A governance hash chain records not just what was governed but who governed it. When the actor is a human officer, the officer’s UUID from the governance officer registry is the correct attribution. When the actor is the substrate itself — recording an event triggered by authentication or autonomous substrate logic, not by human authorization — no human officer UUID exists. Fabricating one would misrepresent the chain. The substrate sentinel ID is the architecturally correct attribution for events the substrate generates autonomously. The legal implication is precise: AUDITORPACKACCESSED carries the sentinel ID because no human officer issued the auditor access event — the substrate recorded it when the auditor authenticated against the governance endpoint. An auditor who challenges this attribution is asking why the substrate did not attribute an autonomous system action to a human. The answer is that doing so would be a misrepresentation. The sentinel ID is the truthful attribution. This technical note documents the attribution model, the event classification taxonomy, the legal basis for the sentinel design, and the guidance auditors need to read sentinel-attributed events correctly.
Narnaiezzsshaa Truong (Thu,) studied this question.