PaperActive

From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good

arxiv.org/abs/2609.11910

quality89

Updated 4 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294FPJ85TSJ9YD047V59FJC

Published: 11 Sept 2026; T1 · 4 h ago
arXiv: 2609.11910; T1 · 4 h ago
Category: cs.LG; T1 · 4 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: arxiv.org/abs/2609.11910
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Arxiv announce type: new
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
arXiv id: 2609.11910
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Categories: cs.LG
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
DOI: 0.1145/3806096.3844885
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
PDF: arxiv.org/pdf/2609.11910
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Primary category: cs.LG
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Published: 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 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

Source tiers

T110

Freshest observation

4 h ago

Conflicts

None

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history

10 claims · 10 properties

Official pageofficial_url1

Claim history for Official page
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11910	11 Sept 2026 21:02 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
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.	11 Sept 2026 21:02 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Arxiv announce typearxiv_announce_type1

Claim history for Arxiv announce type
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
new	11 Sept 2026 21:02 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

arXiv idarxiv_id1

Claim history for arXiv id
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
2609.11910	11 Sept 2026 21:02 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Authorsauthors1

Claim history for Authors
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti	11 Sept 2026 21:02 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Categoriescategories1

Claim history for Categories
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
cs.LG	11 Sept 2026 21:02 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

DOIdoi1

Claim history for DOI
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
0.1145/3806096.3844885	11 Sept 2026 21:02 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

PDFpdf_url1

Claim history for PDF
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.11910	11 Sept 2026 21:02 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Primary categoryprimary_category1

Claim history for Primary category
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
cs.LG	11 Sept 2026 21:02 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Publishedpublished_at1

Claim history for Published
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
11 Sept 2026	11 Sept 2026 21:02 UTC → 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 →

Source documents
Source	Document	Type	Tier	Last observed	Snapshots
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)	rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.LG	feed	T1· Official	2 h ago	1

Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.