Can the person or system enter?
Access governs technical reach into applications, data, and functions.
Access is not authority. Assignment is not authority. AI capability is not authority. Vidamonti resolves who is institutionally permitted to approve, reject, modify, escalate, override, or stop the consequential decision under the conditions that actually exist.
Identity and workflow systems remain essential, but by themselves they do not decide who may commit the institution to the consequence in front of them. Vidamonti resolves that boundary in context.
Access governs technical reach into applications, data, and functions.
Workflow roles define participation, assignment, and operating responsibility.
Authority binds consequence, context, thresholds, and permitted decision actions.
Vidamonti evaluates decision type, consequence, jurisdiction, exception state, thresholds, delegation, and current conditions before the workflow exposes an action the institution can authorize.
May review evidence and recommend disposition.
Threshold and exception state require higher institutional authority.
Approval is unavailable at the current authority level.
Vidamonti routes the decision to the authority that can resolve it, exposes only permitted actions, and escalates when the current authority boundary is insufficient. Exception handling remains inside the controlled path.
Different workflows can require operators, supervisors, risk or compliance functions, executive authority, or other defined roles. Vidamonti keeps reviewer assignment and permitted decision actions explicit rather than inferring them from system access.
Vidamonti can represent temporary, substitute, or emergency authority with a named source, defined scope, time window where applicable, and recorded use.
The decision record retains which authority path applied, who acted, which actions were available, and whether escalation, delegation, or override affected the final state, supporting later review and assurance where the operating model uses that record.
These definitions make the authority model explicit for evaluators and operators without collapsing technical access into institutional permission.
AI decision authority defines who or what is institutionally permitted to move an AI-supported recommendation into an authorized state. It determines which roles may approve, reject, modify, escalate, override, or stop a consequential decision under defined conditions.
Access control determines whether a person or system can enter an application, data set, or technical function. It remains important, but by itself it does not grant institutional permission to make the consequential decision. Decision authority defines that separate boundary.
An AI approval workflow routes an AI-supported decision through the evidence, policy, authority, and human review steps required before action can proceed. The path defines who must review, what they need, which actions they can take, and where escalation ends.
A decision escalates when the current role lacks sufficient authority, required evidence is unresolved, policy creates an exception, consequence crosses a threshold, or the workflow otherwise cannot resolve the decision inside the current operating boundary.
Do not allow technical access, workflow assignment, or increasing model capability to become institutional authority by accident.