trailSafety case reviewers are commonly commissioned by the developer, creating incentives toward confirmatory sign-off
Independent review of safety cases, as institutionally practiced, often fails to detect major deficiencies
Safety case assessors are typically contracted and paid by the developer or project whose system they review
atomic
Evaluators paid by the party they evaluate face incentives to reach favorable conclusions
Industry-sponsored studies report conclusions favorable to the sponsor more often than independently funded studies
The issuer-pays model caused credit rating agencies to assign inflated ratings before the 2008 financial crisis
Accreditation, liability, and reputational stakes give commissioned safety assessors countervailing incentives toward rigor
Auditors facing higher litigation risk conduct more conservative and rigorous audits
Accredited conformity assessment bodies can lose their accreditation or designation for inadequate performance
Major certification and rating failures have occurred despite assessors' accreditation, liability, and reputational exposure
Accreditation and liability regimes for third-party AI assessors are largely absent today
+1 more
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Safety case reviewers are commonly commissioned by the developer, creating incentives toward confirmatory sign-off
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.85Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
1depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.