10.3 - AI Governance and the Architecture of Practice, Part 3: The Interlocks and the Limits
What the framework rests on, how it interlocks with the liability regime, whether it holds under pressure, and eight objections are answered directly.
The final part of the audio edition of AI Governance and the Architecture of Practice turns the framework on itself. It shows how the four requirements compose into a single integrated specification, names what no architecture can supply from inside its own walls, the practitioner, the regulatory regime, the cultural substrate, and traces how each requirement interlocks with the liability regime: standard of care, safe harbor, the reasonable-practitioner standard, and discoverable evidence. It then tests the architecture under pressure, Goodhart’s Law, ceremonial compliance, and defensive over-documentation, and closes with eight objections answered directly, from “the categorical claim overreaches” to “the mentors are the cohort with the most cognitive debt.”
This is the audio edition of AI Governance and the Architecture of Practice, a whitepaper from Architecture & Attention, presented in three parts. Read the full whitepaper, explore the companion papers, and subscribe at jamesmaconochie.com.
Originally published on Substack.
