From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good
Updated 1 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026
paper_01M294FPJ85TSJ9YD047V59FJC
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
- T1 · 1 h ago
- arXiv
- 2609.11910
- T1 · 1 h ago
- Category
- cs.LG
- T1 · 1 h ago
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence does more than create a governance problem. It can also reveal where institutions have already failed to provide responsiveness, belonging, care, and accountability. Once deployed, AI becomes an intervention in those conditions. It can repair, compound, substitute for, or conceal the failures it encounters. Responsible AI must therefore evaluate both the system and the institutional rupture into which it is introduced. The move from principles to protocols is already underway. The EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and assurance practices translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. The harder questions are what these protocols actually establish, whose power they leave untouched, and where measurement must stop. Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas provides a broader moral frame centered on dignity, technological power, and the common good. Drawing on that frame, we develop a rupture test that links institutional baselines to system evaluation. We distinguish evidence-bounded deployment, which limits claims to what has actually been evaluated, from measurement-bounded governance, which records constraints that favorable evidence cannot override. Within those limits, RISE AI provides an architecture for making bounded, evidence-based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment. Responsible AI requires better engineering, institutional repair, and continued moral and political judgment.
Authors 2
Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- new
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.11910
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Categories
- cs.LG
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- DOI
- 0.1145/3806096.3844885
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.LG
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
10
Source tiers
T110
Freshest observation
1 h ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
- Authors
- Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history · Abstract
Abstractabstract1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Intelligence does more than create a governance problem. It can also reveal where institutions have already failed to provide responsiveness, belonging, care, and accountability. Once deployed, AI becomes an intervention in those conditions. It can repair, compound, substitute for, or conceal the failures it encounters. Responsible AI must therefore evaluate both the system and the institutional rupture into which it is introduced. The move from principles to protocols is already underway. The EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and assurance practices translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. The harder questions are what these protocols actually establish, whose power they leave untouched, and where measurement must stop. Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas provides a broader moral frame centered on dignity, technological power, and the common good. Drawing on that frame, we develop a rupture test that links institutional baselines to system evaluation. We distinguish evidence-bounded deployment, which limits claims to what has actually been evaluated, from measurement-bounded governance, which records constraints that favorable evidence cannot override. Within those limits, RISE AI provides an architecture for making bounded, evidence-based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment. Responsible AI requires better engineering, institutional repair, and continued moral and political judgment. | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
New paper: From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.LG | feed | T1· Official | 1 h ago | 1 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.