This framework develops public auditing mechanisms for reconstructing explanations into graphs, highlighting challenges in validation.
This paper develops a framework for the public auditing of submitted explanations. What an explainer submits is not an explanatory graph but an explanation in raw form; the graph is the object reconstructed by an interpreter under publicly reviewable procedures. I begin by distinguishing the explainer from the interpreter and, on that basis, fixing three methodological stopping points: explanations are publicly reconstructible, explanatory commitments can be identified, and compression can be distinguished from decompression. I then argue that any submitted explanation can, after audit, be reconstructed as an explanatory graph with a reconstruction layer and an audit layer. The audit layer can always be rendered as a finite directed acyclic graph, so frontier nodes must exist. I further define explanatory vindication in a strict sense as the deterministic transmission of a node’s standing from a non-empty upstream base set through deductive decompression traceable within the graph. It follows that no frontier stopping point can be explanatorily vindicated within the graph. It can only be defended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Le Qi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: