The QIS clause library.
MARQUE states the eight questions. KYA measures whether an institution can answer them. Neither supplies the words. An institution that has decided to grant an autonomous system limited authority, or to promise a counterparty it can halt one, still has to draft the document that does it — and for most of what follows, no standard form has existed. This is a form book: drafted operative language, the authorities each provision derives from, and commentary on every material term.
What an instrument is, and is not.
Every entry below is an editorial form with commentary, published in the tradition of model agreements and form books — the same genre as an ISDA definitions booklet or a model limited partnership agreement, not a compliance product. Each states plainly, once, at the point of use: it is not legal advice, not a compliance determination, not a certification, and not a representation that any provision is enforceable in any jurisdiction. Review by counsel and adaptation before use are assumed, not optional.
What makes an entry an instrument rather than a reference document is that its primary content is operative language intended to be executed — language a reader takes, fills in, and signs — as distinct from language that explains, defines, or maps. The site's own Legal Notice and Data License are drafted language too, but they bind this publisher. An instrument here binds a reader's counterparties instead.
The register.
Each instrument names the MARQUE question it is the operative counterpart to and the KYA dimension it supplies evidence for. An institution that can produce an executed instrument in the form below, rather than merely describe the policy behind it, is evidenced on that dimension rather than documented.
A drafted form of authority grant for autonomous systems — not a delegation to the software, which current agency law cannot support, but a record of the limits the deployer has imposed on its own exercise of authority. Quantitative limits, reserved actions, termination triggers, and an accountable individual, all enforced at runtime.
Where the authority grant is a promise an institution makes to itself, this is a promise owed to a counterparty, with a remedy attached. Pre-committed halt triggers, a reason-free demand right, testing obligations, restart conditions, and the allocation of loss on a halt — the question almost nobody drafts.
An institution deploying a model it did not build is a producer who has not cleared chain of title. Twelve representations on model identity, the contractual chain, rights in outputs, training and retrieval corpora, dependencies, and audit rights — each schedule-qualified rather than asserted flat, because provenance is a question about what is already true.
Reading order.
The three are independent and each stands alone, but they were drafted to interlock. The authority grant's Article 5 states a termination capability as a self-imposed limit; the kill-switch covenant restates the same capability as a promise owed to someone else, with a remedy attached — read the grant first if you are reading both. The provenance representations stand apart: they state facts as of a point in time rather than committing to future conduct, and they are the instrument most institutions will find hardest to sign without qualification, which is itself a finding.