A counter-argument here: if a private company knows that its technology may be used for human-not-in-loop targeting/surveillance, and knows that its technology is not yet ready to fulfill that use case without meaningful unintended casualties... does that company have an ethical obligation to contractually delineate its inability to offer that service?

In a version of a trolley problem where you're on a track that will kill innocent people, and you have the opportunity to set up a contract that effectively moves a switch to a track without anyone on it, is it not imperative to flip that switch?

(One might argue that increased reaction times might save service members' lives - but the whole point is that if the autonomous targeting is incorrect, it may just as well lead to increased violence and service member casualties in the aggregate.)

And we're not talking about the ethics board manipulating individual token outputs subtly, which would indeed be a supply chain risk - we're talking about a contractual relationship in which, if a supplier detects use outside of the scope of an agreed contract, it has the contractual right to not provide the service for that novel use, while maintaining support for prior use cases.

The fact that the government would use the threat of supply chain risk to enforce a better contract is unprecedented, and it deteriorates the government's standing as a reliable counterparty in general.