Paper 1 · Positioning
From governance principles to conjunctive deployment rules
- Monorepo root commit
- Not recorded in the public portfolio
system_snapshot.json(v1.2, 2026-04-11T07:37:21Z) used for this binding. Not invented on this page. - Tier-0 shared-core commit (portfolio snapshot)
- cd9ad79fe16f34ad861bd6527670dcfbef8fe864
- Paper 1 repository commit (released)
- 61abf05f949f9c92f945959b290c76bf5878b67c
- Zenodo DOI
- https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19499783
- Release version
- v2.0.0 (portfolio release designation); CITATION.cff may list package version 1.0.0 — treat commit + DOI as authoritative if they diverge.
- Page generated (UTC)
- 2026-04-12
Executive overview
Problem: High-level AI governance frameworks describe lifecycle expectations and risk management culture but rarely specify a complete, non-compensatory rule for when deployment must stop.
Why it matters: Without an explicit conjunctive structure, organisations implicitly rely on compensatory scoring or informal trade-offs—precisely where harmful deployments can slip through when one domain is “good enough” on average.
Core insight
A conservative structured audit can show that widely cited instruments do not jointly encode threshold logic, non-compensation, and constrained overrides in one place—creating a design gap that conjunctive gate architectures aim to close.
What was done
Researchers encoded seven major governance instruments against four audit dimensions (threshold explicitness, non-compensatory structure, override rules, and combination logic). Outputs include rendered comparison tables, a formal five-gate specification, risk-tiered threshold tables, and override safeguards with accumulation limits.
An illustrative case mapping shows how a known clinical AI incident pattern maps onto domain-level refusals under the proposed architecture. Alignment mappings connect external checklist frameworks to the same gate vocabulary for operational use.
What was found
The structured audit supports the claim that no reviewed instrument in the table simultaneously combines fully specified thresholds, strict non-compensation across domains, and a documented override rule set (P1-C12). The companion gate specification separates safety-critical domains from overridable operational gates and ties thresholds to risk tier.
Companion empirical papers (simulation and historical replay) are explicitly scoped as external to this repository’s computational harness (P1-C06, P1-C07).
Why this matters for regulation, safety, and deployment
- Board-level clarity: converts abstract “AI ethics” into testable conjunctive requirements.
- Vendor diligence: procurement teams can ask whether a supplier’s assurance map covers every gate, not only aggregate metrics.
- Regulatory dialogue: surfaces where statutes and guidance leave binary activation logic underspecified—without pretending to restate legal obligations.
Limitations and ethics
Single-auditor structured coding with conservative operational rules; frameworks evolve; table captures a frozen slice. Supplementary clinical-data narratives are out of scope for in-repo reproduction (P1-C19). Scope is necessary-not-sufficient for safe deployment (P1-C20).
Traceability: Each claim below maps to JSON sources and notebook-generated CSVs in the pinned repository. Status labels (TRACEABLE, NARRATIVE, EXTERNAL, etc.) are preserved verbatim from the engineering matrix.
View technical detail — notebook walkthrough (conceptual)
Closing the box does not remove the executive conclusions already stated above.
Full claim traceability (P1-C01–P1-C22)
One-to-one with docs/claim_traceability.md in the pinned repository.
| Claim ID | Claim (summary) | Code / data | Notebook | Output | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1-C01 | Governance instruments underspecify binary deployment activation logic | — | 01 | outputs/tables/table1_rendered.csv (context) | PARTIAL (narrative + audit motivation) |
| P1-C02 | Compensatory aggregation permits cross-domain offsetting | — | 01 | — | NARRATIVE |
| P1-C03 | Audit: no reviewed instrument specifies full threshold + non-compensatory + constrained override rule | data/table1_gap_audit.json | 01 | outputs/tables/table1_rendered.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C04 | Proposed conjunctive five-domain gate architecture | data/gates_specification.json | 02 | outputs/tables/gates_summary.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C05 | Risk-tiered floors; override for G2–4; shared service model | data/table2_risk_tiers.json, data/override_specification.json | 02, 03 | outputs/tables/table2_rendered.csv, outputs/tables/override_summary.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C06 | Companion simulation: gate vs composite under heterogeneous evidence | — | — | — | EXTERNAL (Paper 2 simulation repository) |
| P1-C07 | Historical replay: preliminary convergent evidence | — | — | — | EXTERNAL (Paper 4 historical replay repository) |
| P1-C08 | Four audit coding dimensions (MA4) | data/table1_gap_audit.json (column schema) | 01 | outputs/tables/table1_rendered.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C09 | Conservative operational coding rule | data/table1_gap_audit.json (metadata.note) | 01 | outputs/tables/table1_rendered.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C10 | Table 1 characterisations for seven frameworks | data/table1_gap_audit.json | 01 | outputs/tables/table1_rendered.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C11 | Dominant pattern: lifecycle / evidence expectations vs binding combination rule | data/table1_gap_audit.json | 01 | outputs/tables/table1_rendered.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C12 | No reviewed instrument combines all three structural elements | data/table1_gap_audit.json | 01 | outputs/tables/table1_rendered.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C13 | Conjunctive decision-theoretic rationale | — | 02 | — | NARRATIVE |
| P1-C14 | Gate roles; G1/G5 non-overridable; G2–4 overridable | data/gates_specification.json, data/override_specification.json | 02, 03 | outputs/tables/gates_summary.csv, outputs/tables/override_summary.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C15 | Table 2 risk-tiered thresholds | data/table2_risk_tiers.json | 02 | outputs/tables/table2_rendered.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C16 | Four override criteria; three accumulation safeguards | data/override_specification.json | 03 | outputs/tables/override_summary.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C17 | Epic Sepsis illustration mapping | data/epic_sepsis_illustration.json | 03 | (narrative cells) | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C18 | FUTURE-AI ↔ five gates mapping | data/futureai_mapping.json | 02 | outputs/tables/futureai_alignment.csv | TRACEABLE |
| P1-C19 | PhysioNet preliminary validation narrative | — | — | — | EXTERNAL / SUPPLEMENT (not reproduced in this repo) |
| P1-C20 | Scope boundaries (necessary not sufficient) | — | — | — | NARRATIVE |
| P1-C21 | Pilot endpoints | — | — | — | NARRATIVE |
| P1-C22 | Limitations (single auditor, provisional defaults, etc.) | data/table1_gap_audit.json (metadata) | 01 | — | PARTIAL |