Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This appendix provides a comprehensive vocabulary mapping for AI governance, enhancing psychological constructs for better framework application.
This appendix supplements the paper "The Disciplinary Language Transfer Problem: How Psychological Vocabulary Produces Governance Failures in AI Agent Deployment," by Kymberly Lasser-Chere, Tyler Akidau, and Marc Millstone, to appear in the Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES 2026). The paper argues that vocabulary borrowed from psychological and organizational science — learning, memory, values, compliance, identity, trust — carries an "invisible grammar" into AI governance discourse, calibrating governance frameworks to an entity that does not exist in current AI architectures. Its practical output is a translation taxonomy mapping that vocabulary onto agent-appropriate replacements. Supplementary material is not included in the AIES proceedings, so this appendix is distributed separately. It contains the complete thirty-seven-entry taxonomy, which the paper itself presents only in abridged form (its Tables 1 and 2): Level 2 — twenty-three psychological and organizational constructs currently used in governance discourse, organized into three categories (identity, character and relations; values, morality and compliance; cognition, knowing and epistemology). Each entry gives the term, its source framework, what it presupposes about the entity it describes, and the governance consequence of transferring it to AI agents. Level 3 — fourteen agent-appropriate replacement terms. Each entry gives the replacement, its operational definition, anticipated consequences and remediation, and the legacy constructs it supersedes. Level 1 — the six foundational epistemological assumptions — is analyzed in Section 3 of the paper rather than tabulated here. Section, table, and note references throughout this appendix refer to the paper, not to the appendix itself.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lasser-Chere et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: