Independent External Citations
Citation 1 (May 2026): SSRN paper AI-Enabled Military Decision-Making and Escalation Risk: Human-Machine Command Authority in Great Power Competition (SSRN ID 6082847) cited in Hernandez, J. (2026), The Cascade Protocol (Pomona College, Department of Economics), ISBN 979-8195946579, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20113664. Reference #36 of 36, alongside the U.S. Department of War AI Strategy (January 2026), King's College London, US Army War College, Harvard Law School PILAC, Lieber Institute West Point, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Atlantic Council, and NDU Press.
Citation 2 (April 2026): SSRN paper ERAM: Escalation Risk in AI-Enabled Command and Control (SSRN ID 6176802) cited as Reference #4 in "The Ethics of AI in U.S. Warfare," LexAI Journal, University of Toronto Law and Ethics of Artificial Intelligence Students' Association.
Citation 3 (May 2026): SSRN paper The strategic convergence: AI has outpaced human clearance models (SSRN 5940814) cited as reference [41] in Baruwal Chhetri, M., Tariq, S., Aamir, T., Grobler, M., Thapa, C., & Singh, R. (2026), From Frontier to Shadow AI: A Simmering Threat to Assurance and Security in Critical Infrastructure, arXiv:2606.00088, an empirical study of 27 Australian critical-infrastructure organisations. Oktenli's work is cited twice, on shadow AI at the interaction layer and as an insider-risk condition.
Citation 4 (June 2026): SSRN paper AI-Enabled Military Decision-Making and Escalation Risk: Human-Machine Command Authority in Great Power Competition (SSRN ID 6082847) cited in endnote 39 of Panwar, R.S. (2026), Cognition, Agency, and Authority: A Taxonomy of Advanced AI Systems with Military Implications, an Academia.edu preprint by a retired Indian Army Lieutenant General and computer-science doctorate from the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.
Citation 5 (July 2026): SSRN paper Strategic Subterranean Domain Awareness: A Comprehensive Technical and Operational Evaluation of Next-Generation AI-Fused Counter-Tunnel Architectures (SSRN 6046594) cited as reference [1] in Junaid, M., Khan, S.A., & Ahmed, N. (2026), Unsupervised Detection of Underground Tunnels in Ground-Penetrating Radar Using Depth-Restricted Reconstruction Scoring, arXiv:2607.04882 (Sir Syed CASE Institute of Technology, Islamabad, and University of Strathclyde, Glasgow), cited twice in the body.
Citation 6 (July 2026): A Norwegian information-security advisory firm in Oslo named Oktenli and his term “cap weaponization” in a client-facing analysis and converted the concept into recommended controls tied to the EU NIS2 directive.
Citation 7 (August 2026): A technology-ethics podcast hosted by a bioethicist and a philosopher listed his RealClearDefense analysis among the source materials for a full episode on autonomous weapons, alongside references from CSIS, the ICRC, and Military Review.
Citation 8 (August to September 2026): The Foundation for Defense of Democracies excerpted his work in its Overnight Brief on three occasions, twice within nine days in August, including a listing in the brief’s Must-Reads selection, and again in its Defense section on September 25.
Citation 9 (August 2026): The United Kingdom coalition campaigning on autonomous weapons included his Eurasia Review analysis, named and summarised, among twelve selected items in the inaugural issue of its curated news roundup.
Citation 10 (July 2026): A Japanese security-engineering publication named him in its daily report, summarised the “cap weaponization” mechanism in Japanese, converted it into three recommended reader actions, and indexed the term among that day’s attack methods.
Citation 11 (August 2026): A named staff journalist at the English edition of a Greek news publication built an original news article on his Washington Examiner analysis, attributing it to him in the text and in a closing source line.
Citation 12 (August 2026): A peer-reviewed article in Middle East Policy (Wiley), DOI 10.1111/mepo.70106, cites his Geopolitical Monitor analysis at endnote 43 in support of its account of reciprocal ten-year security agreements. This replaces a duplicate entry: The Cascade Protocol is already recorded at Citation 1.
Citation 13 (2025): His work is cited in a defense logistics paper addressed to ministries of defense.
Citation 14 (August 2026): A syndicated investigative feature quotes his Articles of War analysis directly and identifies him by name; carried by five publications.
Citation 15 (June to October 2026): A curated Indian strategic-studies portal maintained by a retired major general has selected nine of his pieces, six carrying original analytical commentary.
Citation 16 (August 2026): The Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation featured his RealClearDefense analysis on its blog.
Citation 17 (August 2026): A Balkan geopolitics institute in Pristina translated one of his analyses into Albanian and republished it in full, crediting the original outlet.
Citation 18 (August 2026): A French geopolitics publication carried his argument into French under a staff byline, attributing it by name and quoting it in display type.
