Trustworthy AI Posture (TAIP): A Framework for Continuous AI Assurance of Agentic Systems at Horizontal and Vertical scale

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03340v1
• Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2026 10:49:47 GMT
• Title: Trustworthy AI Posture (TAIP): A Framework for Continuous AI Assurance of Agentic Systems at Horizontal and Vertical scale
• Abstract summary: Point-in-time, document-based audits cannot keep pace with non deterministic behaviour.<n>Crisis is dual-scale: vertically, governance and control obligations change faster than frameworks can operationalise them.<n>Risk-based regulation now requires organisations to demonstrate ongoing control adequacy and effectiveness.<n>This paper reframes trustworthiness as a continuously generated signal rather than a static certificate.
• Score: 1.0896567381206714
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The emergence of autonomous, high-velocity Agentic AI systems is creating an internal assurance scalability crisis. Point-in-time, document-based audits cannot keep pace with non deterministic behaviour and distributed deployments of agents across rapidly evolving environments. The crisis is dual-scale: vertically, governance and control obligations change faster than frameworks can operationalise them; horizontally, assurance mechanisms fail to scale across complex, heterogeneous systems and evidence sources. Risk-based regulation now requires organisations to demonstrate ongoing control adequacy and effectiveness, yet existing Trustworthy AI Assurance and Audit frameworks remain fragmented and largely manual. Drawing on the evolution of cybersecurity posture management, this paper reframes trustworthiness as a continuously generated signal rather than a static certificate. It contributes 1) A Trustworthy AI Assurance Ontology modelling the end-to-end pathway from regulatory obligation to verifiable evidence 2) An ontology-driven, evidence-gated benchmark of thirteen leading frameworks, revealing a posture readiness gap 3) The Trustworthy AI Posture (TAIP) framework, which operationalises the NIST AI RMF Test,Evaluate,Verify,Validate (TEVV) cycle as reusable AI Assurance Objects. TAIP decouples policy content ('what') from execution semantics ('how'), enabling composable, automatable assurance across jurisdictions and agentic systems. Evidence from heterogeneous tools is normalised and recursively aggregated into posture at claim, system, organisational, and ecosystem levels. A use case mapping Australian AI Guardrails to Microsoft 365 Copilot demonstrates claim decomposition, evidence binding, and posture computation in practice. By standardising execution while allowing policy variation, TAIP enables scalable, machine-speed trust signal generation.

Related papers

• AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation [48.55515767840701]
  "AI slop" is artifacts, hallucinated vulnerabilities, plausible but incorrect patches, and semantically repackaged bug reports.<n>This paper surveys the empirical evidence, identifies a unifying mechanism, and traces a path toward trustworthy triage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T11:48:38Z)
• Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels [53.63220028820581]
  Embodied intelligence integrates learned perception and decision making with real-time computation, control, and physical interaction.<n>We define trustworthy embodied intelligence as the sustained capacity to execute specified tasks reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T17:50:44Z)
• Provably Secure Agent Guardrail [89.79561918065122]
  Existing defense architectures rely on empirical semantic guardrails and probabilistic large model adjudicators.<n>This paper proposes a new security paradigm for agents based on the fundamental limitations of logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T02:12:41Z)
• AI Trust OS -- A Continuous Governance Framework for Autonomous AI Observability and Zero-Trust Compliance in Enterprise Environments [4.3073750462661256]
  This paper proposes AI Trust OS, a governance architecture for continuous, autonomous AI observability and zero-trust compliance.<n>The framework operates through a zero-trust telemetry boundary in which ephemeral read-only probes validate structural metadata.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T15:14:10Z)
• Architecting Secure AI Agents: Perspectives on System-Level Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks [46.32011684548212]
  AI agents are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection, in which malicious instructions embedded in untrusted data can trigger dangerous agent actions.<n>This position paper discusses our vision for system-level defenses against indirect prompt injection attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T17:15:46Z)
• Trust as Monitoring: Evolutionary Dynamics of User Trust and AI Developer Behaviour [59.27481013639016]
  We study how user trust strategies and developer choices between safe and unsafe AI co-evolve under different levels of monitoring cost and institutional regimes.<n>We find three robust long-run regimes: no adoption with unsafe development, unsafe but widely adopted systems, and safe systems that are widely adopted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T19:04:23Z)
• The Alignment Flywheel: A Governance-Centric Hybrid MAS for Architecture-Agnostic Safety [5.399984738447277]
  This paper formalizes the Alignment Flywheel as a governance-centric hybrid MAS architecture.<n>An enforcement layer applies explicit risk policy at runtime, and a governance MAS supervises the Oracle through auditing, uncertainty-driven verification, and versioned refinement.<n>The architecture is implementation-agnostic with respect to both the Proposer and the Safety Oracle, and specifies the roles, artifacts, protocols, and release semantics needed for runtime gating, audit intake, signed patching, and staged rollout.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-28T00:48:06Z)
• MAIF: Enforcing AI Trust and Provenance with an Artifact-Centric Agentic Paradigm [0.5495755145898128]
  Current AI systems operate on opaque data structures that lack the audit trails, provenance tracking, or explainability required by emerging regulations like the EU AI Act.<n>We propose an artifact-centric AI agent paradigm where behavior is driven by persistent, verifiable data artifacts rather than ephemeral tasks.<n>Production-ready implementation demonstrates ultra-high-speed streaming (2,720.7 MB/s), optimized video processing (1,342 MB/s), and enterprise-grade security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T04:10:32Z)
• AI Bill of Materials and Beyond: Systematizing Security Assurance through the AI Risk Scanning (AIRS) Framework [31.261980405052938]
  Assurance for artificial intelligence (AI) systems remains fragmented across software supply-chain security, adversarial machine learning, and governance documentation.<n>This paper introduces the AI Risk Scanning (AIRS) Framework, a threat-model-based, evidence-generating framework designed to operationalize AI assurance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-16T16:10:38Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)
• 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)
• Do LLMs trust AI regulation? Emerging behaviour of game-theoretic LLM agents [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators and users, modelling their strategic choices under different regulatory scenarios.<n>Our research identifies emerging behaviours of strategic AI agents, which tend to adopt more "pessimistic" stances than pure game-theoretic agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T15:41:21Z)
• Meta-Sealing: A Revolutionizing Integrity Assurance Protocol for Transparent, Tamper-Proof, and Trustworthy AI System [0.0]
  This research introduces Meta-Sealing, a cryptographic framework that fundamentally changes integrity verification in AI systems. The framework combines advanced cryptography with distributed verification, delivering tamper-evident guarantees that achieve both mathematical rigor and computational efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T15:31:22Z)

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.