Polycontextural Agent Architectures for Delegated AI: Contextural Accountability Beyond Monolithic AGI

Current debates on artificial general intelligence often imagine AGI as the emergence of aunified artificial mind. This paper questions that monolithic assumption. It does not ask whetherAI systems possess phenomenal consciousness. It asks whether increasingly capable systems candistinguish, occupy, and mediate heterogeneous validity logics in real decision contexts. Starting from the definitional heterogeneity of the AGI debate, the paper argues that generalintelligence is constituted across multiple forms of validity, relevance, and responsibility.Building on Gotthard Günther's theory of polycontexturality, it conceptualizes these heterogeneouslogics as contextures: distinct validity spaces in which claims, recommendations, and actionsbecome meaningful under different conditions. The paper develops the concepts of contextural reflexivity, delegated AI, and contexturalaccountability. It proposes polycontextural agent architectures as an alternative to monolithicAGI models. Such architectures combine contexture-specific agents, mediation layers, rolestructures, and governance mechanisms in order to make explicit which validity logic anAI-generated claim follows, which other contextures it affects, and when human or institutionalescalation is required. The argument is illustrated through a demonstrator from inclusivelabor-market integration. The contribution is a conceptual framework for AGI theory, agentic AI, alignment, and AIgovernance. It reframes general artificial intelligence as a problem of reflexive mediation withindelegated and institutionally embedded decision architectures. The conclusion outlines threesubsequent research directions: Organizational Validity Mapping, Polycontextural ComplianceMetrics, and architectural learning through transjunctional reflection. Note on tools: The author used AI-assisted drafting, translation, and editorial tools during the preparation of this manuscript. The conceptual framing, theoretical argument, selection of sources, responsibility for the content, and final editorial decisions remain with the author.