Beyond Model Readiness: Institutional Readiness for AI Deployment in Public Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17203v1
• Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 00:11:09 GMT
• Title: Beyond Model Readiness: Institutional Readiness for AI Deployment in Public Systems
• Abstract summary: Many public-sector artificial intelligence systems fail not at the point of model development, but at the point of deployment.<n>Existing responsible AI and model evaluation frameworks are valuable, but they primarily assess models, datasets, and developer-side processes.<n>We introduce Institutional Alignment Readiness (IAR), a five-dimensional framework for assessing deployment readiness in public systems.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Many public-sector artificial intelligence systems fail not at the point of model development, but at the point of deployment. Systems that perform well in internal testing may still stall because the receiving institution lacks the approvals, data arrangements, human oversight, operational capacity, fiscal continuity, or legal clarity needed for broader rollout. Existing responsible AI and model evaluation frameworks are valuable, but they primarily assess models, datasets, and developer-side processes, not the readiness of the institution that must use the system in practice. We introduce Institutional Alignment Readiness (IAR), a five-dimensional framework for assessing deployment readiness in public systems. The framework is designed for resource-constrained settings, where gaps between technical viability and responsible deployment are most acute. It is grounded in two anonymized operational cases from a large public education system: an image-based anthropometric screening tool and a speech-analysis system for early learning risk identification. Both reached technically viable stages but could not advance to broader rollout for institutional rather than technical reasons. We use these cases to motivate a practical readiness framework covering institutional and operational compatibility, data ecosystem maturity, human oversight capacity, fiscal sustainability, and regulatory alignment readiness. IAR is designed to complement, not replace, established AI evaluation tools. It assesses the receiving institution rather than the artifact alone and supports staging decisions such as no-go, pilot-only, or readiness for broader deployment.

Related papers

• AI Deployment Accountability Engineering: A Vision for Accountable AI in Safety-Critical Socio-Technical Systems [14.280538199149634]
  This vision paper introduces AI Deployment Accountability Engineering (ADAE)<n>ADAE is a proposed AI engineering subdiscipline concerned with establishing measurable, continuous, and actionable accountability for deployed AI systems.<n>We articulate a research agenda built around four interconnected pillars: structured discovery of context-dependent failure modes, privacy-preserving accountability measurement, system-level risk analysis for agentic AI, and translation of technical failures into operational, and institutional risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-13T15:18:41Z)
• 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)
• Beyond Benchmark Islands: Toward Representative Trustworthiness Evaluation for Agentic AI [45.21562889170875]
  We propose a systematic evaluation paradigm that characterizes agent trustworthiness over a scenario manifold.<n>The framework integrates four complementary components: static cognitive and policy analysis, (ii) interactive sandbox simulation, (iii) social-ethical alignment assessment, and (iv) a distribution-aware representative sampling engine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T08:51:33Z)
• Precautionary Governance of Autonomous AI: Legal Personhood as Functional Instrument [0.0]
  Article advances limited legal personhood as a functional governance instrument for advanced AI systems.<n>It proposes a two-tier corporate architecture in which AI systems operate through purpose-bound operating companies embedded within human-controlled holding structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-14T19:38:19Z)
• 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)
• AI TIPS 2.0: A Comprehensive Framework for Operationalizing AI Governance [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T20:57:22Z)
• Safe and Certifiable AI Systems: Concepts, Challenges, and Lessons Learned [45.44933002008943]
  This white paper presents the T"UV AUSTRIA Trusted AI framework.<n>It is an end-to-end audit catalog and methodology for assessing and certifying machine learning systems.<n>Building on three pillars - Secure Software Development, Functional Requirements, and Ethics & Data Privacy - it translates the high-level obligations of the EU AI Act into specific, testable criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:52:08Z)
• A Comprehensive Survey of Self-Evolving AI Agents: A New Paradigm Bridging Foundation Models and Lifelong Agentic Systems [53.37728204835912]
  Most existing AI systems rely on manually crafted configurations that remain static after deployment.<n>Recent research has explored agent evolution techniques that aim to automatically enhance agent systems based on interaction data and environmental feedback.<n>This survey aims to provide researchers and practitioners with a systematic understanding of self-evolving AI agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-10T16:07:32Z)
• Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen [2.5875936082584623]
  This paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI.<n>We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical processes, and organizational architectures.<n>Our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T13:32:05Z)
• Developing an AI-enabled IIoT platform -- Lessons learned from early use case validation [47.37985501848305]
  We introduce the design of this platform and discuss an early evaluation in terms of a demonstrator for AI-enabled visual quality inspection. This is complemented by insights and lessons learned during this early evaluation activity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-10T18:51:12Z)
• Multi Agent System for Machine Learning Under Uncertainty in Cyber Physical Manufacturing System [78.60415450507706]
  Recent advancements in predictive machine learning has led to its application in various use cases in manufacturing. Most research focused on maximising predictive accuracy without addressing the uncertainty associated with it. In this paper, we determine the sources of uncertainty in machine learning and establish the success criteria of a machine learning system to function well under uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T10:28:05Z)

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.