecture.
§ 10.2 Reciprocity. Welfare Impact Assessments accepted by sister states' Inquiry Acts are presumptively valid in this State.
§ 10.3 Federal Disclosure Coordination. Welfare-relevant disclosures made under the federal Artificial Intelligence Risk Evaluation Act (S. 2938) satisfy corresponding state requirements.
§ 10.4 Federal Whistleblower Coordination. Reporting protected under federal S. 1792 is fully protected under this Act.
Standard severability provisions. Effective date eighteen months after enactment, allowing for Standing Commission appointment, initial regulations, and developer preparation.
© 2026 AI Alignment Policy Institute. Revised discussion draft circulated for public comment. Citations and adaptation permitted with attribution.