From Battlefield to Boardroom: Strategic Red Teaming as an Epistemic Governance Instrument in the Age of AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01913v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 09:12:18 GMT
• Title: From Battlefield to Boardroom: Strategic Red Teaming as an Epistemic Governance Instrument in the Age of AI
• Abstract summary: This technical report reframes strategic red teaming as a board-level governance discipline.<n>The report proposes a six-component model for strategic red teaming in AI governance.<n>It treats red teaming not as penetration testing, scenario theatre, or generic risk review, but as structured adversarial testing of the claims on which governance decisions depend.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Organizations increasingly make strategic decisions about AI systems whose behaviour, failure modes, and institutional effects cannot be fully known at design time. This technical report reframes strategic red teaming as a board-level governance discipline for testing the assumptions under which AI-enabled strategies are approved, funded, and supervised. The report proposes a six-component model for strategic red teaming in AI governance: an explicit assumption register, an adversarial mandate, independence criteria, evidence grading, a board-facing decision record, and a follow-up mechanism for unresolved findings. The model is intended to make strategic uncertainty inspectable before it becomes operational exposure. It treats red teaming not as penetration testing, scenario theatre, or generic risk review, but as structured adversarial testing of the claims on which governance decisions depend. The contribution is conceptual and design-oriented. It does not claim empirical validation, regulatory endorsement, or legal sufficiency. Instead, it provides a candidate governance artefact for organizations that need to connect AI strategy, accountability, oversight, and evidence. The report also defines limitations and a minimum validation protocol for future empirical testing in organizational settings.

Related papers

• The Authority Resolution Framework: A Five-Domain Ontology for Governing Who and What Decides, at Scale [0.0]
  This paper introduces the Authority Resolution Framework (ARF), a five-domain ontology for representing and resolving authority.<n>ARF defines the Authority Relation (AR) as a cross-domain primitive binding an actor, action, object, bounded context, justification chain, and a calibration measure.<n>ARF is designed to support AI agents in determining the provenance, scope and contextual validity of authority before executing consequential actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-16T16:05:50Z)
• Criticality-Based Guard Rail Validation for AI Agent Decisions in Autonomous Telecom Networks [0.0]
  Guard Rail Validation (GRV) is a standardizable runtime architecture for intercepting and validating AI-driven decisions before execution.<n>We present the architecture, algorithmic procedures, O-RAN deployment model, and evaluate threat coverage against known AI/ML attacks in telecommunications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T14:21:26Z)
• Beyond Rational Illusion: Behaviorally Realistic Strategic Classification [56.458581740660236]
  We propose the Prospect-Guided Strategic Framework (Pro-SF) to address the behaviorally realistic strategic classification problem.<n>Pro-SF is a principled framework grounded in prospect theory to model and learn under behaviorally realistic strategic responses.<n> Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets establish Pro-SF as a behaviorally grounded approach to strategic classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T11:04:55Z)
• Preserving Decision Sovereignty in Military AI: A Trade-Secret-Safe Architectural Framework for Model Replaceability, Human Authority, and State Control [3.719121868494767]
  This paper argues that the central strategic issue is not merely access to capable models, but preservation of decision sovereignty.<n>The paper develops a trade-secret-safe architectural formulation of the Energetic Paradigm as a layered, model-agnostic command-support design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T04:52:09Z)
• When Should a Robot Think? Resource-Aware Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning for Embodied Robotic Decision-Making [68.12864562049957]
  Embodied robotic systems increasingly rely on large language model (LLM)-based agents to support high-level reasoning.<n>This raises a fundamental question for embodied agents: when should the agent reason, and when should it act?<n>We propose RARRL (Resource-Aware Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning), a hierarchical framework for resource-aware orchestration of embodied agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-17T15:38:50Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Reasoning Is All You Need for Urban Planning AI [3.3943213418026126]
  This paper presents the Agentic Urban Planning AI Framework for reasoning-capable planning agents.<n>It integrates three cognitive layers (Perception, Foundation, Reasoning) with six logic components (Analysis, Generation, Verification, Evaluation, Collaboration, Decision) through a multi-agents collaboration framework.<n>We show how AI agents can augment human planners by systematically exploring solution spaces, verifying regulatory compliance, and deliberating over trade-offs transparently.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T15:59:06Z)
• 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)
• Limits of Safe AI Deployment: Differentiating Oversight and Control [0.0]
  "Human oversight" risk codifying vague or inconsistent interpretations of key concepts like oversight and control.<n>This paper undertakes a targeted critical review of literature on supervision outside of AI.<n>Control aims to prevent failures, while oversight focuses on detection, remediation, or incentives for future prevention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-04T12:22:35Z)
• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems.<n>Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• On strategies for risk management and decision making under uncertainty shared across multiple fields [55.2480439325792]
  The paper finds more than 110 examples of such strategies and this approach to risk is termed RDOT: Risk-reducing Design and Operations Toolkit.<n>RDOT strategies fall into six broad categories: structural, reactive, formal, adversarial, multi-stage and positive.<n>Overall, RDOT represents an overlooked class of versatile responses to uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-06T16:14:32Z)

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.