Civilizational AI Governance: A Four-Path Framework for Structural Responsibility Alignment Author: Qingyun Hu-Yang Affiliation: Independent Researcher Version: 1.0 Date: 2026 Abstract This working paper proposes a structural framework for civilizational AI governance grounded in responsibility alignment rather than technical compliance. It argues that artificial intelligence governance must begin from a civilizational positioning of humanity as the non-transferable bearer of responsibility. The paper outlines four governance paths: positioning clarity, responsibility anchoring, asymmetry correction, and reversibility protection. Together, these paths offer a structural orientation for global governance bodies seeking long-term civilizational continuity under accelerating technological expansion. 1. Positioning Clarity Artificial intelligence represents an unprecedented extension of human functional capacity. Governance debates often focus on regulatory constraints, safety standards, or model transparency. Yet without a clear civilizational positioning of humanity itself, such discussions remain incomplete. Civilizational AI governance begins with a foundational premise: Human beings remain the irreducible locus of responsibility. Technological systems may assist, augment, or automate, but they do not inherit moral agency. Governance must therefore preserve the structural distinction between technological capability and human accountability. Positioning clarity prevents gradual responsibility displacement and maintains the ethical architecture of civilization. 2. Responsibility Anchoring Technological systems distribute effects widely while decision authority may become diffused across institutions, corporations, and automated processes. This creates responsibility dilution. Effective governance requires: • Clearly identifiable human decision nodes • Traceable accountability pathways • Institutional anchoring of oversight authority • Explicit assignment of consequence-bearing responsibility Responsibility must be structurally located. Without anchoring mechanisms, governance frameworks risk becoming procedural while accountability becomes abstract. Civilizational stability depends on visible responsibility chains. 3. Asymmetry Correction AI systems scale rapidly in speed, scope, and impact. Human ethical deliberation scales slowly. This produces structural asymmetry between technological capability and moral governance capacity. Unchecked asymmetry leads to: • Acceleration without reflection • Deployment before evaluation • Diffusion of consequences without corrective capacity Governance must therefore include mechanisms that: • Align scaling speed with oversight capacity • Require ethical review proportional to systemic impact • Prevent minimal-resistance consequence transfer Asymmetry correction is not anti-innovation. It is pro-continuity. 4. Reversibility Protection Civilizations endure by preserving the capacity to revise decisions. Irreversible technological deployment undermines adaptive governance. Civilizational AI governance must therefore ensure: • Human override authority • Reversibility thresholds for high-impact systems • Periodic long-horizon reassessment • Institutional capacity to suspend or modify deployment Continuity is not automatic. It must be protected structurally. Reversibility is a civilizational safeguard. Conclusion AI governance is not merely a technical regulatory challenge. It is a civilizational alignment task. The four-path framework presented here offers a structural orientation for responsibility preservation under accelerating technological expansion. By clarifying positioning, anchoring responsibility, correcting asymmetry, and protecting reversibility, governance institutions can strengthen long-term civilizational continuity.