AI TIPS 2.0: A Comprehensive Framework for Operationalizing AI Governance
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09114v1
- Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2025 20:57:22 GMT
- Title: AI TIPS 2.0: A Comprehensive Framework for Operationalizing AI Governance
- Authors: Pamela Gupta,
- Abstract summary: Organizations struggle with inadequate risk assessment at the use case level.<n>Existing frameworks like ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF remain at high conceptual levels.<n>No systematic approach to embed AI practices throughout the development lifecycle.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- Abstract: The deployment of AI systems faces three critical governance challenges that current frameworks fail to adequately address. First, organizations struggle with inadequate risk assessment at the use case level, exemplified by the Humana class action lawsuit and other high impact cases where an AI system deployed to production exhibited both significant bias and high error rates, resulting in improper healthcare claim denials. Each AI use case presents unique risk profiles requiring tailored governance, yet most frameworks provide one size fits all guidance. Second, existing frameworks like ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF remain at high conceptual levels, offering principles without actionable controls, leaving practitioners unable to translate governance requirements into specific technical implementations. Third, organizations lack mechanisms for operationalizing governance at scale, with no systematic approach to embed trustworthy AI practices throughout the development lifecycle, measure compliance quantitatively, or provide role-appropriate visibility from boards to data scientists. We present AI TIPS, Artificial Intelligence Trust-Integrated Pillars for Sustainability 2.0, update to the comprehensive operational framework developed in 2019,four years before NIST's AI Risk Management Framework, that directly addresses these challenges.
Related papers
- Frontier AI Auditing: Toward Rigorous Third-Party Assessment of Safety and Security Practices at Leading AI Companies [57.521647436515785]
We define frontier AI auditing as rigorous third-party verification of frontier AI developers' safety and security claims.<n>We introduce AI Assurance Levels (AAL-1 to AAL-4), ranging from time-bounded system audits to continuous, deception-resilient verification.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-16T18:44:09Z) - With Great Capabilities Come Great Responsibilities: Introducing the Agentic Risk & Capability Framework for Governing Agentic AI Systems [11.09031447875337]
Agentic Risk & Capability (ARC) Framework is a technical governance framework designed to help organizations identify, assess, and mitigate risks arising from agentic AI systems.<n>The framework's core contributions are:.<n>It develops a novel capability-centric perspective to analyze a wide range of agentic AI systems.<n>It distills three primary sources of risk intrinsic to agentic AI systems - components, design, and capabilities.<n>It establishes a clear nexus between each risk source, specific materialized risks, and corresponding technical controls.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-12-22T03:51:34Z) - Trustworthy Orchestration Artificial Intelligence by the Ten Criteria with Control-Plane Governance [1.9691447018712314]
This paper presents the Ten Criteria for Trustworthy Orchestration AI.<n>It integrates human input, semantic coherence, audit and provenance integrity into a unified Control-Panel architecture.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-12-11T05:49:26Z) - International AI Safety Report 2025: Second Key Update: Technical Safeguards and Risk Management [115.92752850425272]
Second update to the 2025 International AI Safety Report assesses new developments in general-purpose AI risk management over the past year.<n> examines how researchers, public institutions, and AI developers are approaching risk management for general-purpose AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-25T03:12:56Z) - Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z) - A Framework for the Assurance of AI-Enabled Systems [0.0]
This paper proposes a claims-based framework for risk management and assurance of AI systems.<n>The paper's contributions are a framework process for AI assurance, a set of relevant definitions, and a discussion of important considerations in AI assurance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-03T13:44:01Z) - In-House Evaluation Is Not Enough: Towards Robust Third-Party Flaw Disclosure for General-Purpose AI [93.33036653316591]
We call for three interventions to advance system safety.<n>First, we propose using standardized AI flaw reports and rules of engagement for researchers.<n>Second, we propose GPAI system providers adopt broadly-scoped flaw disclosure programs.<n>Third, we advocate for the development of improved infrastructure to coordinate distribution of flaw reports.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-21T05:09:46Z) - Position: Mind the Gap-the Growing Disconnect Between Established Vulnerability Disclosure and AI Security [56.219994752894294]
We argue that adapting existing processes for AI security reporting is doomed to fail due to fundamental shortcomings for the distinctive characteristics of AI systems.<n>Based on our proposal to address these shortcomings, we discuss an approach to AI security reporting and how the new AI paradigm, AI agents, will further reinforce the need for specialized AI security incident reporting advancements.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z) - Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization.
We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.