Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Presents a comprehensive taxonomy for AI governance instruments, highlighting their interrelations and implications for liability and sector contagion.
AI governance research has, to date, developed largely as a series of independent instruments, each addressing a discrete failure mode — regulatory exposure, vendor credibility, sector-specific liability — without a unifying framework describing how these instruments relate to one another or to a shared theoretical foundation. This paper presents the first complete taxonomy of the Picken Diamond instrument family: twenty-two instruments, organised into three tiers, unified by a single five-pillar governance assessment and a shared mathematical philosophy of inverting established financial risk theory onto board-level AI governance. The taxonomy demonstrates that these instruments are not a loose toolkit but a coherent measurement system, progressing from point-in-time organisational assessment (Tier One), through extended decision-support and post-deployment evaluation (Tier Two), to sector-level contagion projection across time (Tier Three). In plain terms: this is the map that makes the family's existing structure visible for the first time — of the twenty-two instruments described, eleven have prior standalone publication; the remaining eleven were developed and calibrated within the author's working methodology and are described here for the first time. The paper's contribution is structural rather than computational — it describes what each instrument measures and why, situating the family within the wider AI governance and financial-risk-theory literatures, without disclosing the proprietary calibration methodology by which any individual instrument's output is derived.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Terence Picken (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: