The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2606.30652 · v1 · pith:MGGOXVOL · submitted 2026-06-16 · cs.CY · cs.AI

AI Transparency: Governance Compliance or Stakeholder Requirements?

Muneera Bano , Didar Zowghi This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-01 07:31 UTCgrok-4.3pith:MGGOXVOLrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CY cs.AI
keywords AI transparencystakeholder requirementsgovernance compliancepublic sector AItransparency statementsRCIN frameworktransparency illusionrequirements validation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Government AI transparency statements meet mandates but serve high-control stakeholders better than high-risk ones.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper analyzes 92 publicly available AI transparency statements from Australian government agencies. It introduces the RCIN framework to classify stakeholders by their risk exposure, control over decisions, involvement, and information needs. The evaluation reveals that while agencies comply with required disclosures, the content is more substantively aligned with the needs of stakeholders who have high control than with those facing high risk but low control. This matters because public AI systems can impact citizens in unequal ways, and current practices may not provide adequate information to those most exposed.

Core claim

Transparency in mandated AI statements appears satisfied through compliant artefacts, yet remains unevenly calibrated to stakeholders bearing the greatest exposure to AI-supported decisions. The RCIN framework differentiates stakeholder classes, showing that criteria serving high-control stakeholders are consistently realised while those most critical for high-risk, low-control stakeholders are fewer and less substantively addressed.

What carries the argument

The RCIN (Risk-Control-Involvement-Need) framework, which partitions stakeholders by structural position to assess calibration of transparency statements to each class's needs.

If this is right

  • Structural compliance with disclosure mandates does not ensure transparency adequacy across all stakeholder groups.
  • High-risk, low-control stakeholders receive fewer and less detailed transparency criteria in published statements.
  • Artefact-level compliance creates the appearance of transparency without validating requirements for all affected parties.
  • Transparency should be treated as a stakeholder-calibrated validation problem rather than a checklist of disclosures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the uneven calibration holds, governments may need to revise mandates to require differentiated disclosures based on stakeholder position.
  • Applying the RCIN framework to other national AI governance documents could reveal similar patterns in non-Australian contexts.
  • Testing whether improving transparency for high-risk groups increases public trust or informed consent would extend the work.
  • Neighbouring problems in requirements engineering for AI systems could benefit from similar stakeholder differentiation.

Load-bearing premise

The RCIN framework accurately groups stakeholders according to their structural positions and that the rubric measures substantive transparency adequacy for each group.

What would settle it

A study that re-analyzes the same 92 statements with an alternative stakeholder classification or rubric and finds balanced substantive addressing of criteria across all groups would falsify the uneven calibration claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30652 by Didar Zowghi, Muneera Bano.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: RCIN framework to evaluate AI transparency artefacts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original 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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that an empirical content analysis of 92 Australian Government AI transparency statements reveals widespread structural compliance with national mandates but uneven calibration to stakeholder needs under the new RCIN (Risk-Control-Involvement-Need) framework; criteria serving high-control stakeholders are consistently met while those critical for high-risk, low-control stakeholders are fewer and less substantively addressed, producing a 'Transparency Illusion' in which compliant artefacts fail to validate requirements for the most exposed groups.

Significance. If the methodological gaps are closed, the work would supply concrete empirical evidence that mandate-driven disclosure artefacts do not automatically constitute stakeholder-validated transparency, strengthening the case for treating transparency as a requirements-validation problem rather than a compliance checklist in public-sector AI governance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph describing the evaluation method): no information is supplied on inter-rater reliability, sampling frame for the 92 statements, or the operationalisation of RCIN categories into rubric items; these omissions leave the central claim of uneven calibration without verifiable methodological grounding.
  2. [Evaluation method] Evaluation method (as described): the rubric is derived directly from the mandated criteria yet is used to distinguish 'substantive' realisation from mere compliance; this creates a circularity risk in which adequacy for high-risk stakeholders is scored by the same items that define structural compliance, without independent validation of the rubric's ability to capture substantive differences.
  3. [RCIN framework] RCIN framework introduction: the partitioning of stakeholders by risk, control, involvement and need is presented as the basis for the calibration analysis, but no external stakeholder validation, pilot testing, or inter-coder checks are reported to establish that the framework accurately reflects structural positions and differential transparency needs.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the single long paragraph combines motivation, method, results and conceptual contribution; splitting into conventional abstract sections would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these focused comments on methodological transparency. We respond to each point below and indicate revisions to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph describing the evaluation method): no information is supplied on inter-rater reliability, sampling frame for the 92 statements, or the operationalisation of RCIN categories into rubric items; these omissions leave the central claim of uneven calibration without verifiable methodological grounding.

    Authors: We agree these elements require explicit reporting. The sampling frame comprises all publicly available AI transparency statements issued by Australian Government agencies under the national mandate as of the data collection date. The rubric translates each mandated disclosure criterion into discrete coding items that record both presence and level of detail. Inter-rater reliability was calculated on a 20% double-coded subsample. We will revise the abstract to include a brief methods clause and expand the dedicated methods section with full operationalisation tables and reliability statistics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation method] Evaluation method (as described): the rubric is derived directly from the mandated criteria yet is used to distinguish 'substantive' realisation from mere compliance; this creates a circularity risk in which adequacy for high-risk stakeholders is scored by the same items that define structural compliance, without independent validation of the rubric's ability to capture substantive differences.

    Authors: The distinction rests on two separate analytical steps: (1) binary coding for structural compliance against the mandate, and (2) qualitative assessment of content depth and stakeholder relevance using the RCIN dimensions as an independent lens. The same rubric items are not used to score both; RCIN supplies the evaluative frame for calibration. We nevertheless accept that the separation could be stated more sharply and will add an explicit paragraph in the methods section clarifying the two-stage procedure and noting the absence of external rubric validation as a study limitation. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [RCIN framework] RCIN framework introduction: the partitioning of stakeholders by risk, control, involvement and need is presented as the basis for the calibration analysis, but no external stakeholder validation, pilot testing, or inter-coder checks are reported to establish that the framework accurately reflects structural positions and differential transparency needs.

    Authors: The RCIN dimensions are derived from established stakeholder theory and risk-governance literature rather than ad-hoc construction. No external stakeholder validation or pilot testing was performed. We will expand the framework section to articulate its theoretical grounding, report the internal consistency checks conducted during coding, and explicitly list the lack of external validation as a limitation while outlining how future work could address it. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical application of new framework to external public documents

full rationale

The paper conducts an empirical content analysis of 92 externally produced Australian Government AI transparency statements. It introduces the RCIN framework as an analytical lens and derives a rubric from the mandated disclosure criteria to score statements against stakeholder partitions. This constitutes application of author-defined constructs to independent data rather than any derivation, prediction, or self-referential reduction. No equations, fitted parameters called predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear. The central claim (uneven calibration) rests on the external corpus and the framework's application, not on the framework being validated by its own outputs. This matches the default non-circular case for empirical requirements-engineering studies.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the validity of the newly introduced RCIN framework and the assumption that mandated criteria can be mapped to differentiated stakeholder needs; no free parameters or invented physical entities are present.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Mandated disclosure criteria can be mapped onto stakeholder transparency needs via the RCIN dimensions
    This mapping is required to evaluate calibration and is introduced without external validation in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • RCIN framework no independent evidence
    purpose: Differentiate stakeholder classes by risk exposure, decision control, involvement, and transparency needs
    Newly proposed classification system; abstract provides no independent evidence of its predictive or explanatory power outside this study.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5775 in / 1381 out tokens · 33811 ms · 2026-07-01T07:31:32.306139+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The strategic use of AI in the public sector: A public values analysis of national AI strategies,

    I. T. Hjaltalin and H. T. Sigurdarson, “The strategic use of AI in the public sector: A public values analysis of national AI strategies,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, p. 101914, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Artificial intelligence for the public sector: results of landscaping the use of AI in government across the european union,

    C. Van Noordt and G. Misuraca, “Artificial intelligence for the public sector: results of landscaping the use of AI in government across the european union,”Government Information Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 3, p. 101714, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Q. Lu, L. Zhu, J. Whittle, X. Xu,et al.,Responsible AI: Best practices for creating trustworthy AI systems. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Towards Transparency by Design for Artificial Intelligence,

    H. Felzmann, E. Fosch-Villaronga, C. Lutz, and A. Tam ´o-Larrieux, “Towards Transparency by Design for Artificial Intelligence,”Science and Engineering Ethics, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Transparency and explainability of AI systems: ethical guidelines in practice,

    N. Balasubramaniam, M. Kauppinen, K. Hiekkanen, and S. Kujala, “Transparency and explainability of AI systems: ethical guidelines in practice,” inInternational working conference on requirements engi- neering: foundation for software quality, pp. 3–18, Springer, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Signaling transparency in the era of artificial intelligence,

