Governing Agentic AI in FinTech

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11344v2
• Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 01:40:03 GMT
• Title: Governing Agentic AI in FinTech
• Abstract summary: Financial institutions are delegating consequential decisions to agentic AI systems.<n>We argue the binding governance constraint is not capability but verifiability.<n>We develop a multilevel governance theory for agentic AI.
• Score: 3.731168012111834
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Financial institutions are delegating consequential decisions to agentic AI systems that decompose goals, coordinate models and tools, and act with little oversight. Yet agentic AI governance in FinTech is under-investigated. We argue the binding governance constraint is not capability but verifiability. We define the Verifiability Gap as the shortfall between the verification delegated authority demands and the explainability and reproducibility retained after a decision. It is indexed to a verifier, evidentiary standard, and audit lag. We develop a multilevel governance theory for agentic AI and test its mechanisms in three studies over nine model versions, from a three-billion-parameter local model to a commercial frontier system. Study 1 shows that provider releases alter historical financial actions, and that the controls replay needs belong to the provider: the frontier model rejects temperature, top_p and top_k outright and exposes no random seed. Under the tightest controls each endpoint allows, a local model reproduced 320 of 320 executions, hosted models 319 of 320 and 959 of 960. Study 2 shows that orchestration is a latent policy layer. Architecture changes final actions, and no execution record repeated in any configuration at any scale. The frontier model reproduces its own actions more often than the local ones, its record no better, and loses a comparable share of its differentiation. Capability buys a higher starting point, not auditability. Study 3 shows two deterministic credit-model versions each reproduce their current action perfectly, yet the current cannot recover a historical one. We conceptualize reproducibility as a governance profile, not a scalar, yielding evidence-contingent delegation: authority is defensible only while retained evidence substantiates its exercise. Beyond finance, the framework extends to other high-stakes domains requiring auditability.

Related papers

• Reality Is the Final Verifier: On Two Key Gaps in Agentic Software Engineering [78.51705689800838]
  We propose an assurance-revision loop that uses deployment evidence to revise the requirements, model, or evaluator.<n>We then cast assured agentic development as a resource-allocation problem over human judgment, agent capability, and compute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T17:58:48Z)
• Governance at the Boundary: How Agent Decomposition Degrades Policy Compliance [6.411104724993454]
  We introduce Fiducia-bench, a benchmark for the governability of financial agents.<n>We use it to study a question no prior benchmark addresses: does an agent degrade its governance?<n>Policy-relevant facts discovered by one component are attenuated at the handoff boundary before reaching the component that must act on them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T03:31:59Z)
• The Open-Box Fallacy: Why AI Deployment Needs a Calibrated Verification Regime [0.5277024349608833]
  We argue that authorization should be domain-scoped, independently checkable, monitored after release, accountable, contestable, and revocable.<n>We propose Verification Coverage, a six-component reportable standard with a minimum-composition rule, as the metric that should sit beside capability scores in model cards, leaderboards, and regulatory disclosures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T14:02:56Z)
• The Khipu Problem: Institutional Legibility Under Distributed Cognition [0.0]
  This paper introduces the khipu problem for distributed AI: the record can survive while the reading practice needed to interpret it decays.<n>Logs, traces, model versions, tool calls, outputs, and approval artifacts may remain available while the institutional capacity to read them as parts of one coherent cognitive episode disappears.<n>We argue that this failure is better understood as loss of interpretive continuity than as ordinary lack of observability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-06T16:51:52Z)
• When Agents Evolve, Institutions Follow [52.359340707289114]
  We argue that multi-agent systems built on large language models face the same challenge.<n>Their central problem is not only individual intelligence, but collective organization.<n>We translate seven historical political institutions, spanning four canonical governance patterns, into executable multi-agent architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T10:30:58Z)
• 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)
• Harness as an Asset: Enforcing Determinism via the Convergent AI Agent Framework (CAAF) [0.0]
  Large Language Models produce a controllability gap in safety-critical engineering.<n>We introduce the Convergent AI Agent Framework (CAAF), which transitions agentic from open-loop generation to closed-loop fail-safe determinism.<n>CAAF's three pillars address complementary failure surfaces and none alone closes the controllability gap at commodity cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-18T15:15:09Z)
• Governed Reasoning for Institutional AI [0.0]
  Cognitive Core is a governed decision substrate built from nine typed cognitive primitives.<n>Human review is a condition of execution rather than a post-hoc check.<n>We benchmark three systems on an 11-case balanced prior authorization appeal evaluation set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T14:09:18Z)
• I Can't Believe It's Corrupt: Evaluating Corruption in Multi-Agent Governance Systems [8.670200461690454]
  We present evidence that integrity in institutional AI should be treated as a pre-deployment requirement rather than a post-deployment assumption.<n>We evaluate multi-agent governance simulations in which agents occupy formal governmental roles under different authority structures.<n>We score rule-breaking and abuse outcomes with an independent-based judge across 28,112 transcript segments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T13:34:54Z)
• interwhen: A Generalizable Framework for Verifiable Reasoning with Test-time Monitors [47.363850513075356]
  We present a test-time verification framework, interwhen, that ensures that the output of a reasoning model is valid wrt. a given set of verifiers.<n> Verified reasoning is an important goal in high-stakes scenarios such as deploying agents in the physical world.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T08:35:01Z)
• CreditAudit: 2$^\text{nd}$ Dimension for LLM Evaluation and Selection [44.251742023911135]
  CreditAudit is a deployment oriented credit audit framework that evaluates models under a family of semantically aligned and non adversarial system prompt templates.<n>We show that models with similar mean ability can exhibit substantially different fluctuation, and stability risk can overturn prioritization decisions in agentic or high failure cost regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T07:53:25Z)
• TRUST: A Decentralized Framework for Auditing Large Language Model Reasoning [45.228233498964755]
  Large Language Models generate reasoning chains that reveal their decision-making.<n>Existing auditing methods are centralized, opaque, and hard to scale.<n>We propose TRUST, a transparent, decentralized auditing framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T04:16:44Z)
• Beyond 'Aha!': Toward Systematic Meta-Abilities Alignment in Large Reasoning Models [86.88657425848547]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) already possess a latent capacity for long chain-of-thought reasoning.<n>We explicitly align models with three meta-abilities: deduction, induction, and abduction, using automatically generated, self-verifiable tasks.<n>Our three stage-pipeline individual alignment, parameter-space merging, and domain-specific reinforcement learning, boosts performance by over 10% relative to instruction-tuned baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T17:58:33Z)

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.