Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Proposes a framework for hybrid intelligence governance, highlighting accountability standards and conformity assessment methodology.
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into private and public-sector decision-making has outpaced the development of standards governing the interaction between human judgment and machine intelligence. Existing frameworks—the EU AI Act Regulation, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and ISO/IEC 42001—regulate AI systems as discrete technical artifacts but do not standardize the hybrid intelligence configurations in which human cognition and algorithmic outputs jointly produce governance decisions. This paper proposes a three-layer standards framework comprising technical interoperability standards governing how AI outputs are communicated to human decision-makers, procedural standards governing human-AI task allocation and escalation protocols, and accountability standards governing responsibility attribution in distributed decision configurations. The framework is grounded in the Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL), which adds governance as a fourth sustainability dimension. To move beyond a purely conceptual contribution, the paper provides operationalization tools—including a role allocation matrix, confidence calibration thresholds, an accountability mapping template, and a domain classification schema—and proposes a three-tier conformity assessment methodology for evaluating framework implementation. By establishing the hybrid human–AI decision configuration as the unit of standardization, the paper introduces a governance architecture that enables operational, auditable, and comparable hybrid intelligence systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haris Alibašić (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: