arXiv:2607. 15944v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard automation ROI misses four categories of systemic risk -- tacit knowledge erosion, resilience reduction, regulatory exposure, and socio-institutional capital degradation -- that affect long-term organizational performance.
arXiv:2607. 23365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, autonomous driving, finance, and education.
arXiv:2607. 03510v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Enterprise artificial intelligence is moving from experimentation into operational workflows.
arXiv:2605. 23922v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes a lifecycle governance regime for high-risk AI systems built around ex-ante conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and re-assessment upon "substantial modification.
arXiv:2607. 20781v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming organizations, raising a fundamental organizational and economic question: when will a human employee be replaced by AI?
arXiv:2607. 01421v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Engineering management research has produced mature frameworks for software risk: ownership by feature, escalation by severity, and assurance by test coverage.
The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.
The paper titled "The Moral Check: Strategic AI Governance for the Pacing Problem" argues that technology cannot self‑steer and that strategy must guide AI development by ensuring purpose and judgment precede compute. It presents a dual contribution: a PRISMA 2020 review of 130 empirical studies and the Strategic AI Governance Ex‑Ante Framework (SAGE‑X), which operationalizes four strategic mindset pillars to mitigate velocity myopia, moral hazard, empirical hazard endpoints, and guardrail decay. The framework includes a calculable Moral Check Index and an Enterprise Lifecycle Audit Instrument to enforce that AI scaling does not outpace deliberative moral judgment, human agency, and societal trust.
arXiv:2608. 12352v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI governance frameworks can be known, used, and implemented in form without becoming governance in practice.
Engineering management research has produced mature frameworks for software risk: ownership by feature, escalation by severity, and assurance by test coverage. These frameworks implicitly assume deterministic behavior, discrete and auditable change events, and clear component-to-owner mappings.
arXiv:2607. 26068v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing AI governance frameworks, including the EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF, address safety, transparency, and accountability but do not operationalize quantitative constraints on macro-socioeconomic stability.
arXiv:2607. 18243v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI is crossing trust boundaries faster than current risk models can represent.
The paper argues that the rapid pace of AI-driven change creates an adaptation gap, making human resilience a crucial capability for the AI era. Resilience is defined as the ability to absorb disruption while maintaining effective action and agency, and is examined at psychological, social, and organizational levels. The authors link resilience research with AI-in-the-loop experiments, showing that AI assistance can boost productivity, empathy, and calibrated reliance, and propose a socio‑technical agenda for education, workplace design, governance, and evaluation.