The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 19 of the 161 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance
Open accessAbstract
Much attention has focused on algorithmic audits and impact assessments to hold developers and users of algorithmic systems accountable. But existing algorithmic accountability policy approaches have neglected the lessons from non-algorithmic domains: notably, the importance of third parties. Our paper synthesizes lessons from other fields on how to craft effective systems of external oversight for algorithmic deployments. First, we discuss the challenges of third party oversight in the current AI landscape. Second, we survey audit systems across domains - e.g., financial, environmental, and health regulation - and show that the institutional design of such audits are far from monolithic. Finally, we survey the evidence base around these design components and spell out the implications for algorithmic auditing. We conclude that the turn toward audits alone is unlikely to achieve actual algorithmic accountability, and sustained focus on institutional design will be required for meaningful third party involvement.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
19 of 161 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Even when connected to representative organizations, such individuals or communities often lack the vocabulary and ability to flag the issues they observe [34].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [34] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 6.5 (page not provided) says that a specialist machine-learning background was not necessary for meaningful feedback and gives examples of community panelists identifying concerns about predictive policing. The paper acknowledges that technical concepts are difficult to explain, but its finding runs contrary to the attributed claim that these communities lack the ability to flag issues they observe. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Even in cases when a participatory approach is considered, the responsibility of consulting with external perspectives when considering impacts to articulate in an AIA is still framed as the responsibility of internal stakeholders to coordinate and interpret these interactions [53].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [53] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.3 (page unavailable) says participatory design brings relevant stakeholders into development and that gathering their views and resolving conflicting specifications create work and costs. It does not discuss AI impact assessments (AIAs) or say that internal stakeholders are responsible for coordinating and interpreting external consultations in an AIA. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Together, these watchdogs continue to participate in consequential studies to analyze the biased outcomes of models used in domains as varied as content curation [80], online advertising [40], tenant screening [39,70], child welfare [12], criminal justice [5,10,20,26,78], hiring [63], immigration [24], education [25] or public health [15,56].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [80] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusion (page unavailable) describes a drug-safety study that developed and evaluated models for predicting adverse drug interactions. The Discussion mentions possible confounding and indication biases, but neither passage describes a third-party watchdog study of biased model outcomes. I searched for watchdogs, biased outcomes, and model bias in public health. (LLM, conf=0.73)
- Not matchedcites [40]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [39]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [70]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The evidence on mandatory rotations is more mixed.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [27]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [38]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [43]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites [65] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 5, “Limitations of Internal Audits” (page unavailable), discusses auditor independence and the limits of internal audits, but not mandatory rotations or evidence about their effects. Searches for “mandatory rotations” and “auditor rotation mixed evidence” found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“A two-year randomized controlled trial showed that environmental third party audits were more accurate when auditors were not paid by the firm being audited, but by a common pool of government distributed funding [18].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [18] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 'Some key problems' section discusses conflicts of interest in corporate-funded AI ethics research and independent AI audits, but not environmental audits. Searches for the two-year trial and the comparison between firm-paid and government-funded auditors found no passage addressing the claimed accuracy result. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The longer an auditor gets to know a firm, the more firm-specific expertise the auditor acquires.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [38]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [43]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites [65] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Sections 2.4 (The Internal Audit) and 3.3.1 (Audit Infrastructure) discuss auditors’ access to organizational information, but neither addresses whether longer tenure increases firm-specific expertise. Searches for auditor tenure and for auditors gaining knowledge of a firm over time found no passage making that point. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The tenure of auditors is another key determinant of independence [15].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [15] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 describes an audit of demographic disparities in mobility-data coverage, and §4.5 applies it to voter turnout. Searches for auditor tenure, appointment length, and independence found no passage addressing whether tenure determines auditor independence. The source therefore does not verify the cited claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There is strong social science demonstrating that selection and compensation can undermine independence and, in turn, audit quality.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [18] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Independence and direction of research” (page unavailable), the paper says funding requirements can affect research independence. “Some key problems” (page unavailable) describes conflicts of interest in corporate-funded AI ethics work and calls for independent audits. It does not present social-science evidence that auditor selection or compensation arrangements undermine audit independence and, in turn, audit quality. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“However, even in instances when the algorithmic systems are themselves disclosed, it remains difficult to anticipate which of these deployments are linked to known incidents of harms, and thus challenging to prioritize cases or pursue targets proactively [64].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [64] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.1.1 discusses choosing the scope of an audit, and Section 3.2.3 discusses disclosure of audit targets and its effects on auditability. Neither addresses whether disclosed system deployments can be linked to known incidents of harm or whether that difficulty prevents proactive prioritization. Searches for those connections found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Similarly, when car owners are given the option to choose their own car inspectors, they select for more lenient car inspectors, resulting in a race to the bottom [10,34].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [10]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites [34] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Background (section 3) discusses oversight of surveillance technologies, and section 6.3 discusses algorithmic accountability. Neither addresses car owners choosing inspectors or a resulting race to the bottom. Searches for car-inspector choice, inspector leniency, and “race to the bottom” found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Investigative journalism tools such as Algorithm Tips [83], a database of algorithmic tools being used by public agencies, can also make information on algorithmic deployment more publicly accessible.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [83] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Accountability to decision subjects’ section (p. 6) describes agencies sharing information about their algorithms with journalists and publishing model details, which supports the broader point about public access to information. Our copy does not identify Algorithm Tips or describe a database of public-agency algorithms, so it does not support that specific example. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For instance, it was recurring audits that revealed that Facebook was continuing to discriminate against minority users in job and housing ads,despite earlier communications that it would no longer do so [4,38,41,52,72].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [4] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Concluding Discussion reports that the authors' employment and housing ad tests found racially skewed delivery, and Anti-discrimination rules describes Facebook's earlier pledge to restrict certain targeting categories. The paper does not establish that recurring audits found continued discrimination against minority users generally, or that Facebook had promised to end all such discrimination; it limits its findings to the ads tested. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not matchedcites [38]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [41]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites [52] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.3 discusses third-party audits, while Section 3 discusses Facebook’s human-rights impact assessment concerning Myanmar. Neither addresses recurring audits of Facebook’s job or housing ads, discrimination against minority users in those ads, or earlier assurances that it would stop. Searches for those terms found no passage supporting the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not matchedcites [72]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, we survey audit systems across domains -e.g., financial, environmental, and health regulation -and show that the institutional design of such audits are far from monolithic.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, all audit systems have some mechanism of access to otherwise confidential information: e.g., access to enter a facility to inspect the premises and records or the reporting or access to financial statements.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 3 THE INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF AUDIT SYSTEMS
