AI Assurance in UK Defence: Challenges in Operationalising JSP 936

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09414v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2026 12:28:55 GMT
• Title: AI Assurance in UK Defence: Challenges in Operationalising JSP 936
• Abstract summary: This report examines practical challenges in operationalising 936 Part 1 for AI assurance in UK Defence.<n>The report argues that 936 provides a useful governance basis, but that implementation depends on unresolved technical, organisational, and assurance questions.<n>The report identifies areas where further methods, guidance, and organisational capability are needed for the ambitious, safe, and responsible adoption of AI across Defence.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: This report examines practical challenges in operationalising JSP 936 Part 1 for AI assurance in UK Defence. Using a structured interpretive review of the directive's requirements, the analysis identifies eight thematic challenge areas adequacy of evidence and argument, management of human interaction with AI, definition of the operational environment, integration of AI within systems of systems, assessment and maintenance of AI performance, analysis of safety and security, measurement of ethicality, and mitigation of the inherent complexities of AI. The report argues that JSP 936 provides a useful governance basis, but that implementation depends on unresolved technical, organisational, and assurance questions. These challenges stem from the socio-technical nature of AI-enabled systems, uncertainty in real-world deployment contexts, limitations in current assurance methodologies, and tensions between performance, safety, human oversight, security, and ethical acceptability. The report identifies areas where further methods, guidance, and organisational capability are needed for the ambitious, safe, and responsible adoption of AI across Defence. This is consistent with MOD's own framing of JSP 936 as requiring iterative implementation and supporting guidance.

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)
• Agentic AI for Safety-critical Multi-drone Systems: Challenges and Opportunities [38.499036085412094]
  Multi-drone systems are increasingly positioned for safety-critical missions such as search and rescue (SAR) and critical infrastructure monitoring.<n>Yet, real-world adoption remains constrained not only by autonomy performance, but by the difficulty of integrating agentic behavior into professional work.<n>This position paper synthesizes the ambitions and lessons from two ongoing efforts: NAMUR and PERSIST.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-19T11:53:02Z)
• On AI Safety and Security Technical Debt in Engineering AI-Enabled Systems [11.878368077620337]
  AI Technical Debts (AITDs) arise from root causes spanning data governance, model implementation, algorithm design, architectural decisions, operational processes, documentation practices, and testing adequacy.<n>Unlike conventional technical debt, many AITDs are latent and propagate across tightly coupled AI pipelines, leading to maintenance challenges, reliability degradation, and heightened safety or security risks.<n>We introduce AITD-MAP, an integrated framework that connects the AITD taxonomy, quality and risk impacts, and mitigation strategies into a unified structure for risk-aware AI engineering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-25T21:15:41Z)
• From Frontier to Shadow AI: A Simmering Threat to Assurance and Security in Critical Infrastructure [8.167474882691755]
  We present the first empirical study of shadow AI in critical infrastructure environments.<n>We analyse how shadow AI manifests in practice, how it interacts with existing technical and governance controls, and the resulting security, assurance, and compliance risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T07:21:08Z)
• Safety in Embodied AI: A Survey of Risks, Attacks, and Defenses [168.50301366360344]
  Embodied Artificial Intelligence (Embodied AI) integrates perception, cognition, planning, and interaction into agents that operate in safety-critical environments.<n>Unlike digital AI systems, embodied agents must act under uncertain sensing, incomplete knowledge, and dynamic human-robot interactions.<n>This survey provides a comprehensive review of safety research in embodied AI, examining attacks and defenses across the full embodied pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-28T13:21:44Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Landscape of AI safety concerns -- A methodology to support safety assurance for AI-based autonomous systems [0.0]
  AI has emerged as a key technology, driving advancements across a range of applications.<n>The challenge of assuring safety in systems that incorporate AI components is substantial.<n>We propose a novel methodology designed to support the creation of safety assurance cases for AI-based systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T16:38:16Z)
• Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems [88.80306881112313]
  We will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees. We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:38:32Z)
• Testing autonomous vehicles and AI: perspectives and challenges from cybersecurity, transparency, robustness and fairness [53.91018508439669]
  The study explores the complexities of integrating Artificial Intelligence into Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) It examines the challenges introduced by AI components and the impact on testing procedures. The paper identifies significant challenges and suggests future directions for research and development of AI in AV technology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T08:29:42Z)

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.