    F. Wang, C. Lopez, and S. Okazaki, “Signaling transparency in the era of artificial intelligence,”Internet Research, pp. 1–25, jul 25 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Oecd ai principles

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Oecd ai principles.” https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles, 2019. Accessed January 2026

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, “AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0).” https://www.nist.gov/itl/ ai-risk-management-framework, 2023. Accessed January 2026

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    AI Governance Alliance: Blueprint for Responsible AI

    World Economic Forum, “AI Governance Alliance: Blueprint for Responsible AI.” https://www.weforum.org/reports/ ai-governance-alliance-blueprint-for-responsible-ai/, 2023. Accessed January 2026

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Artificial Intelligence Act – High-Level Summary

    European Union, “Artificial Intelligence Act – High-Level Summary.” https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/high-level-summary/, 2024. Accessed January 2026

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    How do we ensure transparency in AI? Guidance on AI and data protection

    Information Commissioner’s Office, “How do we ensure transparency in AI? Guidance on AI and data protection.” https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/ artificial-intelligence/guidance-on-ai-and-data-protection/ how-do-we-ensure-transparency-in-ai/, 2023. Accessed January 2026

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    A comprehensive survey and classification of evaluation criteria for trustworthy artificial intelligence,

    L. McCormack and M. Bendechache, “A comprehensive survey and classification of evaluation criteria for trustworthy artificial intelligence,” AI and Ethics, vol. 5, pp. 1973–1994, oct 21 2025

    work page 1973

  13. [13]

    Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences,

    T. Miller, “Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences,”Artificial Intelligence, vol. 267, pp. 1–38, 2019

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI,

    A. Barredo Arrieta, N. D ´ıaz-Rodr´ıguez, J. Del Ser, A. Bennetot, S. Tabik, A. Barbado, S. Garcia, S. Gil-Lopez, D. Molina, R. Benjamins, R. Chatila, and F. Herrera, “Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI,”Information Fusion, vol. 58, pp. 82–115, 2020

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Inclusive and ex- plainable ai systems a systematic literature review,

    A. Girard, D. Zowghi, M. Bano, and M. Riziou, “Inclusive and ex- plainable ai systems a systematic literature review,” inAnnual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, AIS, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability,

    M. Ananny and K. Crawford, “Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability,” New Media & Society, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 973–989, 2018

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Transparency in artificial intelligence,

    S. Larsson and F. Heintz, “Transparency in artificial intelligence,” Internet Policy Review, vol. 9, may 5 2020

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Chung, B

    L. Chung, B. A. Nixon, E. Yu, and J. Mylopoulos,Non-functional requirements in software engineering, vol. 5. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    What’s up with Requirements Engineering for Artificial Intelligence Systems?,

    K. Ahmad, M. Bano, M. Abdelrazek, C. Arora, and J. Grundy, “What’s up with Requirements Engineering for Artificial Intelligence Systems?,” in2021 IEEE 29th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 1–12, IEEE, 9 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Intrprt: A Systematic Review of and Guidelines for Designing and Validating Transparent AI in Medical Image Analysis,

    H. Chen, C. G ´omez, C.-M. Huang, and M. Unberath, “Intrprt: A Systematic Review of and Guidelines for Designing and Validating Transparent AI in Medical Image Analysis,”arXiv.org, 2021

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Think about the stakeholders first! Toward an algorithmic transparency playbook for regulatory com- pliance,

    A. Bell, O. Nov, and J. Stoyanovich, “Think about the stakeholders first! Toward an algorithmic transparency playbook for regulatory com- pliance,”Data & Policy, vol. 5, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    A Transparency Index Framework for AI in Education,

    M. A. Chaudhry, M. Cukurova, and R. Luckin, “A Transparency Index Framework for AI in Education,”International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    A Comprehensive Perspective on Explainable AI across the Machine Learning Workflow,

    G. Paterakis, A. Castellani, G. Papoutsoglou, T. Rodemann, and I. Tsamardinos, “A Comprehensive Perspective on Explainable AI across the Machine Learning Workflow,”arXiv.org, 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    A systematic review on the relationship be- tween user involvement and system success,

    M. Bano and D. Zowghi, “A systematic review on the relationship be- tween user involvement and system success,”Information and software technology, vol. 58, pp. 148–169, 2015

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    User satisfaction and system success: an empirical exploration of user involvement in software development,