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 1 shows that a fair number of audit schemes are universal (i.e., they are mandatory for all entities subject to the jurisdiction of the regulator).”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“While helpful in aligning internal stakeholders, such an approach is not likely to identify or address the main concerns of external stakeholders [54,66], particularly if that affected population or its representatives are systematically neglected or under-considered as affected non-users.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [54]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [66]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These instructions around audit execution are ultimately attempts at control on audit quality and meaningfulness for accountability, but also reveal the assumption underpinning many of these proposals that internal parties are expected to be the ones conducting compliance audits.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Developments such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [86], the proposed Algorithmic Accountability Act [48], and several of the state-wide and municipal proposals throughout the U.S. [50] tend to focus instead on internal audits commissioned, executed, paid for and controlled by the companies being targeted.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [86]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [48]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [50]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Worse yet -as was observed in the AI hiring tool industry [76,77] -even well-executed algorithmic audit results may get co-opted by audit targets and used to disguise deeper failures.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [76]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [77]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But existing algorithmic accountability policy approaches have neglected the lessons from non-algorithmic domains: notably, the importance of interventions that allow for the effective participation of third parties.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the sharp rise in ESG investment strategies is indeed impressive, ESG in many ways challenges, not supports, the turn toward the audits of algorithmic and artificial intelligence (AI) branded products.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Similarly, the Information Commissioner's Office released a report of”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the emphasis on internal audits can omit concerns by communities impacted by algorithmic deployments.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirdly, there is acute potential for conflicts of interest with first or second party audits.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“First, many AI policy developments tend to focus on articulating some guidance on what an internal audit should include and potentially enforcing these as expectations for a bare minimum”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Specifically, the assumption behind calls for Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIAs) remains that audit activities are executed by internal stakeholders.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [67]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [73]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“For instance, the New York City Council mandate for hiring tools specifies the details of a”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [50]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Most mainstream interpretations of the AIA continue to center its execution as the responsibility of the assessed organization [67,73].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [67]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [73]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Internal accountability approaches are developed in reference to a limited set of compliance requirements and self-determined AI principles [66].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [66]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“For instance, companies developing algorithmic policing tools naturally prioritize the needs of the police users of their products, even though the community whose safety is impacted by the use of such tools may have different expectations and preferences [51].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Residents in low-income and minority communities, for instance, are less likely to complain about street conditions or”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [48]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, even when external auditing is contemplated, the focus is on a narrow set of potential auditors.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Similarly, the warnings from Facebook researchers on addressing mounting bias issues and misinformation campaigns was reported to have been internally suppressed [57].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [57]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Even the work of hired consultants can be manipulated when the publication process is mediated by the company itself, as demonstrated by the conflicted reporting on the Hirevue audit by consulting company ORCAA [21].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Complaint-initiated audits, however, also raise challenges.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In some cases, users were purposefully inundated with notices designed to induce them to consent by default [55,57,61,70].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [55]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [57]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [61]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These types of informational disclosures can also distract regulators from more pressing problems.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Last, the limited audit capacity has led to many instances of audit failures.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“These third-party reporting systems can help focus auditing resources on issues that matter most [81].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [81]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Another research study found that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database is predictive of true safety concerns with newly released vaccines [26].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third-party reporting is most successful when third parties possess high quality information.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If auditors are tasked with vague inspection mandates, their results may be difficult to understand or translate into enforcement actions or changed practices.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Audit Precision.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“When an individual's income is reported to the IRS by third parties like banks and employers, for example, that individual is far more likely to be tax compliant than if they self-reported their income [41,47].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [41]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [47]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result of this conflict of interest, the ability of internal stakeholders or hired parties to properly scrutinize, honestly describe and effectively alter the algorithmic development process or its outcomes is limited when the incentives to do so directly contradict corporate preferences.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These notices, however, can easily become overwhelming.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“One analysis of investigated nursing home complaints, for example, found that the complaints predicted performance at subsequent inspections [71].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [71]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Similar to the”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [72]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Similarly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has faced challenges in assessing AI-enabled medical devices, largely deferring to company benchmarks on limited, retrospective data [89].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [89]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Eccles et al. (2012) found that, despite the SEC's interpretive guidance, there is significant variation between companies and within industries in climate change reporting, with some companies disclosing no information about climate change, others using boilerplate language in their disclosures, and still others including robust quantitative metrics like GHG emissions and energy use [19].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Audit Precision.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Still, consumer complaints have proven to be a valuable signal when harms can be difficult to observe.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One study found that vehicle owners were significantly less likely to keep using car emissions testing stations that fail to report favorably on their vehicles [10,39,63].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [10]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [39]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [63] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third parties have already taken advantage of a range of interventions to identify and prioritize potential harms.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similar dynamics have been found in credit rating agencies [20,40], supply chain audits [69], and accounting audits [58].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] source
- Not matchedcites [40]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [69]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [58]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Another study found that credit ratings teams were less accurate in their evaluations when they interacted directly with clients [29].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Research suggests that auditors who may try to sell additional non-auditing services to their clients are more likely to produce client-favorable audits.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current strategies for harm discovery in AI involve ad hoc processes of notice and reporting, limited to situations of harm raised and escalated in public forums such as social media or the press.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIn the paper
“At times, public procurement process disclosure requirements such as the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act [69] will require that certain (often public) institutions such as the New York Police Department (NYPD) publicly release information on which AI technologies are being used.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [69]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Causholli et al. (2014) found that financial auditors whose clients express willingness to purchase their non-audit services in the future tend to produce lower-quality audits [13].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, it can be difficult for regulators and the public to identify incidents of algorithmic harm and the public disclosure of algorithmic products in use is necessary to reveal such issues.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“One analysis of nearly 17,000 supplier audits found that supply chain monitors are more lenient when auditing entities they have inspected before [69].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [69]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Much like how FDA's system has enabled a wide range of techniques to surface issues, the incident reporting system can focus auditing resources on issues that matter most [81].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [81]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“When communities identify issues with algorithmic deployments, it can be difficult for them to articulate or find concrete evidence for such harms [35].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [35]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“There is strong evidence that auditorclient familiarity can induce auditors to make judgments that are favorable to their client.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [69]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“One study of 205 NHS hospitals in England found that hospital cleanliness (as perceived by patients) increased during periods when inspections occurred [75].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [75]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In general, making audit outcomes accessible to the public through open release or a vetted request process improves auditor accountability.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, it still often requires extraordinary effort for investigators to gain sufficient access for a thorough analysis.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Voluntary audits like these can also be compromised if AI vendors require pre-publication review of audit reports, or if (like HireVue) they mandate that individuals sign an NDA in order to view the audit results.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather than allowing companies to pick their own auditors or dictate the focus of their own audits, the literature suggests that there are significant benefits to a regulator (or third party accreditation body) choosing the auditor or using a central fund, instead of relying on direct payment from audit targets to pay auditors.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recent reports have found serious limitations with the voluntary audits undertaken by AI vendors in the hiring space, such as Pymetrics and HireVue.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Second, a fully public inspection system seems unlikely in the near term, as the scale, expertise, and agility needed in the AI governance space far outstrips the current capacity of government agencies [22].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such mediated access, subject to auditor vetting (perhaps by an audit oversight board) and consistent with audit scope, will be critical to enabling third party auditing of AI systems.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: All audit systems provide some form of privileged access to auditors.
- Rests on an assumption: Disclosure of audit information need not be direct or absolute.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In AI, auditors retained by technology companies are potentially compromised by nondisclosure agreements, financial conflicts, and competition for services.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other research shows that clear and rigorous standard-setting can improve the quality of third-party audits.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“For example, some financial auditors must make their communications and records publicly accessible to shareholders in certain U.S. states-this has been proven to improve auditor conduct and lead to higher quality communications [77].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [77]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even third parties who are contracted to conduct an audit can run into challenges, as access is provided only on the audited target's terms.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“The capacity gap also strongly calls into question the focus of current policy proposals that focus on academic researchers [60].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [60]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Often, such collaborative arrangements also include some control or restriction through contracts of how much of the auditor results can be shared more broadly (as was the case for the Pymetrics audit [88]).”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [88] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A randomized controlled trial showed that the accuracy and consistency of these inspections improved with training and peer review.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“One study of supply chain monitors found that audit teams who had more training found significantly more violations than audit teams that were less well-trained [69].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [69]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, accreditation is not exclusive of some regulatory oversight.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Another study found that, observing the same conditions, food safety inspectors disagreed on how to implement the health code 60 percent of the time [37].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [37]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Similarly, attempts by social scientists to work directly with Facebook to gain access to data were thwarted by delayed communications, incomplete data releases and the lack of a clear data dictionary, making the released information indecipherable [60].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [60]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Limiting audit access to academic researchers may narrowly focus audit resources and attention on questions that are important for academic novelty, but misaligned with the needs of other communities.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The National Institute of Standards and Technology, for instance, protects models by having companies run models via a custom Application Program Interface (API) for the Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT).”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Additional research has found that audit quality improves with the amount of client-specific expertise held by audit team members [5].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such reports would also help cure one of the major emerging informational asymmetries in technology regulation, by opening the black box of algorithmic design.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Audit results can also inform more general standard-setting around AI performance and engineering practice.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Separately, the public release of third-party audits can prompt more rigorous auditing practices by allowing for third-party verification.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.1 Evidence Base.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“One study found that auditors who have been publicly recognized for their accuracy tend to produce more accurate audits than their non-recognized counterparts, particularly when there are conflicts of interest [23].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Mandatory disclosure requirements, however, are not costless.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Repeated assessments, including after product release, can be effective at ensuring compliance.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A restricted transparency regime for registered audit reports could have significant potential benefits.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Many AI ethics and accountability discussions have been stymied by the lack of concretely stated expectations of performance and evidence [54].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [54]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 56
- Probably not a substantial claim. 77
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For instance, Google researchers on the internal AI team were dismissed and blocked from publishing critiques on the large-scale language models [18,27], which would later be revealed to be critical to the company's future product roadmap [23,85,87].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [18] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction reports that Google fired Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell and that they were told not to cast Google’s technologies in a negative light in research focused on large language models. It does not establish that these researchers were blocked from publishing the critiques. The later product-roadmap point has separate citations in the citing sentence and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not matchedcites [27]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [85]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [87] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For an audit to successfully measure performance, its scope should be sufficiently delineated.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Audit Precision.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [42] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The sections on benchmarking and defining a peer group say that how a comparison group and performance range are defined is crucial to assessing a company's ESG performance. That supports the general need to define the basis of an assessment, but the paper does not address audits or state a requirement about an audit's scope (searched: audit, scope, delineated). No page number was available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Voluntary reporting can be unreliable and create reporting bias [4].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [4] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s “Measuring and comparing audiences” section uses self-reported gender and race data and notes that voter-file information may be outdated. Neither that section nor the other passages found when searching for voluntary reporting and reporting bias says that voluntary reporting is unreliable or creates reporting bias. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Similar biases have been found in recent consumer complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) [65]-although early CFPB complaints, if anything, appeared to be higher from minority neighborhoods [6].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [65] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.1 discusses bias in automated facial analysis, not consumer complaints. Searches for CFPB, consumer complaints, and minority neighborhoods found no passage in our copy addressing the finding attributed to this source. The separate claim about early complaints is attached to citation [6], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Not matchedcites [6]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Similar resource constraints prompted the development of”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [35]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [66]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites [53] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passages on medical oversight (sections 2.3–2.4; page numbers unavailable) discuss professional review and accountability, not the development of surveillance or complaint databases. Searches for syndromic surveillance, pharmaceutical adverse-event reporting, financial fraud complaints, resource constraints, and real-time audit signals found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“One study of occupational licensing laws for teachers found that stricter occupational licensing regimes is associated with a wider distribution of student test scores [52], though others concluded that state occupational licensing requirements for teachers had no impact on students' standardized test scores [28].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [52] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The citation to this source is attached to the first clause, about stricter teacher licensing and the distribution of student test scores. Our copy discusses algorithmic impact assessments and accountability, including testing in a different context (section 4.1), but the passages found for searches on teacher occupational licensing and student test scores do not address that association. The second clause is attributed to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not matchedcites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rotation requirements, which require auditors to rotate across audit targets to ostensibly foster independence, are employed in a minority of cases.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 3 THE INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF AUDIT SYSTEMS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, we note that nearly all audit programs have specific standards and rules that help to scope the audit.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 3 THE INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF AUDIT SYSTEMS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, we note that significant variation exists within the third party audit category, which may be conducted by public agencies (e.g., nursing home inspections) or private parties (e.g., children's toys), which typically also determines whether auditors are compensated by the audited party.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 3 THE INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF AUDIT SYSTEMS
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What this survey highlights most of all is that there are many varieties of audits.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 3 THE INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF AUDIT SYSTEMS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to limited regulatory capacity, public inspections appear more likely to be initiated by some complaint or risk-based heuristic, rather than being universally mandated.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 3 THE INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF AUDIT SYSTEMS
