Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Opacity as a Feature, Not a Flaw: The LoBOX Governance Ethic for Role-Sensitive Explainability and Institutional Trust in AI

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.20304 v1 pith:DKSUD4QM submitted 2025-05-18 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords opacitygovernanceloboxinstitutionaltrustensureexplainabilityflaw
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper introduces LoBOX (Lack of Belief: Opacity \& eXplainability) governance ethic structured framework for managing artificial intelligence (AI) opacity when full transparency is infeasible. 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. The framework comprises a three-stage pathway: reduce accidental opacity, bound irreducible opacity, and delegate trust through structured oversight. Integrating the RED/BLUE XAI model for stakeholder-sensitive explanation and aligned with emerging legal instruments such as the EU AI Act, LoBOX offers a scalable and context-aware alternative to transparency-centric approaches. Reframe trust not as a function of complete system explainability, but as an outcome of institutional credibility, structured justification, and stakeholder-responsive accountability. A governance loop cycles back to ensure that LoBOX remains responsive to evolving technological contexts and stakeholder expectations, to ensure the complete opacity governance. We move from transparency ideals to ethical governance, emphasizing that trustworthiness in AI must be institutionally grounded and contextually justified. We also discuss how cultural or institutional trust varies in different contexts. This theoretical framework positions opacity not as a flaw but as a feature that must be actively governed to ensure responsible AI systems.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. ConGaIT: A Clinician-Centered Dashboard for Contestable AI in Parkinson's Disease Care

    cs.HC 2025-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper presents ConGaIT, a dashboard embedding contestable AI mechanisms for PD gait analysis, and reports a high contestability score based on an unvalidated proxy evaluation.

  2. Triadic Fusion of Cognitive, Functional, and Causal Dimensions for Explainable LLMs: The TAXAL Framework

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    TAXAL proposes a triadic cognitive-functional-causal framework for role-sensitive explainability in agentic LLMs, demonstrated through cross-domain case studies.

Pith tools