AI systems now drive operational decisions in global grain supply chains, yet no jurisdiction requires enterprises to prove who decided what, when, and on what basis. This paper identifies a "four-layer accountability void": (1) a definition void, where concepts such as algorithmic collusion lack stable application to AI; (2) a regulatory void, where the EU AI Act, CFTC, and China's algorithmic governance each fail to classify grain trading AI as a subject of oversight; (3) an enforcement void, with zero publicly reported regulatory actions worldwide; and (4) a precedent void, with no court judgment or arbitration award on point. Through comparative analysis across seven jurisdictions and scenario-based stress testing, the paper documents how major trading houses have deployed AI while no regime exists for decision-level accountability. The analysis is diagnostic, intended to define the problem for regulators, legal scholars, and industry participants.
Li et al. (Wed,) studied this question.