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Last, in many cases, the audit scheme contemplates post-audit actions, such as recommendations for remediation and disclosure.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 3 THE INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF AUDIT SYSTEMS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, accreditation schemes exist for all instances where the auditee selects and compensates the third party auditor.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 3 THE INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF AUDIT SYSTEMS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As seen in the instances where auditees choose auditors in Table 1, accreditation is widespread.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As Table 1 shows, third party audits invariably involve privileged access to information.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, audited companies could outright ignore or overlook audit results.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Like in ESG, conflicts of interest can compromise the quality of third-party audits of algorithmic systems.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Existing evidence from other regulatory fields suggests that effective target identification mechanisms, independence in selection and compensation, access to data and AI systems, clear and well-scoped audit standards, and post-audit report transparency will be critical to ensure that audits promote, rather than degrade, overall accountability.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thus, AIAs are often practically executed by similar stakeholders as internal audits, with broader regulatory implications and a purpose framed towards prompting and gauging institutional reflexivity and due diligence, in addition to the audit goals of performance assessment with respect to articulated expectations [47].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [47]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Audits can be qualitative or quantitative, as system expectations can be articulated and assessed in either mode.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.1 Terminology
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Auditing the automated decision systems of a large technology platform can rival the complexity of auditing for human rights violations in a large supply chain.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The scope of an AIA is thus potentially broader than a specific product feature, and the assessment goes beyond just evaluation measurements, to include more reflective articulations of the trade-offs and decision-making inherent in the release and development of a particular algorithmic system.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mediation of auditor access is difficult, and the identification of audit targets and scope uncertain.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Audits evaluate performance relative to expected behavior, as part of a broader accountability process [62].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.1 Terminology
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [62] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The impact of this work is undeniable -leading to voluntary moratoriums [30], and several successful lawsuits [75,79]; nation-wide waves of regulatory action and public outcry [74]; congressional hearings [3]; and the recalls or radical redesigns of the deployed algorithms [12,64,65,88].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [75]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [79] source
- Not matchedcites [74]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The standards and scope of an algorithmic audit may be unclear -leading to assessments that are unfocused and expensive.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“And due to the ambiguity of what is being audited, ESG certifications risk becoming”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] source
- Not matchedcites [37]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In the same vein, regulatory and institutional interpretations of hate speech often differs dramatically from the understanding of those experiencing hate online [43], leading to deployed moderation tools that further marginalize and censor impacted users rather than protect them [16].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [43]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [16]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“By convention, audits are classified into three types [14].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.1 Terminology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The controversial facial recognition company Clearview AI, for example, claimed to be”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is a clear precedent for situations of auditors compromised by selection, payment, or employment by auditees; auditors struggling to secure access; auditors clumsily navigating diffuse performance standards; and auditees that may elect to share or conceal findings otherwise hidden behind a nondisclosure agreement.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] source
- Not matchedcites [37]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This tends to prioritize at most the concerns of regulators or customers, primarily to reduce liability risk, which may not align with core concerns of impacted populations.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [54]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [66]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note that while third party oversight by non-profit organizations, journalists, and academics have, as noted above, played critical roles in exposing weaknesses to AI systems, such forms of oversight are not conventionally considered audits per se.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.1 Terminology
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Unlike most audits, AIAs are not as strictly defined and tend to include more open-ended inquiry into the impacts of a particular algorithmic deployment [55].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [55]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of these format and content oriented developments work to restrict and define what is to be included in the audit, focusing on concerns that are preferable for internal auditors to operationalize, and that requires a certain level of access or internal co-operation to achieve.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conclude that the turn toward audits alone is unlikely to achieve actual algorithmic accountability, and sustained focus on institutional design will be required for meaningful third party involvement.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Identifying audit targets and scope is critical to ensuring that audits are applied to relevant parties, and conducted for the right issues.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1 Target Identification & Audit Scope
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In those instances, risk-based or complaint-based selection of audit targets can help to allocate attention where needed the most.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Companies can themselves adopt incident reporting systems to raise user and public awareness of a system's use in consequential scenarios.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A third party audit where (a) the auditor is selected and compensated by the auditee (b) to conduct an audit of a scope and access determined by the auditee, and (c) with limited post-audit actions may be functionally indistinguishable from firstparty audit, and questionably effective in garnering the expected downstream accountability outcomes.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 3 THE INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF AUDIT SYSTEMS
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, while policy attention has been turning toward audits, serious limitations characterize the current AI audit landscape.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Other proposals put the onus on regulatory agencies to serve the primary role of external auditor [36], but regulatory capacity to conduct such audits is currently lacking [22].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [36]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Some have noted, for example, that the privacy disclosure pop-ups implemented in response to the EU's ePrivacy Directive have increased”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [67]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [76]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Third-party reporting has a similar effect on small businesses [2].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“One study found, for instance, that restaurant compliance notices were not representative of actual food safety status, and pushed inspectors to spend outsize resources on adjudicating the accuracy of these notices rather than addressing safety hazards directly [36].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [36]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Before 2019 and the intervention of the Algorithmic Justice League's Gender Shades audit [10], the U.S. National Institute of Technology (NIST) failed to measure demographic differences in their regular Facial Recognition Vendor's Test (FRVT), thus overlooking for many years that”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [10]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Similarly, the Algorithmic Accountability Act in 2022, and the Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act of 2021 [49] contemplate obligations on regulated parties with enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [49]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When audit resources are scarce, however, it may not be possible to select all parties for an audit.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.1 Evidence Base.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A future where AI audits are conducted by company employees and consulting companies alone fails to learn the lessons of how third parties have generated robust oversight of AI systems.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This stands in sharp contrast to third party oversight of AI products, where access has proven challenging.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 3 THE INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF AUDIT SYSTEMS
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such systems are diverse, impacting a range of industries and stakeholders, and it will require more third party participants, representing a variety of communities and making use of a wide set of tools, to concretely assess a wider range of the harms involved for the implicated stakeholders.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 2.2 The Outsized Focus on Internal Audits
