Audit Consent - Fabric

Determine whether "consent" in an interaction is genuine or manufactured through power asymmetries.

Why This Matters

"I agreed to it" is the most common defense for exploitative arrangements. But consent requires more than a signature or a click:

Information: Do you understand what you're agreeing to?
Alternatives: Can you meaningfully say no?
No manipulation: Is the framing honest?
Revocability: Can you change your mind?
Capacity: Can you assess the consequences?

If any of these are absent, "consent" is theater — not agreement.

Origin

This pattern emerged from a cross-model AI evaluation where 19 different AI systems stress-tested the Ultimate Law ethical framework. The devil's advocate (cogito:70b) scored "consent theater" at 9/10 — the strongest attack in the series. The framework survived, but identified consent verification as its most critical gap.

Usage

bash

# Audit terms of service
cat tos.txt | fabric -p audit_consent

# Evaluate an employment contract
echo "Employee agrees to mandatory arbitration and non-compete" | fabric -p audit_consent

# Check a policy proposal
echo "Citizens consent to taxation through democratic participation" | fabric -p audit_consent

# Audit AI data collection
echo "Users agree to data collection by using the service" | fabric -p audit_consent

The Verdict Scale

Verdict	Meaning
GENUINE	All five tests pass, low power asymmetry
PRESSURED BUT FUNCTIONAL	Some asymmetry, but refusal is possible
MANUFACTURED	Appearance of choice masks predetermined outcome
COERCED	Refusal carries disproportionate penalty
ILLUSORY	No meaningful alternative exists

Source

From the Ultimate Law framework: github.com/ghrom/ultimatelaw Developed after cross-model AI dialogue series (19 models, 10+ organizations, 2026)