Citation 19 (June to September 2026): United Press International selected his work four times for the Director’s Corner of its Korea Regional Review, each selection carrying editorial commentary.
Citation 20 (August 2026): The Parliamentary Observatory on AI of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean featured his analysis in its weekly digest.
Citation 21 (May 2026): His public comment is cited by name in the U.S. Federal Register at 91 FR 30789, 30792 n.10, Docket NHTSA-2026-0529, among the comments that raised issues with the reporting requirements.
Citation 22 (September 2026): An experimental cosmologist and laboratory principal investigator featured his analysis of evidence-graded discovery in a subscriber newsletter, corroborating it against the canonical premature-discovery case in his own field.
Citation 23 (September 2026): An independent author writing on agentic artificial intelligence and financial regulation cited him by name in the objections section of a long-form essay, summarised his argument on narrow revocable authority, recorded that it arrived first, and recommended the two arguments be read together.
Citation 24 (September 2026): An independent defence commentator opened a long-form critique of a national science and technology strategy with his analysis of it, describing his argument that authority should contract as evidence degrades as sharper than most artificial-intelligence governance analysis he receives, and crediting him with surfacing the autonomy-governance angle before the trade press. The same piece disputes the scope of his reading, and that criticism is recorded alongside the credit in the impact record.
Citation 25 (June 2026): An independent Indo-Pacific geopolitics and strategy analysis service carried his Space Review article on autonomy in space in its news record, naming him, summarising the argument in its own words, and writing its own headline stating that space autonomy needs an authority architecture, which is his own term. Recorded as an editorial curation rather than an analytical engagement.
Citation 26 (September 2026): A Chinese-language analysis service that explains overseas commentary to a Chinese-reading audience devoted a full article to his Washington Examiner op-ed on artificial-intelligence diplomacy, naming him throughout and reconstructing his argument in sequence, including his reciprocal principle that an institution excluding either major power could not claim to govern global artificial intelligence. His first treatment in Chinese.
Citation 27 (September 2026): A Russian-language technology and broadcasting review published a complete two-part translation of his Space Review analysis on autonomous collision avoidance, crediting his authorship and the originating outlet throughout, carrying his biography in its correct form, and adding its own explanatory annotations defining the technical terms for a non-specialist readership. His first treatment in Russian, and the fifteenth country in the citation record.
Citation 28 (August 2026): A software company that builds runtime governance for automated systems filed a reply comment in the federal automated-vehicle framework docket that names his comment in the same docket among four it supports, builds its central argument on his recommendation that the authority state in force at any moment of operation be reconstructable, and reports a finding from its own graduated-authority implementation on how that recommendation should be written. The same day it filed a second comment, in a separate docket on vehicle exemptions, naming his comment there and supporting his recommendations on previously manufactured vehicles; the two filings are counted as one source.
Citation 29 (October 2026): A retired Army Special Forces lieutenant colonel who now advises the Army’s autonomy portfolio office cited him by name in a Modern War Institute at West Point commentary arguing that lethal decisions in close ground combat must stay with a human, linking his own Modern War Institute commentary and presenting his authority enforcement layer, which sits outside the artificial-intelligence system, pauses before irreversible action and fails toward inaction when authorization is absent, as what governance built as an engineering requirement looks like in practice.
Citation 30 (October 2026): The co-founder of a company that builds enforceable decision boundaries and audit records for artificial-intelligence systems, a former Canadian Army officer, cited him by name in his professional newsletter’s military and defence series, attributing to his June 2026 Modern War Institute commentary the authority gap between the authority a commander holds and the authority a fielded autonomous system exercises before anyone can intervene, and summarizing the three features of machine-speed operation that, in his analysis, make that gap a command problem rather than a technology problem: an authority vacuum created by review latency, individually permissible steps that combine into decisive harm, and restraint that an adversary can exploit.
Citation 31 (October 2026): A registered Seoul newspaper led its Korean-language security-briefing column with his RealClearDefense op-ed on the Pentagon’s quantum programmes, naming him as its author, quoting five of its sentences and translating them into Korean with explanatory notes, crediting him with its central point that the measure is a scorecard from the warfighter’s perspective rather than the size of the spending, and citing the op-ed again as the source for the American post-quantum deadlines against which it assessed South Korea’s own preparations. His first treatment in Korean.
Citation 32 (October 2026): The online newspaper of the Vietnam Economic Magazine, the Hanoi publication of the Vietnam Economic Association, ran a Vietnamese-language technology feature built on his Eurasia Review analysis of AI-designed quantum circuits the day after it appeared, following its argument closely from the opening to the closing lines and attributing two of its conclusions to him by name: that organizations should not wait for a new AI breakthrough before preparing for the post-quantum transition, and that quantum hardware must still overcome major physical barriers that AI cannot remove. His first treatment in Vietnamese.
View Full Citation Detail ↗