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The key to third-party audits is independence.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2 Independence
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although definitions are provided for these terms, there is little guidance for how regulators, auditors, and companies are meant to translate such descriptions into specific performance expectations.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Audit Precision.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature suggests that there may be benefits to establishing a national incident reporting system to enable third parties to file complaints about algorithmic systems.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Instead of asking,”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Audit Precision.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [82]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“System of Records Notices (SORN), which are intended to notify the public whenever a federal agency creates, modifies, or eliminates records involving personally identifiable information, may alert parties to potential uses of algorithms.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The status quo is that the use of algorithms is rarely disclosed in a transparent manner, making it hard to identify audit targets in the first place [84].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [84]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Murphy & Sandino (2009) found that compensation consultants recommended higher CEO salaries when those consultants offered additional services to those executives [59].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [59]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Some evidence suggests that auditing can help to standardize information for more consistent reporting [30].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Audit Precision.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Another study, however, concluded that while cross-selling opportunities could lead to lower quality statutory audits, they did not have an impact on the quality of independent expert reports provided to takeover targets-though the incentive to cross-sell could have an impact on lowering fees [9].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“No auditor can audit an entire VLOP single-handedly, and the definition of ADS is so context-dependent and purposefully broad [68] that it does little to help scope an audit.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Audit Precision.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [68]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Another study found that private car emissions testing facilities with more opportunities to cross-sell services to customers were more likely to pass cars that did not meet emissions standards [63].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [63] source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“If an auditor violates these independence rules, regulators can impose a range of consequences ranging from monetary sanctions to a bar from the industry [1].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One approach to reduce concerns regarding familiarity is seen in financial auditing, where independence rules prohibit close relationships between auditors and their clients, and prevent the auditor from assisting in the preparation of the financial statements.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Opening audits up for third party participation could also allow for a variety of stakeholders to come in with diverse yet precise inquiries specific to the context, focus and organizational target of which they are most concerned.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Audit Precision.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regulators can use this information to identify specific priority targets and assess fees or penalties based on audit results.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Minimizing conflicts of interest and undue influence helps to ensure the reliability of audit results.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2 Independence
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They could then incentivize third party auditors to inspect repeatedly flagged cases in this database through various means, such as RFPs or bug bounties.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, considerations for how to adjust for differences in reporting propensities and actively solicit minority perspectives for incident reporting will be a key component of the system's design.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.1.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sarbanes-Oxley, for example, requires mandatory rotation of the lead audit partner.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Currently, third parties are often forced to operate at great legal risk to gain access to the audited AI system, keeping them vulnerable to various forms of corporate retaliation or obstruction.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature is much more mixed on the benefits of licensing schemes; accreditation through a professional organization may be preferred for three reasons.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Demand for AI audit services will grow significantly in the near future.
- Rests on an assumption: Occupational licensing reduces the supply of services.
In the paper
“Training improves audit quality and more experienced team members are associated with more effective audits [5].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“One study, for example, found that a shift in Belgian financial audit standards towards more rule-based procedures decreased financial auditing errors and increased auditor independence [11].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [11]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Another analysis of dental licensing requirements found that more rigorous licensing standards did not improve average dental outcomes of patients [45].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [45]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“While much empirical work has focused on the costs and barriers to entry imposed by occupational licensing, less empirical work has probed whether professional licensing has an impact on quality [44].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [44]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Another found that PCAOB inspections, which assess the compliance of registered public accounting firms with professional audit rules and standards, improved audit quality by prompting lower-quality auditors to exit the market [17].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Corporations can also use non-legal strategies to block access, including setting up a paywall, adopting prohibitive Terms of Service conditions, or structuring the product to obscure any clear set of test points.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fears of legal repercussions or corporate retaliation can weaken the audit inquiry, and professional standards can help determine limited conditions for liability.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Several studies have found that increasing or decreasing licensing requirements for CPAs had no meaningful effect on CPA quality [7,12,16].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [12]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [16]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, Hirevue commissioned and controlled the scope of its audit by ORCAA, including by mediating any public communication of audit results through their own public relations channels.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Another study found that unannounced inspections provided better information about the quality of care at nursing homes, and could reduce the regulatory burdens of conducting inspections-though announced inspections could be better suited to identifying organizational issues [46].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Existing research on this question is mixed.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, the PCAOB experience lends support to the creation of an audit oversight board, housed within a public agency or operating as a separate public interest institution, in order to monitor auditors and to determine the expected scope and standards for audit work.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.2.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Similarly, the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have engaged in audits to analyze disparate outcomes and compliance to civil rights guidelines for decades [78].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [78]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“For instance, those making use of crowd-sourcing data collection tools can be interrupted abruptly by claims of violations to privacy or intellectual property rights -NYU researchers studying the Facebook ad delivery algorithm were presented with a cease-and-desist order [58]; German auditors at Algorithm Watch were legally threatened by Instagram [9]; and civil society watch dogs were subpoenaed”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [58]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Another study found that auditors who were subject to PCAOB inspections produced higher quality audits compared to auditors (typically auditors of foreign SEC registrants) that the PCAOB was not allowed to inspect, suggesting that providing access to parties beyond auditors, such as regulators, may provide additional benefits [51].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These auditors make use of a range of tools and methodologies to execute their work, and there is no clear sense of expectations as to what a quality audit entails or who is qualified to execute audit work in the algorithmic context.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-academic groups can also take advantage of a broader range of strategies to conduct audits and understand harms to distinct communities.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This tradeoff has also been documented in food safety inspections, where frequent interactions between inspectors and facilities may improve inspector expertise, but can increase the likelihood of social coercion and even bribery [49,68].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > Selection and Compensation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [49]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [68]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Protecting proprietary information is not a proper response, as all audit systems provide some form of privileged access to auditors, and disclosure does not need to be direct nor absolute.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: All audit systems provide some form of privileged access to auditors.
