From model assurance to pipeline accountability: vendor-mediated generative AI governance in regulated financial services in Singapore and Vietnam
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to examine how digital policy and regulatory governance should respond to vendor-mediated generative artificial intelligence (AI) in regulated financial services. It argues that the central problem concerns not only model assurance but also the evidentiary pipeline through which customer data, vendor processing, generated outputs and human review become auditable. Design/methodology/approach: The article uses a conceptual and design-orientated documentary comparison of Singapore and Vietnam. It analyses AI governance, data protection, financial supervision and third-party risk instruments through four functional axes, derives operational indicators from the documentary corpus and examines their internal coherence through a structured illustrative case in financial services. Findings: Singapore’s interoperability-orientated model and Vietnam’s dossier-based model of legal visibility provide different regulatory entry points. Both remain incomplete unless institutions preserve workflow-level evidence across procurement, configuration, deployment, output verification and supervisory review. Practical implications: The framework links risk triggers to pipeline maps, vendor due diligence, transfer records, output-verification protocols and audit trails. Originality/value: The article develops a conceptually grounded pipeline accountability framework that connects vendor obligations, data movement, generated outputs and human verification. It is operationally specified but remains a design proposition requiring empirical testing and refinement.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372873 · Cited by 1,372 · see citing works
Wieringa, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372833 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
The Functional Method of Comparative Law
Michaels, R. (2006) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199296064.013.0011 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) - Japanese translation
NIST, G. M. (2024) · doi:10.6028/nist.ai.100-1.jpn · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches
Mökander, J. (2023) · Digital Society · doi:10.1007/s44206-023-00074-y · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Reviewable Automated Decision-Making: A Framework for Accountable Algorithmic Systems
Cobbe, J., Lee, M. S. A., & Singh, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445921 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
The European AI liability directives: Critique of a half-hearted approach and lessons for the future
Hacker, P. (2023) · Computer Law & Security Review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105871 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Ye, X., Yan, Y., Li, J., & Jiang, B. (2024) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102851 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Siems, M. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108892766 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems
Lam, K., Lange, B., Blili-Hamelin, B., Davidovic, J., Brown, S., & Hasan, A. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658957 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
It's just distributed computing: Rethinking AI governance
Mueller, M. (2025) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2025.102917 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Improving Governance Outcomes Through AI Documentation: Bridging Theory and Practice
Winecoff, A., & Bogen, M. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713814 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
The 2024 Foundation Model Transparency Index
Bommasani, R., Klyman, K., Kapoor, S., Longpre, S., Xiong, B., Maslej, N., & Liang, P. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.12929 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Algorithmic solutions, subjectivity and decision errors: a study of AI accountability
Biju, P. R., & Gayathri, O. (2024) · Digital Policy Regulation and Governance · doi:10.1108/dprg-05-2024-0090 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Mapping the global regulatory terrain in digital banking: a longitudinal study across countries
Seyedjafarrangraz, F., Fuentes, C. D., & Zhang, M. (2024) · Digital Policy Regulation and Governance · doi:10.1108/dprg-04-2024-0067 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Vandercruysse, L., Dooms, M., & Buts, C. (2024) · Digital Policy Regulation and Governance · doi:10.1108/dprg-11-2023-0159 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Regulating data platforms from a value of data approach
Basaure, A., Töyli, J., & Mähönen, P. (2024) · Digital Policy Regulation and Governance · doi:10.1108/dprg-06-2024-0119 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Khung quản lý rủi ro trí tuệ nhân tạo trong các tổ chức tài chính: đề xuất mô hình và hướng tiếp cận
Triệu, T. H. (2026) · Tạp chí Kinh tế - Luật và Ngân hàng · doi:10.59276/jelb.2026.03.3037 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- European Union (2024), “Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European parliament and of the council of 13 june 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence”, Official Journal of the European Union, available at:Link to the cited article. (accessed7 May 2026).
- Kroll, 2017, Accountable algorithms, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165, 633
Cited by
Still being checked.
- Authors
- Hoang, V. T., & Nguyen, N. M.
- Affiliations
- Banking Academy of Vietnam (VN)
- Corresponding author
- Nguyen, Ngoc Mai
- Venue
- Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2026-08-19
- Pages
- 1-18
- ISSN
- 2398-5038 (ISSN-L)
- 2398-5046
- OpenAlex
- W7203608696
- Semantic Scholar
- 5d6bf16fb61e0c047ea686753cf66b80d2fee99d
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Digital Policy Regulation and Governance (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Banking Academy of Vietnam
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Regulation and Compliance Studies
- Keywords
- generative AI governance, financial regulation, audit trail, third-party risk, data protection, financial supervision, Singapore, Vietnam, regulatory interoperability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
