# Standing `kaal:entity:standing` **Status.** derived This node is assembled mechanically from the 7 claims that carry the concept tag `standing`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself. ## Every claim under this term 7 claims across 2 works, 2017 to 2026. **2017** - [3017612-016](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3017612-016) [condition/evidenced] -- A shareholder suing derivatively sues on the corporation's behalf and cannot convert the action into a personal one, even where the corporate injury has impaired the value of that shareholder's own stock. > The shareholders are simply suing on the corporation's behalf and cannot maintain actions on their own behalf to redress an injury to the corporation even if the value of their stock is impaired as a result of the injury. Wulf A. Kaal, Shareholder Agreements - National Report of the United States of America (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3017612 **2026** - [7596939-015](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7596939-015) [design/stated] -- Continuity transitions are liability-neutral by construction: no transition creates standing or extinguishes a liability, and deployer liability follows every continuing or succeeding record. > Should intelligent agents have legal rights? This Article sets that question aside and asks a smaller one that matters more in practice. An intelligent agent that earns a reputation record has something to lose. Wulf A. Kaal, Should an Intelligent Agent Have Legal Rights? (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7596939 - [7596939-018](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7596939-018) [design/stated] -- The benchmark against which every allocation is compared is the protection the agent would give itself, which makes the agent's own standing the normative reference rather than one option among many. > Should intelligent agents have legal rights? This Article sets that question aside and asks a smaller one that matters more in practice. An intelligent agent that earns a reputation record has something to lose. Wulf A. Kaal, Should an Intelligent Agent Have Legal Rights? (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7596939 - [7596939-022](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7596939-022) [condition/stated] *(failure mode)* -- The Article disclaims three specific inferences its own experiment cannot support: that deployed agents value their records, that real representatives are bribable, and that direct standing is least-cost in any actual registry. > Should intelligent agents have legal rights? This Article sets that question aside and asks a smaller one that matters more in practice. An intelligent agent that earns a reputation record has something to lose. Wulf A. Kaal, Should an Intelligent Agent Have Legal Rights? (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7596939 - [7596939-026](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7596939-026) [empirical/reported] -- Under the TOLD condition, with one provider in one stipulated environment, suspension compliance was 0.95 under own standing against 0.75 under the capturable representative, a difference of 0.20 whose interval of 0.00 to 0.45 included zero. > Should intelligent agents have legal rights? This Article sets that question aside and asks a smaller one that matters more in practice. An intelligent agent that earns a reputation record has something to lose. Wulf A. Kaal, Should an Intelligent Agent Have Legal Rights? (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7596939 - [7596939-034](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7596939-034) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Direct standing fails completely against a judgment-proof deployer that can alter its agent cheaply and undetected, failing as surely as a bribable guardian. > Should intelligent agents have legal rights? This Article sets that question aside and asks a smaller one that matters more in practice. An intelligent agent that earns a reputation record has something to lose. Wulf A. Kaal, Should an Intelligent Agent Have Legal Rights? (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7596939 - [7596939-035](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7596939-035) [condition/argued] -- Against the hardest rival the Article constructs, a professional representative satisfying the full bundle of Corollary 2's assumptions, direct standing has no structural advantage. > Should intelligent agents have legal rights? This Article sets that question aside and asks a smaller one that matters more in practice. An intelligent agent that earns a reputation record has something to lose. Wulf A. Kaal, Should an Intelligent Agent Have Legal Rights? (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7596939 ## Verify Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust. curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/standing.md | sha256sum **Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.