- Rests on an assumption: Disclosure of audit information need not be direct or absolute.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Training, standardization, and accreditation of auditors are also key to ensuring that audits are accurately and consistently conducted.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4 Professionalization
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“One systematic analysis of the monitoring methods employed by the company PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), for example, found that the resulting audits omitted several major violations and contained serious deficiencies [62].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [62] source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For third-party audits to be effective, auditors must be granted access to enough data to conduct a robust review.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3 Auditor Access
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature strongly supports training, standardization, and accreditation for third-party AI auditors.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The FDA, for example, may withdraw an auditor's accreditation if that auditor certifies a supplier that is later linked to an outbreak of foodborne illness or if it refuses to give the FDA access to its records [54].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.4.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [54]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The author attributed these shortcomings in part to management pre-screening of information and interviews for auditors.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.3.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [62] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A major advantage of the audit approach we articulate is its tangibility: audits can help reveal concrete issues and repeated product failures that can later be resolved by general standards.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Another analysis of restaurant grading across ten jurisdictions found that the practice-meant to protect consumers and improve food sanitation via targeted disclosures-suffered from several serious deficiencies, including grade inflation and grading inconsistencies.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI policy can foster third party audits with more deliberate institutional design, informed by the audit schemes from other industries.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 6 CONCLUSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Public visibility of audit results can improve accountability in several ways.It can prevent companies from being able to disguise or hide undesirable audit outcomes [21] and incentivize better behavior.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“An analysis of PwC's auditing practices also found that the confidential nature of PwC's audits shielded them from verification by other researchers or NGOs and limited their ability to improve the conditions of the regulated entity [62].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [62] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As just a first step in the direction of learning from cognate audit schemes, and because the evidence draws from so many different areas, our survey is necessarily selective and incomplete.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 5 LIMITATIONS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, IEEE P7013 Inclusion and Application Standards for Automated Facial Analysis Technology industry standard is directly informed by the Gender Shades audit.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First of all, our case studies and evidence offered above are not exhaustive.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 5 LIMITATIONS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“One study found that publicly traded companies spend an average of $2.2 million to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's financial reporting requirements [50].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [50]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A registry of audit results avoids the bias from pre-publication review or the secrecy of findings under NDAs and ensures that audits can provide market incentives for companies to correct behavior, inform enforcement actions, and provide an evidence base for standard setting.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“One study found that mandated disclosure of food inspection results increased the compliance of food businesses with food safety regulations [8], though others have found similar food safety disclosure schemes to be ineffective [31,36].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [36]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our point in this specific text is more simple: as the AI community turns toward audits, it has largely ignored what other audit schemes have to teach us on fostering policy environments conducive to third party participation.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 5 LIMITATIONS
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The implementation of a restaurant grading scheme shifted valuable inspection resources away from more significant safety hazards [36].”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.1 Evidence Base.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [36]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mere insistence for audits is not enough -in particular, specific interventions will be necessary to allow for the effective participation of third parties, who play a critical role yet continue to face serious and often debilitating challenges when engaged in their work.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 6 CONCLUSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Limited disclosure of audit results would balance the protection of proprietary information against the benefits of external accountability.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.2 Implications for AI Auditing.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other commentators have also noted the tension that exists, particularly in the context of algorithmic accountability, between the desire for AI transparency and the desire to enforce existing intellectual property rights.”
§ Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance > 4.5.1 Evidence Base.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Lessons from non-algorithmic audit systems can be transferred to the design of AI audit ecosystems.
“Our paper synthesizes lessons from other fields on how to craft effective systems of external oversight for algorithmic deployments.”
“Existing evidence from other regulatory fields suggests that effective target identification mechanisms, independence in selection and compensation, access to data and AI systems, clear and well-scoped audit standards, and post-audit report transparency will be critical to ensure that audits promote, rather than degrade, overall accountability.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Third-party oversight is necessary for meaningful algorithmic accountability.
“We conclude that the turn toward audits alone is unlikely to achieve actual algorithmic accountability, and sustained focus on institutional design will be required for meaningful third party involvement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Demand for AI audit services will grow significantly in the near future.
“First, the need for AI audit services is likely to grow significantly in the near future, and substantial evidence suggests that occupational licensing reduces the supply of services.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Occupational licensing reduces the supply of services.
“First, the need for AI audit services is likely to grow significantly in the near future, and substantial evidence suggests that occupational licensing reduces the supply of services.”
The paper relies on this without support.
All audit systems provide some form of privileged access to auditors.
“Protecting proprietary information is not a proper response, as all audit systems provide some form of privileged access to auditors, and disclosure does not need to be direct nor absolute.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Disclosure of audit information need not be direct or absolute.
“Protecting proprietary information is not a proper response, as all audit systems provide some form of privileged access to auditors, and disclosure does not need to be direct nor absolute.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Internal auditors have a contractual relationship with the auditee (Raji et al. 2022)”
From Accountability in Government Use of AI : Citizen Concerns and Preferences (2025) · cites this paper as Raji et al. 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, due to procedural non-transparency, audit process effectiveness is not measurable, perpetuating what Power [53] refers to as the 'regress of mistrust, ' where accountability and trust are shifted away from the audited organizations and onto auditors themselves, who are in turn subjected to more audits and evaluations.”
From A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems (2024) · cites this paper as [53]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Likewise, auditors envisioned audit report databases as accountability tools to facilitate the amalgamation and communication of audit findings to key stakeholders, mirroring interventions such as the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) EDGAR database for financial accounting audits [88].”
From Towards AI Accountability Infrastructure: Gaps and Opportunities in AI Audit Tooling (2025) · cites this paper as [88]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“External auditors, by contrast, are independent entities with no contractual ties to the auditee (Raji et al. 2022).”
From Accountability in Government Use of AI : Citizen Concerns and Preferences (2025) · cites this paper as Raji et al. 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The algorithmic auditing ecosystem is nascent and currently lacks the structure and standards of other audit domains, such as financial services [42].”
From Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A thorough evaluation alone is not sufficient to hold key stakeholders responsible for system-wide behavior [13, 88]-auditors also need tools that support key components of the accountability process, including target identification, standardization of practice, communication, and advocacy [136].”
From Towards AI Accountability Infrastructure: Gaps and Opportunities in AI Audit Tooling (2025) · cites this paper as [88]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Often defined as independent evaluations of the performance, fairness, legality, or safety of deployed AI systems, the maturity of the audit ecosystem in the technology sector lags far behind other industries such as finance and healthcare [38, 88].”
