One of your more idiotic posts. I did not say "executive" - I said "executive functions." The Congress of the Confederation exercised the executive functions of government. You seem not to understand the concept of "executive functions of government."
The executive function of the United States was carried out through the States. Thus Federalist 10:
In our case, the concurrence of thirteen distinct sovereign wills is requisite, under the Confederation, to the complete execution of every important measure that proceeds from the Union. It has happened as was to have been foreseen. The measures of the Union have not been executed; the delinquencies of the States have, step by step, matured themselves to an extreme, which has, at length, arrested all the wheels of the national government, and brought them to an awful stand.
Unlike the theme proposed in the Constitution, of writing federal law to attach to individuals, under the Article of Confederation, legislation of the Congress was directed to the States, an idea "Publius" deprecated as both bad in its conception and, as he argued above, in its demonstrable results.
Or rather, by the lack of them, in which case the committees of the Congress charged with what you would call "executive functions" can hardly have been said to have discharged said "executive functions", if they neither executed nor functioned.
The United States Government, under the Articles of Confederation, was the Congress and a few courts -- such as Admiralty courts -- that answered to Congress's authority. It had no executive, no "executive functions", and no judiciary to speak of, either.
In summary, the Articles of Confederation provided for no executive, but rather directed by legislation that the States execute the laws and requisitions forwarded to them by the Congress.