From Subjective Judgments to Auditable Standards:Protocol-Guided AI Auditing of Website Redundancy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.21476v1
• Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 07:17:35 GMT
• Title: From Subjective Judgments to Auditable Standards:Protocol-Guided AI Auditing of Website Redundancy
• Abstract summary: Website redundancy does not have a single fixed meaning.<n>We introduce CORA, which measures repetition load, normal-use tax, and failure-domain recovery reserve separately.
• Score: 2.2917707112773593
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Website redundancy does not have a single fixed meaning. The same repeated element may distract during one task and provide backup during another. We introduce CORA (Counterfactual, Observable Redundancy Audit), which measures repetition load, normal-use tax, and failure-domain recovery reserve separately. Each run retains screenshots, stable element identities, and task traces. A versioned vision-language model proposes the annotations. Typed validation and release checks then determine whether a calibrated dimension can be reported; failed or malformed outputs stay in the fixed denominator. On a transparent mechanistic testbed, the factorized CORA representation separated reserve from normal-use tax and predicted perturbed success more accurately than scalar-load baselines. The model studies then showed why repeatability is not enough: two small local vision-language models produced recurring outputs, but neither instrument met all release requirements. CORA therefore withheld automated scores from both instruments while retaining the raw responses and failure records. Separate checker fixtures confirmed that the typed validator and hardened release gates implement their specifications; these tests do not establish semantic grounding or accuracy on production sites. Taken together, the results position CORA as an auditable candidate procedure for the controlled benchmark studied here rather than a general standard. Human agreement, AI-versus-human accuracy, and validation on independent production sites remain open empirical questions.

Related papers

• What Do Compliance Detectors Read? An Audit of Activation Probes and Guard Models [3.3598755777055374]
  Internal Compliance Score (ICS) is a training-free activation readout from ten labelled pairs and scored by a single projection.<n>We show this condition fails across the current class of compliance detectors, a failure we call rule blindness.<n>We release the counterfactual protocol and crossed-rule benchmark so rule blindness can be tested in future probe and guard claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T17:37:07Z)
• SynthGuard-ReleaseBench: Locked-Audit Evidence for Synthetic Tabular Data Releases [0.0]
  We introduce SynthGuard-ReleaseBench, an audit framework that locks the use, candidate panel, tolerances, and audit schedule before evaluation.<n>It compares real-trained and synthetic-trained on protected data, gives simultaneous finite-sample bounds for loss gaps, requires controls, and keeps utility, empirical privacy risk mechanism claims separate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T03:12:17Z)
• Independent Patch Verification for Coding Agents with a Bidirectional Reconstruct-and-Verify Framework [49.16055123488827]
  coding agents powered by large language models can now generate code patches directly from bug reports.<n>No mechanism independently verifies whether it truly resolves the reported problem.<n>We propose RETRACE, a training-free post-generation verification framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T22:59:13Z)
• The Knowing-Saying Gap: When Probes See Errors that Confidence Misses [20.46211358172975]
  Linear probes detect corrupted context in language models with near-perfect accuracy, yet this does not translate into reliable failure prediction.<n>Across multi-hop arithmetic chains, probes that detect corruption turn out to be uninformative about final answer correctness.<n>As a real-time monitor, probe-based interventions are sharply model and error-type dependent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-21T12:13:10Z)
• Can Code Specify a System Precisely Enough to Formally Verify It? [0.0]
  This paper evaluates both on production software: the payment workflow of an operational restaurant point-of-sale system.<n>The core protocol is correct relative to a hand-built, line-cited model under a precisely stated failure model.<n>A single probe of the production payment sandbox exposed a response-shape divergence that makes an entire recovery ladder unreachable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T13:39:00Z)
• Mean Time to Remediate Is Not a Fielding Model: A Cadence Audit for Enterprise Vulnerability Management [51.56484100374058]
  This paper introduces a remediation-cadence audit for enterprise vulnerability management.<n>It records routine mean lag, release period, release fraction, cohort geometry, emergency/routine split, non-fielding delay, local residual-pressure evidence, and declared rate scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-05T21:23:26Z)
• AuditWeave: A Tamper-Evident, Auditor-Navigable Evidence Layer for AI-Assisted and Data-Transformation Workflows [0.0]
  AuditWeave is a lightweight Python library that records the steps of AI-assisted and data-transformation into a single hash-chained ledger.<n>We describe the design and evaluate recording overhead, scalability, and tamper-detection correctness on the reference implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-14T21:46:04Z)
• What to Test Next: Interpretable Coverage Gap Discovery in Driving VLMs [52.50210189669399]
  Driving vision-language models (VLMs) must accurately understand scenes across diverse conditions defined by Operational Design Domains (ODDs)<n>We propose SliceScorer, a deterministic scoring rule for missing-slice recommendation.<n>We show that SliceNav surfaces high-risk coverage gaps more effectively than prior slice-discovery methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T03:18:01Z)
• Correct Answers from Sound Reasoning: Verifiable Process Supervision for Language Models [94.68358825189738]
  We propose a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimize prediction accuracy and reasoning quality.<n>We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals.<n>VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:19:46Z)
• SWAP: Towards Copyright Auditing of Soft Prompts via Sequential Watermarking [58.475471437150674]
  We propose sequential watermarking for soft prompts (SWAP)<n>SWAP encodes watermarks through a specific order of defender-specified out-of-distribution classes.<n>Experiments on 11 datasets demonstrate SWAP's effectiveness, harmlessness, and robustness against potential adaptive attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-05T13:48:48Z)
• Auditing AI models for Verified Deployment under Semantic Specifications [65.12401653917838]
  AuditAI bridges the gap between interpretable formal verification and scalability. We show how AuditAI allows us to obtain controlled variations for verification and certified training while addressing the limitations of verifying using only pixel-space perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-25T22:53:24Z)

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.