This paper concludes the series by framing AI governance as a structural property of system architecture rather than a set of external policies or supervisory mechanisms. Across the previous papers, the work introduced a conceptual map of authority, decision, and execution in automated systems, along with architectural primitives that make governance operational. This final paper synthesizes those elements into a coherent view of governance as an intrinsic layer of system design. The central argument is that governance in complex AI environments cannot rely solely on policy enforcement or post-hoc oversight. Instead, it must be embedded in the structure that defines how decisions are formed, validated, and executed. By positioning governance as an architectural invariant rather than an operational control layer, the framework provides a foundation for designing systems where authority, admissibility, and execution remain structurally aligned even under automation, recursion, and system scale.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Ricardo Rubio Albacete (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d34e579c07852e0af97ead — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18968054
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
Ricardo Rubio Albacete
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...