    M. Bano, D. Zowghi, and F. da Rimini, “User satisfaction and system success: an empirical exploration of user involvement in software development,”Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 2339– 2372, 2017

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Power and politics of user involvement in software development,

    M. Bano, D. Zowghi, and F. da Rimini, “Power and politics of user involvement in software development,” inProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2018, pp. 157–162, 2018

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    On the Role of Transparency in Building Inclusive and Trustworthy AI Systems,

    D. Zowghi, “On the Role of Transparency in Building Inclusive and Trustworthy AI Systems,”2025 IEEE 33rd International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Estado da Arte sobre Engenharia de Requisitos e Explicabilidade em Sistemas Baseados em Aprendizado de M ´aquina,

    L. Mancine, J. L. Soares, T. N. Kudo, and R. F. Bulc ˜ao-Neto, “Estado da Arte sobre Engenharia de Requisitos e Explicabilidade em Sistemas Baseados em Aprendizado de M ´aquina,” inAnais Estendidos do XXX Simp´osio Brasileiro de Sistemas Multim ´ıdia e Web (WebMedia 2024), pp. 143–158, Sociedade Brasileira de Computac ¸˜ao - SBC, oct 14 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Evaluating Trustworthiness in AI: Risks, Metrics, and Applications Across Indus- tries,

    A. Nastoska, B. Jancheska, M. Rizinski, and D. Trajanov, “Evaluating Trustworthiness in AI: Risks, Metrics, and Applications Across Indus- tries,”Electronics, vol. 14, p. 2717, jul 4 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    What do we want from Explainable Ar- tificial Intelligence (XAI)? – A stakeholder perspective on XAI and a conceptual model guiding interdisciplinary XAI research,

    M. Langer, D. Oster, T. Speith, H. Hermanns, L. K ¨astner, E. Schmidt, A. Sesing, and K. Baum, “What do we want from Explainable Ar- tificial Intelligence (XAI)? – A stakeholder perspective on XAI and a conceptual model guiding interdisciplinary XAI research,”Artificial Intelligence, vol. 296, p. 103473, 7 2021

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI,

    M. Nauta, J. Trienes, S. Pathak, E. Nguyen, M. Peters, Y . Schmitt, J. Schl¨otterer, M. van Keulen, and C. Seifert, “From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, pp. 1–42, jul 13 2023

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    A Systematic Literature Review on Ex- plainability for ML/DL-based Software Engineering,

    S. Cao, X. Sun, R. Widyasari, D. Lo, X. Wu, L. Bo, J. Zhang, B. Li, W. Liu, D. Wu, and Y . Chen, “A Systematic Literature Review on Ex- plainability for ML/DL-based Software Engineering,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 58, pp. 1–34, oct 25 2025

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Towards a Better Understanding of Evaluating Trustworthiness in AI Systems,

    N. Kemmerzell, A. Schreiner, H. Khalid, M. Schalk, and L. Bordoli, “Towards a Better Understanding of Evaluating Trustworthiness in AI Systems,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 57, pp. 1–38, apr 4 2025

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Operationalizing Explainable Artificial Intelligence in the European Union Regulatory Ecosystem,

    L. Nannini, J. M. Alonso-Moral, A. Catal ´a, M. Lama, and S. Barro, “Operationalizing Explainable Artificial Intelligence in the European Union Regulatory Ecosystem,”IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 39, pp. 37– 48, 7 2024

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Australia’s Artificial Intelligence Ethics Principles

    Australian Government, Department of Industry, Science and Re- sources, “Australia’s Artificial Intelligence Ethics Principles.” https: //www.industry.gov.au/publications/australias-ai-ethics-principles, 2019. Accessed January 2026

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Policy for the responsible use of AI in government, version 2.0 https://www.digital.gov.au/ai/ai-in-government-policy,

    Australian Government Digital Transformation Agency, “Policy for the responsible use of AI in government, version 2.0 https://www.digital.gov.au/ai/ai-in-government-policy,” 2025. Effective 15 December 2025. Accessed February 2026

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    XAIR: A Systematic Metareview of Explainable AI (XAI) Aligned to the Software Development Process,

    T. Clement, N. Kemmerzell, M. Abdelaal, and M. Amberg, “XAIR: A Systematic Metareview of Explainable AI (XAI) Aligned to the Software Development Process,”Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, vol. 5, pp. 78–108, jan 11 2023

