AI to Learn 2.0: A Deliverable-Oriented Governance Framework and Maturity Rubric for Opaque AI in Learning-Intensive Domains

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.19751v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 11:44:43 GMT
• Title: AI to Learn 2.0: A Deliverable-Oriented Governance Framework and Maturity Rubric for Opaque AI in Learning-Intensive Domains
• Abstract summary: Generative AI is entering research, education, and professional work faster than current governance frameworks can specify how AI-assisted outputs should be judged.<n>This paper proposes AI to Learn 2.0, a deliverable-oriented governance framework for AI-assisted work.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative AI is entering research, education, and professional work faster than current governance frameworks can specify how AI-assisted outputs should be judged in learning-intensive settings. The central problem is proxy failure: a polished artifact can be useful while no longer serving as credible evidence of the human understanding, judgment, or transfer ability that the work is supposed to cultivate or certify. This paper proposes AI to Learn 2.0, a deliverable-oriented governance framework for AI-assisted work. Rather than claiming element-wise novelty, it reorganizes adjacent ideas around the final deliverable package, distinguishes artifact residual from capability residual, and operationalizes the result through a five-part package, a seven-dimension maturity rubric, gate thresholds on critical dimensions, and a companion capability-evidence ladder. AI to Learn 2.0 allows opaque AI during exploration, drafting, hypothesis generation, and workflow design, but requires that the released deliverable be usable, auditable, transferable, and justifiable without the original large language model or cloud API. In learning-intensive contexts, it additionally requires context-appropriate human-attributable evidence of explanation or transfer. Worked scoring across contrastive cases, including coursework substitution, a symbolic-regression governance contrast, teacher-audited national-exam practice forms, and a self-hosted lecture-to-quiz pipeline with deterministic quality control, shows how the framework separates polished substitution workflows from bounded, auditable, and handoff-ready AI-assisted workflows. AI to Learn 2.0 is proposed as a governance instrument for structured third-party review where capability preservation, accountability, and validity boundaries matter.

Related papers

• When Does AI Augment Work? A Workflow-Level Framework for Human-Agent Collaboration [78.16115745870405]
  We aim to characterise the value of artificial intelligence in the workplace.<n>Current studies largely measure this value in terms of the current automation capabilities and public adoption of AI.<n>To account for this, we must expand the scope of our analysis beyond atomised tasks of today.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-11T06:29:34Z)
• The Capability Ladder: A Curriculum-Modernization Framework for Workforce Readiness in the AI Era [0.0]
  Artificial intelligence is changing the task composition of computing work faster than curricula and training typically adapt.<n>We organize the response as a capability-assurance framework anchored by a Capability Ladder.<n>We argue for targeted modernization around durable capabilities rather than wholesale curriculum replacement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T21:53:16Z)
• When AI Does the Work, What Is Learning For? Post-Instrumental Learning and the Risk of Capacity Dissolution [3.2940515388832963]
  Existing AI ethics rightly emphasizes present failures.<n>But if the case for learning rests only on those failures, then each technical improvement appears to weaken it.<n>Using the idealization of AI that executes specified tasks flawlessly while lacking authority over purposes, legitimacy, and responsibility, we argue for post-instrumental learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T11:24:56Z)
• Skill Self-Play: Pushing the Frontier of LLM Capability with Co-Evolving Skills [53.15216425100295]
  We introduce Skill Self-Play (Skill-SP), a co-evolutionary framework comprising a proposer, a solver, and a skill controller.<n>The proposer generates challenging tasks conditioned on dynamically sampled skills; the solver explores candidate solutions to push its capability boundaries; and the skill controller collects execution feedback to update and expand the skill library.<n>This interactive co-evolution effectively bridges the gap between structured verification and open-ended exploration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T17:59:22Z)
• The Context Access Divide: Interaction-Level Architecture as a Complementary Dimension of Agentic Inequality [0.0]
  Two users with nominally equivalent AI access may experience qualitatively different AI utility.<n>For knowledge-intensive workers whose intellectual capital spans tens of thousands of files, the Context Access Divide (CAD) constitutes a qualitative threshold in AI usefulness.<n>We propose contextuality as a dimension of AI-mediated inequality that complements, but is not reducible to, the Sharp et al. framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T13:53:40Z)
• Framing, Judging, Steering: An Assessable Competency Model for Teach-ing Students to Reason With Generative AI [47.027290803102666]
  We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills.<n>We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab.<n>Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T10:25:31Z)
• The AI Pyramid A Conceptual Framework for Workforce Capability in the Age of AI [2.134211474877041]
  Recent evidence shows that generative AI disproportionately affects highly educated, white collar work.<n>This paper proposes the AI Pyramid, a conceptual framework for organizing human capability in an AI mediated economy.<n>The framework has implications for organizations, education systems, and governments seeking to align learning, measurement, and policy with the evolving demands of AI mediated work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-10T09:27:56Z)
• A Design Science Blueprint for an Orchestrated AI Assistant in Doctoral Supervision [7.136113739927491]
  This study presents a design science blueprint for an orchestrated AI assistant and co-pilot in doctoral supervision that acts as a socio-technical mediator.<n>Risks in such a system exist, and among others, include AI over-reliance and the potential for the illusion of learning.<n>The contribution is an ex ante, literature-grounded design with workflow and governance rules that institutions can implement and trial across disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T04:20:35Z)
• From Passive Tool to Socio-cognitive Teammate: A Conceptual Framework for Agentic AI in Human-AI Collaborative Learning [0.0]
  We present a novel conceptual framework that charts the transition from AI as a tool to AI as a collaborative partner.<n>We examine whether an AI, lacking genuine consciousness or shared intentionality, can be considered a true collaborator.<n>This distinction has significant implications for pedagogy, instructional design, and the future research agenda for AI in education.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T16:17:32Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data [57.30662797376754]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has shown promise in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models.<n>We introduce the Absolute Zero Reasoner (AZR), a system that self-evolves its training curriculum and reasoning ability.<n>AZR achieves overall SOTA performance on coding and mathematical reasoning tasks, outperforming existing zero-setting models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-06T09:08:00Z)
• A Multi-Layered Research Framework for Human-Centered AI: Defining the Path to Explainability and Trust [2.4578723416255754]
  Human-Centered AI (HCAI) emphasizes alignment with human values, while Explainable AI (XAI) enhances transparency by making AI decisions more understandable.<n>This paper presents a novel three-layered framework that bridges HCAI and XAI to establish a structured explainability paradigm.<n>Our findings advance Human-Centered Explainable AI (HCXAI), fostering AI systems that are transparent, adaptable, and ethically aligned.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T01:29:30Z)
• Do great minds think alike? Investigating Human-AI Complementarity in Question Answering with CAIMIRA [43.116608441891096]
  Humans outperform AI systems in knowledge-grounded abductive and conceptual reasoning. State-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 and LLaMA show superior performance on targeted information retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T03:53:26Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)

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.