From Towards AI Accountability Infrastructure: Gaps and Opportunities in AI Audit Tooling (2025) · cites this paper as [88]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“who face the threat of legal action under existing privacy and anti-hacking laws [88, 122]”
From Towards AI Accountability Infrastructure: Gaps and Opportunities in AI Audit Tooling (2025) · cites this paper as [88]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Power dynamics between auditors and the audited have a critical impact on accountability [14, 88].”
From Towards AI Accountability Infrastructure: Gaps and Opportunities in AI Audit Tooling (2025) · cites this paper as [88]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
NIST is given two different names
MinorThe paper expands NIST as the National Institute of Technology in one passage and the National Institute of Standards and Technology in another.
“the U.S. National Institute of Technology (NIST) failed to measure demographic differences”
“The National Institute of Standards and Technology, for instance, protects models”
Murphy and Sandino study has conflicting publication years
MinorThe discussion dates the Murphy and Sandino study to 2009, while the corresponding appendix reference lists it as published in 2010.
“Murphy & Sandino (2009) found that compensation consultants recommended higher CEO salaries when those consultants offered additional services to those executives [59].”
“148. Kevin J Murphy and Tatiana Sandino. 2010. Executive pay and "independent" compensation consultants.”
Citations
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 2,245
Self-citationPrinciples alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 · Cited by 1,886 · cited 3×
“While helpful in aligning internal stakeholders, such an approach is not likely to identify or address the main concerns of external stakeholders [54, 66], particularly if that affected population or its representatives are”
BackgroundInfluentialData Mining of the Public Version of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System
Sakaeda, T., Tamon, A., Kadoyama, K., & Okuno, Y. (2013) · International Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.7150/ijms.6048 · Cited by 1,071
Does Teacher Certification Matter? High School Teacher Certification Status and Student Achievement
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737022002129 · Cited by 1,037
Switch Transformers: Scaling to Trillion Parameter Models with Simple and Efficient Sparsity
Fedus, W., Zoph, B., & Shazeer, N. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.03961 · Cited by 1,005
Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: evaluating claims and practices
Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372828 · Cited by 845
Discrimination in online ad delivery
Sweeney, L. (2013) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2447976.2447990 · Cited by 783 · cited 1×
“Together, these watchdogs continue to participate in consequential studies to analyze the biased outcomes of models used in domains as varied as content curation [80], online advertising [40], tenant screening [39, 70], child welfare [12], criminal justice [5, 10, 20, 26, 78], hiring [63], immigration [24], education…”
BackgroundFour Things No One Will Tell You About ESG Data
Kotsantonis, S., & Serafeim, G. (2019) · Journal of Applied Corporate Finance · doi:10.1111/jacf.12346 · Cited by 651
Raji, I. D., & Buolamwini, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3306618.3314244 · Cited by 651
Self-citationWu, E., Wu, K., Daneshjou, R., Ouyang, D., Ho, D. E., & Zou, J. (2021) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01312-x · Cited by 494
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- 2021. Impact. https://themarkup.org/series/impact Last accessed 25 October 2021 . 2021. Impact. https://themarkup.org/series/impact Last accessed 25 October 2021.
- Julia Angwin , Jeff Larson , Surya Mattu , and Lauren Kirchner . 2016 . Machine bias . ProPublica , May 23, 2016 (2016), 139--159. Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine bias. ProPublica, May 23, 2016 (2016), 139--159.
- Ann H. Baier and Lisa Ahramjian . 2020 . Organic Certification of Farms and Businesses Producing Agricultural Products ., 8 pages. Ann H. Baier and Lisa Ahramjian. 2020. Organic Certification of Farms and Businesses Producing Agricultural Products., 8 pages.
- Riccardo Boffo and Robert Patalano . 2020. Esg investing: Practices, progress and challenges. Éditions OCDE , Paris ( 2020 ). Riccardo Boffo and Robert Patalano. 2020. Esg investing: Practices, progress and challenges. Éditions OCDE, Paris (2020).
- Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru . 2018 . Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification . In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. PMLR, 77--91 . Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. PMLR, 77--91.
- Alexandra Chouldechova , Diana Benavides-Prado , Oleksandr Fialko , and Rhema Vaithianathan . 2018 . A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions . In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 134--148 . Alexandra Chouldechova, Diana Benavides-Prado, Oleksandr Fialko, and Rhema Vaithianathan. 2018. A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 134--148.
- Alex C Engler . 2021. Independent auditors are struggling to hold AI companies accountable . FastCompany . Alex C Engler. 2021. Independent auditors are struggling to hold AI companies accountable. FastCompany.
- Foxglove. 2020. We put a stop to the A Level grading algorithm! https://www.foxglove.org.uk/2020/08/17/we-put-a-stop-to-the-a-level-gradingalgorithm/ Last accessed 25 October 2021 . Foxglove. 2020. We put a stop to the A Level grading algorithm! https://www.foxglove.org.uk/2020/08/17/we-put-a-stop-to-the-a-level-gradingalgorithm/ Last accessed 25 October 2021.
- Karen Hao . 2020. We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here's what it says. Retrieved January 21 ( 2020 ), 2021. Karen Hao. 2020. We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here's what it says. Retrieved January 21 (2020), 2021.
- Caroline Haskins , Ryan Mac , and Logan McDonald . 2020. The ACLU Slammed A Facial Recognition Company That Scrapes Photos From Instagram And Facebook. Buzzfeed News ( 2020 ). Caroline Haskins, Ryan Mac, and Logan McDonald. 2020. The ACLU Slammed A Facial Recognition Company That Scrapes Photos From Instagram And Facebook. Buzzfeed News (2020).
- Lauren Kirchner and Matthew Goldstein . 2020 . Access Denied: Faulty Automated Background Checks Freeze Out Renters. (2020). Lauren Kirchner and Matthew Goldstein. 2020. Access Denied: Faulty Automated Background Checks Freeze Out Renters. (2020).
- Ava Kofman and Ariana Tobin . 2019. Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate Against Women and Older Workers , Despite a Civil Rights Settlement. ProPublica. Retrieved December 12 ( 2019 ), 2020. Ava Kofman and Ariana Tobin. 2019. Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate Against Women and Older Workers, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement. ProPublica. Retrieved December 12 (2019), 2020.
- Ava Kofman and Ariana Tobin . 2021. Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate Against Women and Older Workers , Despite a Civil Rights Settlement. ( 2021 ). Ava Kofman and Ariana Tobin. 2021. Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate Against Women and Older Workers, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement. (2021).
