AI Transparency: Governance Compliance or Stakeholder Requirements?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.30652v1
• Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2026 03:13:34 GMT
• Title: AI Transparency: Governance Compliance or Stakeholder Requirements?
• Abstract summary: This paper presents an empirical analysis of 92 publicly available AI transparency statements published by Australian Government agencies.<n>Using a structured rubric derived from the mandated criteria, we evaluate how both the mandate and published statements are calibrated to each stakeholder class.
• Score: 1.886618389105112
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Transparency is increasingly mandated for public-sector AI systems, with organisations required to publish statements describing their AI use and oversight arrangements. However, the existence of such artefacts is often treated as equivalent to transparency itself, despite limited evidence that they proportionately serve relevant stakeholder groups. From a requirements engineering perspective, this raises a validation concern: compliance with mandated disclosure criteria does not necessarily ensure transparency adequacy for stakeholders with different levels of risk exposure, decision control, and involvement. This paper presents an empirical analysis of 92 publicly available AI transparency statements published by Australian Government agencies under the national AI governance mandate. We introduce the stakeholder Risk--Control--Involvement--Need (RCIN) framework to differentiate stakeholder classes according to their structural position and transparency needs. Using a structured rubric derived from the mandated criteria, we evaluate how both the mandate and published statements are calibrated to each stakeholder class. The findings show that while structural compliance is widespread, transparency calibration is uneven. Criteria serving high-control stakeholders are consistently realised, whereas criteria most critical for high-risk, low-control stakeholders are fewer and less substantively addressed. We conceptualise this as the Transparency Illusion: a condition in which transparency appears satisfied through compliant artefacts yet remains unevenly calibrated to stakeholders bearing the greatest exposure to AI-supported decisions. The study frames transparency as a stakeholder-calibrated validation problem, demonstrating that artefact-level compliance does not constitute requirements validation in this context.

Related papers

• Validity, Reliability, and Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Regulation [2.588958866512272]
  Article argues that modern AI raises concerns of construct validity, confounding, representativeness, distribution shift, and fairness trade-offs.<n>We argue that inference should function as a precondition for proportionality assessment and deployment approval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T09:36:15Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• 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)
• Opacity as a Feature, Not a Flaw: The LoBOX Governance Ethic for Role-Sensitive Explainability and Institutional Trust in AI [9.696149761543573]
  This paper introduces LoBOX (Lack of Belief: Opacity & eXplainability) governance ethic for managing artificial intelligence (AI) opacity.<n>Rather than treating opacity as a design flaw, LoBOX defines it as a condition that can be ethically governed through role-calibrated explanation and institutional accountability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T16:59:45Z)
• A Confidential Computing Transparency Framework for a Comprehensive Trust Chain [7.9699781371465965]
  Confidential Computing enhances privacy of data in-use through hardware-based Trusted Execution Environments.<n>TEEs require user trust, as they cannot guarantee the absence of vulnerabilities or backdoors.<n>We propose a three-level conceptual framework providing organisations with a practical pathway to incrementally improve Confidential Computing transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-05T17:24:05Z)
• Peer-induced Fairness: A Causal Approach for Algorithmic Fairness Auditing [0.0]
  The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act takes effect on 1 August 2024. High-risk AI applications must adhere to stringent transparency and fairness standards. We propose a novel framework, which combines the strengths of counterfactual fairness and peer comparison strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T15:35:34Z)
• Foundation Model Transparency Reports [61.313836337206894]
  We propose Foundation Model Transparency Reports, drawing upon the transparency reporting practices in social media. We identify 6 design principles given the successes and shortcomings of social media transparency reporting. Well-designed transparency reports could reduce compliance costs, in part due to overlapping regulatory requirements across different jurisdictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T03:09:06Z)
• Auditing and Generating Synthetic Data with Controllable Trust Trade-offs [54.262044436203965]
  We introduce a holistic auditing framework that comprehensively evaluates synthetic datasets and AI models. It focuses on preventing bias and discrimination, ensures fidelity to the source data, assesses utility, robustness, and privacy preservation. We demonstrate the framework's effectiveness by auditing various generative models across diverse use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T09:03:18Z)
• Users are the North Star for AI Transparency [111.5679109784322]
  Despite widespread calls for transparent artificial intelligence systems, the term is too overburdened with disparate meanings to express precise policy aims or to orient concrete lines of research. Part of why this happens is that a clear ideal of AI transparency goes unsaid in this body of work. We explicitly name such a north star -- transparency that is user-centered, user-appropriate, and honest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-09T18:53:29Z)
• Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence and Process Mining: Challenges and Opportunities [0.8602553195689513]
  We show that process mining can provide a useful framework for gaining fact-based visibility to AI compliance process execution. We provide for an automated approach to analyze, remediate and monitor uncertainty in AI regulatory compliance processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-06T12:50:47Z)
• Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty [66.17147341354577]
  We argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. We describe how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-15T17:26:14Z)

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.