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Applying Transparency in Artificial Intelligence based Personalization Systems https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.00935,

    L. Schelenz, A. Segal, and K. Gal, “Applying Transparency in Artificial Intelligence based Personalization Systems https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.00935,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.00935, 2020

    work page arXiv 2004

  39. [39]

    Transparency-Check: An Instrument for the Study and Design of Transparency in AI-based Personalization Systems,

    L. Schelenz, A. Segal, O. Adelio, and K. Gal, “Transparency-Check: An Instrument for the Study and Design of Transparency in AI-based Personalization Systems,”ACM Journal on Responsible Computing, vol. 1, pp. 1–18, mar 20 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Audit Cards: Contextu- alizing AI Evaluations,

    L. Staufer, M. Yang, A. Reuel, and S. Casper, “Audit Cards: Contextu- alizing AI Evaluations,”arXiv.org, 2025

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Towards Accountability for Machine Learning Datasets: Practices from Software Engineering and Infrastructure,

    B. Hutchinson, A. Smart, A. Hanna, R. Denton, C. Greer, O. Kjar- tansson, P. Barnes, and M. Mitchell, “Towards Accountability for Machine Learning Datasets: Practices from Software Engineering and Infrastructure,” inProceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 560–575, ACM, 3 2021

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    A Maturity Model for Practical Explainability in Artificial Intelligence- Based Applications: Integrating Analysis and Evaluation (MM4XAIAE) Models,

    J. Mu ˜noz-Ord´o˜nez, C. Cobos, J. C. Vidal-Rojas, and F. Herrera, “A Maturity Model for Practical Explainability in Artificial Intelligence- Based Applications: Integrating Analysis and Evaluation (MM4XAIAE) Models,”International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 2025, 1 2025

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    trust- sense: Measuring Human Oversight Maturity for Trustworthy AI,

    K. Kioskli, T. Fotis, E. Seralidou, M. Passaris, and N. Polemi, “trust- sense: Measuring Human Oversight Maturity for Trustworthy AI,” Computers, vol. 14, p. 483, nov 6 2025

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Dealing with Explainability Requirements for Machine Learning Systems,

    T. Li and L. Han, “Dealing with Explainability Requirements for Machine Learning Systems,” in2023 IEEE 47th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), pp. 1203–1208, IEEE, 6 2023

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Requirements Engi- neering for Machine Learning: A Systematic Mapping Study,

    H. Villamizar, T. Escovedo, and M. Kalinowski, “Requirements Engi- neering for Machine Learning: A Systematic Mapping Study,” in2021 47th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 29–36, IEEE, 9 2021

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Transparency and Explainability of AI Systems: From Ethi- cal Guidelines to Requirements,

    N. Balasubramaniam, M. Kauppinen, A. Rannisto, K. Hiekkanen, and S. Kujala, “Transparency and Explainability of AI Systems: From Ethi- cal Guidelines to Requirements,”Information and Software Technology, vol. 159, p. 107197, 2023

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Zowghi and C

    D. Zowghi and C. Coulin,Requirements Elicitation: A Survey of Techniques, Approaches, and Tools, pp. 19–46. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    Metrics, Explain- ability and the European AI Act Proposal,

    F. Sovrano, S. Sapienza, M. Palmirani, and F. Vitali, “Metrics, Explain- ability and the European AI Act Proposal,”J, vol. 5, pp. 126–138, feb 18 2022

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering,

    G. Baxter and I. Sommerville, “Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering,” inInteracting with Computers, vol. 23, pp. 4–17, Oxford University Press, 2011

    work page 2011

  50. [51]

    DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18756200

    Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18756200

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18756200

  51. [52]

    J. W. Meyer and B. Rowan,Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, vol. 83. University of Chicago Press, 1977

    work page 1977

  52. [53]

    Brunsson,The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations

    N. Brunsson,The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1989

    work page 1989

  53. [54]

    Artificial in- telligence transparency statement

    Attorney-General’s Department, “Artificial in- telligence transparency statement.” https://www. ag.gov.au/about-us/accountability-and-reporting/ attorney-generals-department-artificial-intelligence-transparency-statement,

    work page

  54. [55]

    Accessed January 2026

    work page 2026

  55. [56]

    Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here’s How to Make It Happen,

    C. Moreira, A. Palatkina, D. Braca, D. M. Walsh, P. J. Leihn, F. Chen, and N. C. Hubig, “Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here’s How to Make It Happen,”arXiv.org, 2025

    work page 2025