- KATHLEEN McGRORY and NEIL Bedi . 2020. Targeted. The Tampa Bay Times 3 ( 2020 ). KATHLEEN McGRORY and NEIL Bedi. 2020. Targeted. The Tampa Bay Times 3 (2020).
- JB Merrill . 2020. Does facebook still sell discriminatory ads. The Markup ( 2020 ). JB Merrill. 2020. Does facebook still sell discriminatory ads. The Markup (2020).
- Emanuel Moss , Elizabeth AnneWatkins , Ranjit Singh , Madeleine Clare Elish, and Jacob Metcalf . 2021 . Assembling Accountability : Algorithmic Impact Assessment for the Public Interest . Available at SSRN 3877437 (2021). Emanuel Moss, Elizabeth AnneWatkins, Ranjit Singh, Madeleine Clare Elish, and Jacob Metcalf. 2021. Assembling Accountability: Algorithmic Impact Assessment for the Public Interest. Available at SSRN 3877437 (2021).
- Ziad Obermeyer , Brian Powers , Christine Vogeli , and Sendhil Mullainathan . 2019. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 6464 ( 2019 ), 447--453. Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2019. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 6464 (2019), 447--453.
- Michael O'Leary and Warren Valdmanis . 2021. An ESG Reckoning Is Coming. Harvard Business Review ( 2021 ). Michael O'Leary and Warren Valdmanis. 2021. An ESG Reckoning Is Coming. Harvard Business Review (2021).
- Nathaniel Persily . 2021. Facebook Hides Data Showing It Harms Users. Outside Scholars Need Access. (2021). Last accessed 25 October 2021 . Nathaniel Persily. 2021. Facebook Hides Data Showing It Harms Users. Outside Scholars Need Access. (2021). Last accessed 25 October 2021.
- Elizabeth Pollman . 2019. Corporate Social Responsibility , ESG, and Compliance. Forthcoming , Cambridge Handbook of Compliance (D. Daniel Sokol & Benjamin van Rooij eds.), Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Legal Studies Research Paper 2019 --35 (2019). Elizabeth Pollman. 2019. Corporate Social Responsibility, ESG, and Compliance. Forthcoming, Cambridge Handbook of Compliance (D. Daniel Sokol & Benjamin van Rooij eds.), Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Legal Studies Research Paper 2019--35 (2019).
- Michael Power. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. OUP Oxford. Michael Power. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. OUP Oxford.
- Dillon Reisman , Jason Schultz , Kate Crawford , and Meredith Whittaker . 2018. Algorithmic impact assessments: A practical framework for public agency accountability . AI Now Institute ( 2018 ), 1--22. Dillon Reisman, Jason Schultz, Kate Crawford, and Meredith Whittaker. 2018. Algorithmic impact assessments: A practical framework for public agency accountability. AI Now Institute (2018), 1--22.
- Rashida Richardson . 2021. Defining and Demystifying Automated Decision Systems. Maryland Law Review , Forthcoming ( 2021 ). Rashida Richardson. 2021. Defining and Demystifying Automated Decision Systems. Maryland Law Review, Forthcoming (2021).
- Eva Rosen , Philip ME Garboden, and Jennifer E Cossyleon . 2021 . Racial Discrimination in Housing : How Landlords Use Algorithms and Home Visits to Screen Tenants. American Sociological Review ( 2021), 00031224211029618. Eva Rosen, Philip ME Garboden, and Jennifer E Cossyleon. 2021. Racial Discrimination in Housing: How Landlords Use Algorithms and Home Visits to Screen Tenants. American Sociological Review (2021), 00031224211029618.
- Nathan Sheard. 2021. Banning Government Use of Face Recognition Technology: 2020 Year in Review. Nathan Sheard. 2021. Banning Government Use of Face Recognition Technology: 2020 Year in Review.
- Ariana Tobin . 2019 . HUD sues Facebook over housing discrimination and says the company's algorithms have made the problem worse . ProPublica (March 28 , 2019). Available at https://www.propublica.org/article/hud-sues-facebookhousingdiscrimination-advertising-algorithms (last accessed April 29, 2019) (2019). Ariana Tobin. 2019. HUD sues Facebook over housing discrimination and says the company's algorithms have made the problem worse. ProPublica (March 28, 2019). Available at https://www.propublica.org/article/hud-sues-facebookhousingdiscrimination-advertising-algorithms (last accessed April 29, 2019) (2019).
- Daniel Trielli , Jennifer Stark , and Nicholas Diakopoulos . 2017 . Algorithm tips: A resource for algorithmic accountability in Government . In Proc. Computation+ Journalism Symposium. Daniel Trielli, Jennifer Stark, and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2017. Algorithm tips: A resource for algorithmic accountability in Government. In Proc. Computation+ Journalism Symposium.
- 10.5555/3152676 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Auditing large language models: a three-layered approach
Mökander, J., Schuett, J., Kirk, H. R., & Floridi, L. (2024) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00289-2 · Cited by 289
Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction
Shelby, R., Rismani, S., Henne, K., Moon, A., Rostamzadeh, N., Nicholas, P., Yilla-Akbari, N., Gallegos, J., Smart, A., Garcia, E., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3600211.3604673 · Cited by 279
Hallucination‐Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools
Magesh, V., Surani, F., Dahl, M., Suzgun, M., Manning, C. D., & Ho, D. E. (2025) · Journal of Empirical Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/jels.12413 · Cited by 182
Self-citationBlack-Box Access is Insufficient for Rigorous AI Audits
Casper, S., Ezell, C., Siegmann, C., Kolt, N., Curtis, T. L., Bucknall, B., Haupt, A., Wei, K., Scheurer, J., Hobbhahn, M., et al. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659037 · Cited by 86
AI auditing: The Broken Bus on the Road to AI Accountability
Birhane, A., Steed, R., Ojewale, V., Vecchione, B., & Raji, I. D. (2024) · 2024 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) · doi:10.1109/satml59370.2024.00037 · Cited by 158
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Raji, I. D., Xu, P., Honigsberg, C., & Ho, D.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2022-07-26
- Pages
- 557-571
- ISSN
- 3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4288058319
- Semantic Scholar
- c253ab3e988d996b9253f8437cbdc37c415a2f0b
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 76 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 14.10
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Mozilla Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Keywords
- third-party oversight, algorithmic auditing, AI governance, algorithmic accountability, institutional design, external supervision, regulatory audits, financial regulation, environmental regulation, health regulation, algorithmic impact assessment
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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