Working paper v1.0 — not peer reviewed. This working paper proposes epistemic assurance as a diagnostic lens for epistemic risk: failures in the corrective-governance loop through which action-guiding representations remain answerable to evidence across production, verification, challenge, correction, and use. It distinguishes truth fidelity as the regulative orientation, synthetic coherence as the organising failure condition, and epistemic assurance as a candidate assurance object and diagnostic vocabulary for recognising when action-guiding maps of reality remain authoritative despite degraded correction. The paper proposes evidential provenance, contestability, and revision fidelity as a minimal triad for assessing whether representations remain anchored, contestable, and corrigible across AI-mediated and institutional workflows. Its strongest worked emphasis is on AI governance and assurance settings, with mappings to EU AI Act Article 14, ISO/IEC 42005 impact-assessment reassessment triggers, and SR 26-2 effective challenge. The paper is conceptual and programmatic rather than a validated operational method.
Hermod Rypdal (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: