Governed Reasoning for Institutional AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10658v1
• Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2026 14:09:18 GMT
• Title: Governed Reasoning for Institutional AI
• Abstract summary: Cognitive Core is a governed decision substrate built from nine typed cognitive primitives.<n>Human review is a condition of execution rather than a post-hoc check.<n>We benchmark three systems on an 11-case balanced prior authorization appeal evaluation set.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Institutional decisions -- regulatory compliance, clinical triage, prior authorization appeal -- require a different AI architecture than general-purpose agents provide. Agent frameworks infer authority conversationally, reconstruct accountability from logs, and produce silent errors: incorrect determinations that execute without any human review signal. We propose Cognitive Core: a governed decision substrate built from nine typed cognitive primitives (retrieve, classify, investigate, verify, challenge, reflect, deliberate, govern, generate), a four-tier governance model where human review is a condition of execution rather than a post-hoc check, a tamper-evident SHA-256 hash-chain audit ledger endogenous to computation, and a demand-driven delegation architecture supporting both declared and autonomously reasoned epistemic sequences. We benchmark three systems on an 11-case balanced prior authorization appeal evaluation set. Cognitive Core achieves 91% accuracy against 55% (ReAct) and 45% (Plan-and-Solve). The governance result is more significant: CC produced zero silent errors while both baselines produced 5-6. We introduce governability -- how reliably a system knows when it should not act autonomously -- as a primary evaluation axis for institutional AI alongside accuracy. The baselines are implemented as prompts, representing the realistic deployment alternative to a governed framework. A configuration-driven domain model means deploying a new institutional decision domain requires YAML configuration, not engineering capacity.

Related papers

• A Mathematical Framework for Legacy, Governance, and Decision Integrity in Enterprise AI [0.0]
  This paper develops a design-science framework for institutional legacy.<n>It contributes: (i) a normalized Legacy Score based on a penalized geometric mean of knowledge retention, governance, human oversight, adaptability, feedback learning, and jurisdictional fidelity.<n>It also proposes eight AI Decision Integrity Rules, an evaluation protocol, and a reproducible computational demonstration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T02:06:32Z)
• Governing Actions, Not Agents: Institutional Attestation as a Governance Model for Autonomous AI Systems [0.0]
  Human institutions have governed powerful autonomous actors by requiring independently attested evidence at the point of consequential action.<n>We formalise this institutional pattern as a computational governance model for AI agent systems.<n>Under the proposed model, an agent retains full autonomy over planning and reasoning but holds no execution authority over designated high-risk actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T18:43:00Z)
• Neuro-Symbolic Agents for Regulated Process Automation: Challenges and Research Agenda [43.328395470827665]
  We argue that symbolic structures embedded in regulated industries should be treated as core architectural components.<n>We propose compliance-by-construction as a complementary paradigm to guardrail-based monitoring.<n>We call on the neuro-symbolic community to engage with regulated process automation as a high impact research domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T14:34:11Z)
• Who judges the judges? Governance from metrics: a runtime framework for continuous LLM compliance monitoring [0.0]
  Current approaches to AI compliance treat conformity as a binary, audit-time verdict.<n>We argue that this compliance fiction is structurally ill-suited to the requirements of the EU AI Act.<n>We introduce governance from metrics, a principle whereby regulatory compliance is derived as a continuous signal from behavioural observability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T21:21:33Z)
• Is Decentralized AI Governable? From Regulative Policy to Constitutive Protocol [1.5755923640031846]
  We analyze DeAI as a six-layer decentralizing stack.<n>We argue for a shift in the locus of governance from policy to protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T12:09:56Z)
• TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1 [47.384270414446604]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification.<n>We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations.<n>We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T19:32:58Z)
• Correct Answers from Sound Reasoning: Verifiable Process Supervision for Language Models [94.68358825189738]
  We propose a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimize prediction accuracy and reasoning quality.<n>We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals.<n>VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:19:46Z)
• Type-Checked Compliance: Deterministic Guardrails for Agentic Financial Systems Using Lean 4 Theorem Proving [0.0]
  This paper presents the Lean-Agent Protocol, a formal-verification-based AI guardrail platform.<n>Every proposed agentic action is treated as a mathematical conjecture.<n>This architecture provides cryptographic-level compliance certainty at microsecond latency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-01T23:39:43Z)
• I Can't Believe It's Corrupt: Evaluating Corruption in Multi-Agent Governance Systems [8.670200461690454]
  We present evidence that integrity in institutional AI should be treated as a pre-deployment requirement rather than a post-deployment assumption.<n>We evaluate multi-agent governance simulations in which agents occupy formal governmental roles under different authority structures.<n>We score rule-breaking and abuse outcomes with an independent-based judge across 28,112 transcript segments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T13:34:54Z)
• When Should a Robot Think? Resource-Aware Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning for Embodied Robotic Decision-Making [68.12864562049957]
  Embodied robotic systems increasingly rely on large language model (LLM)-based agents to support high-level reasoning.<n>This raises a fundamental question for embodied agents: when should the agent reason, and when should it act?<n>We propose RARRL (Resource-Aware Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning), a hierarchical framework for resource-aware orchestration of embodied agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-17T15:38:50Z)
• A Survey of Reasoning in Autonomous Driving Systems: Open Challenges and Emerging Paradigms [49.66022971508878]
  We argue that reasoning should be elevated from a modular component to the system's cognitive core.<n>We derive and systematize seven core reasoning challenges, such as the responsiveness-reasoning trade-off and social-game reasoning.<n>We identify a fundamental and unresolved tension between the high-latency, deliberative nature of LLM-based reasoning and the millisecond-scale, safety-critical demands of vehicle control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T07:40:53Z)
• Agentic AI for Cybersecurity: A Meta-Cognitive Architecture for Governable Autonomy [0.0]
  This paper argues that cybersecurity orchestration should be reconceptualized as an agentic, multi-agent cognitive system.<n>We introduce a conceptual framework in which heterogeneous AI agents responsible for detection, hypothesis formation, contextual interpretation, explanation, and governance are coordinated through an explicit meta-cognitive judgement function.<n>Our contribution is to make this cognitive structure architecturally explicit and governable by embedding meta-cognitive judgement as a first-class system function.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T12:52:49Z)
• Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems [79.64446272302287]
  We formalize a definition for agent evaluation and characterize scaling laws as the interplay between agent quantity, coordination structure, modelic, and task properties.<n>We derive a predictive model using coordination metrics, that cross-validated R2=0, enabling prediction on unseen task domains.<n>We identify three effects: (1) a tool-coordination trade-off: under fixed computational budgets, tool-heavy tasks suffer disproportionately from multi-agent overhead, and (2) a capability saturation: coordination yields diminishing or negative returns once single-agent baselines exceed 45%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T06:52:21Z)
• 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)
• TRUST: A Decentralized Framework for Auditing Large Language Model Reasoning [45.228233498964755]
  Large Language Models generate reasoning chains that reveal their decision-making.<n>Existing auditing methods are centralized, opaque, and hard to scale.<n>We propose TRUST, a transparent, decentralized auditing framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T04:16:44Z)
• Zero-shot reasoning for simulating scholarly peer-review [0.0]
  We investigate a deterministic simulation framework that provides the first stable, evidence-based standard for evaluating AI-generated peer review reports.<n>First, the system is able to simulate calibrated editorial judgment, with 'Revise' decisions consistently forming the majority outcome.<n>Second, it maintains unwavering procedural integrity, enforcing a stable 29% evidence-anchoring compliance rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T13:59:14Z)

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.