CEDAR-42001: From ISO/IEC 42001 Conformity to Architecture-Aware, Audit-Visible Assurance Posture for AI Cyber-Physical Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21276v1
• Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 09:50:04 GMT
• Title: CEDAR-42001: From ISO/IEC 42001 Conformity to Architecture-Aware, Audit-Visible Assurance Posture for AI Cyber-Physical Systems
• Abstract summary: We present a two-stage method that converts ISO/IEC 42001 audit evidence into an architecture-aware assurance posture traceable to the audit record.<n> CEDAR-42001 does not estimate exploitability or replace technical CPS-security testing.
• Score: 25.852577434268273
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI-enabled cyber-physical systems (AI-CPS) turn data-driven decisions into physical actions, creating assurance challenges across sensing, computation, control, human oversight, and governance. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 specifies requirements for an artificial intelligence management system (AIMS), but conformity assessment alone does not show which architectural layers are affected, whether practices are mature enough for the risk context, or what actions should follow. We present CEDAR-42001 (Control-Evidence Decision and Action Reasoning), a two-stage method that converts ISO/IEC 42001 audit evidence into an architecture-aware assurance posture traceable to the audit record. Stage A preserves the conformity determination. Stage B adds four outputs to each audit row: (i) attribution to a governance stratum or one of seven AI-CPS layers; (ii) a five-dimensional maturity profile with binding-constraint identification; (iii) a risk-proportionate target maturity; and (iv) a rulebook-derived action recommendation. The enriched rows are aggregated into strategic, operational, and tactical decision products. We evaluate CEDAR-42001 using a synthetic autonomous-fleet AIMS and by comparing conformity-only results with the enriched outputs. Although 89.9 percent of audit rows were conforming, only 34.3 percent of conforming rows reached the baseline High-assurance category; across alternative operationalizations, this proportion ranged from 22.4 percent to 46.2 percent. A retrospective application to the 2023 Cruise robotaxi incident shows how the method captures documented concerns across governance, perception, decision-making, and human oversight and maps them to layer-specific actions. CEDAR-42001 does not estimate exploitability or replace technical CPS-security testing; it identifies where audit evidence warrants deeper technical assurance, organizational improvement, or remediation.

Related papers

• Governing at Machine Speed: An Adaptive Intelligence Architecture for Real-Time AI Policy Enforcement [0.0]
  Enterprise AI adoption has reached 78% of organizations globally, yet the infrastructure to govern that adoption has not kept pace.<n>We propose AGIL, a conceptual five-layer architecture designed to use machine learning for real-time AI governance enforcement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-11T19:35:00Z)
• LAAF: A Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for LLM Applications [11.15280916125281]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) operate in hospitals, courtrooms, banks, and public service desks, where fluent, confident outputs are treated as authoritative even when ungrounded or incorrect.<n>This review consolidates a sociotechnical account of accountability as an actor-forum relation resolved into five dimensions.<n>The corpus is read through a four-layer classification device spanning provenance, application logic, human oversight, and governance and redress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T13:18:26Z)
• 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)
• Toward Pre-Deployment Assurance for Enterprise AI Agents: Ontology-Grounded Simulation and Trust Certification [0.0]
  Post-deployment monitoring, human-in-the-loop controls, and prompt-level guardrails offer limited assurance once an agent is operating in production.<n>Ontology-grounded verification framework is first to combine three components.<n>System generates regulatory, operational, and adversarial test scenarios automatically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T02:37:11Z)
• 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)
• From Governance Norms to Enforceable Controls: A Layered Translation Method for Runtime Guardrails in Agentic AI [0.0]
  This paper proposes a layered translation method that connects standards-derived governance objectives to four control layers.<n>It distinguishes governance objectives, technical controls, runtime guardrails, and assurance evidence.<n>The central claim is modest: standards should guide control placement across architecture, runtime policy, human escalation, and audit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T22:49:28Z)
• Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z)
• Ethical Implications of Training Deceptive AI [0.0]
  Deceptive behavior in AI systems is no longer theoretical.<n>European Union's AI Act prohibits deployment of deceptive AI systems.<n>No established framework governs how deception research should be conducted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-10T20:30:27Z)
• 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)
• Standardized Threat Taxonomy for AI Security, Governance, and Regulatory Compliance [0.0]
  "Language barrier" currently separates technical security teams, who focus on algorithmic vulnerabilities, from legal and compliance professionals, who address regulatory mandates.<n>This research presents the AI System Threat Vector taxonomy, a structured ontology designed explicitly for Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)<n>The framework categorizes AI-specific risks into nine critical domains: Misuse, Poisoning, Privacy, Adrial, Biases, Unreliable Outputs, Drift, Supply Chain, and IP Threat, integrating 53 operationally defined sub-threats.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T20:42:46Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Evaluating the Effectiveness of GPT-4 Turbo in Creating Defeaters for Assurance Cases [6.231203956284574]
  We use GPT-4 Turbo, an advanced Large Language Model (LLM) developed by OpenAI, to identify defeaters within ACs formalized using the Eliminative Argumentation (EA) notation. Our initial evaluation gauges the model's proficiency in understanding and generating arguments within this framework. The findings indicate that GPT-4 Turbo excels in EA notation and is capable of generating various types of defeaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T16:51:23Z)

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.