Theoretical framework demonstrates a governance discipline for analytical services, highlighting the alignment of analytical output authority with underlying evidentiary grounds.
Analytics exists to serve a user with a purpose. Analytical Governance is the discipline governing the legitimacy of that analytical service: preserving the user's purpose, establishing the analytical result under the relevant analytical law and support, and carrying no more authority into serving or use than the grounds warrant. The paper retains the intent and servability gaps while re-centering them within a broader service passage from purpose to consequential use. It distinguishes faithfulness, reliability, servability, standing, and later risk/authorization; introduces enablement as the positive side of the intent gap; separates Clarify from Escalate; and closes the loop between serving and the authoring/ratification process that changes the governed constitution. The Theory of Certainty provides the upstream account of grounds and warranted reliance; Analytical Governance turns that foundation into service discipline.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huayin Wang (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: