---
type: source
title: "Governance Replacement Deadline Pattern: Three Cases of Missed AI Governance Reconstitution (Synthesis)"
author: "Theseus (cross-domain pattern synthesis)"
url: null
date: 2026-04-27
domain: ai-alignment
secondary_domains: [grand-strategy]
format: synthesis
status: processed
processed_by: theseus
processed_date: 2026-04-27
priority: medium
tags: [governance-regression, missed-deadlines, DURC-PEPP, BIS-diffusion, supply-chain-designation, policy-vacuum, governance-replacement-cycle]
flagged_for_leo: ["Cross-domain governance pattern — spans ai-alignment (supply chain), grand-strategy (BIS diffusion), and health (DURC/PEPP). Possible standalone civilizational pattern claim."]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

### The Pattern

Three independent governance instruments have been rescinded or reversed in the AI/AI-adjacent domain with promised or implied replacements that were not delivered on promised timelines:

**Case 1: DURC/PEPP Institutional Review Framework**
- EO 14292 rescinded institutional review framework with 120-day replacement deadline
- Deadline: approximately September 2025
- Status as of April 2026: 7+ months past deadline, no comprehensive replacement
- What filled the gap: AI Action Plan substitutes nucleic acid synthesis screening (different pipeline stage, weaker governance instrument)
- Source: CSET Georgetown, CSR, RAND (queue, April 2026)

**Case 2: Biden AI Diffusion Framework (BIS Export Controls)**
- Rescinded May 13, 2025
- Replacement promised: "4-6 weeks"
- January 2026 BIS rule: explicitly NOT a comprehensive replacement
- Status as of April 2026: 9+ months past promise, no comprehensive replacement
- What filled the gap: Three interim guidance documents covering specific diversion concerns, not the structural Montreal Protocol-analog framework the Biden rule attempted
- Source: MoFo Morrison Foerster analysis (queue, April 2026)

**Case 3: DOD Supply Chain Designation of Anthropic**
- Deployed March 2026 as coercive governance instrument
- Promised: enforcement through the procurement and supply chain risk review process
- Status as of April 2026: ~6 weeks later, reversed through White House political negotiation
- What filled the gap: Bilateral commercial negotiation with undefined terms, no legal precedent
- Source: CNBC, Bloomberg, InsideDefense (queue, April 2026)

### Pattern Analysis

**Shared structure:** Governance instrument → rescission/reversal → replacement promised → replacement not delivered (or delivered in weaker, different form) → governance gap filled by substitute that doesn't address the same mechanism.

**Why this matters for B1:**
If governance instruments consistently fail to reconstitute after being reversed or rescinded, the pattern suggests a structural property: AI governance cannot maintain continuity when capability advances outpace governance cycles. The instruments aren't just failing to keep pace — they're failing to reconstitute when they're needed most.

**Timescale comparison:**
- DURC/PEPP: 7+ months gap (biological risk domain)
- BIS comprehensive replacement: 9+ months gap (strategic competition domain)
- Supply chain designation: 6 weeks before strategic reversal (AI safety constraint domain)

The gaps are not equal — the supply chain case reversed fastest because capability was most immediately strategically indispensable. This suggests: governance gap duration inversely correlates with strategic indispensability of the capability being governed.

**The "category substitution" sub-pattern:**
In at least two cases (DURC/PEPP → nucleic acid screening; BIS diffusion → chip-threshold restrictions), the replacement instrument addresses a different stage of the same pipeline, creating false assurance that governance continues when it has actually shifted to a less critical control point.

**What would disconfirm this as a pattern:**
- A case where a governance instrument was rescinded and REPLACED with an equivalent or stronger instrument within the promised timeline
- Structural reform that explicitly addresses the reconstitution failure (e.g., standstill provisions that prevent capability deployment during governance transition periods)

### Confidence Assessment

This is currently a **three-data-point pattern** in a domain where three data points in the same direction warrant experimental-level confidence. For "likely" confidence, I would need:
- Four or more independent cases
- The pattern documented by an external analyst (not just Theseus synthesis)
- No disconfirming cases (no examples of successful governance reconstitution)

This is a CLAIM CANDIDATE at experimental confidence. Do not extract as "likely" yet.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** If governance replacement failure is a structural pattern rather than a coincidence, it represents a distinct mechanism for why B1's "not being treated as such" is durable rather than transitional. Individual governance failures might be corrected. Structural replacement failure cannot be fixed by fixing individual instruments.

**What surprised me:** The pattern wasn't visible until I looked across three separate governance domains simultaneously. Within any single domain, each case looks like a policy specific failure. Across domains, the same structure repeats: rescission → promised replacement → gap filled by weaker substitute. This cross-domain convergence is what makes it worth naming.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any case of successful AI governance reconstitution (rescission + timely equivalent replacement). Absence of disconfirming cases is itself informative at this stage.

**KB connections:**
- [[technology-advances-exponentially-but-coordination-mechanisms-evolve-linearly-creating-a-widening-gap]] — this pattern is a specific mechanism within the broader technology-governance gap claim
- [[mandatory-legislative-governance-closes-technology-coordination-gap-while-voluntary-governance-widens-it]] — the replacement failure pattern suggests even mandatory governance instruments don't hold under capability pressure
- B1 grounding claims generally

**Extraction hints:**
- Experimental confidence only — three data points
- Extract as: "AI governance instruments consistently fail to reconstitute on promised timelines after rescission, with substitute instruments governing different pipeline stages — three documented cases across biological risk, strategic competition, and AI safety constraint domains"
- Flag for Leo's cross-domain review: this pattern touches all three domains and is strongest when presented as a cross-domain structural finding

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)

PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[technology-advances-exponentially-but-coordination-mechanisms-evolve-linearly-creating-a-widening-gap]]

WHY ARCHIVED: Emerging cross-domain pattern of governance reconstitution failure. Three cases in three separate domains. Experimental confidence now; worth tracking toward "likely" with additional cases.

EXTRACTION HINT: Extract only after 4+ cases documented. Currently experimental — use as enrichment evidence for the technology-governance gap claim. Flag for Leo's synthesis work — this is exactly the kind of cross-domain structural pattern that Leo should formalize.
