Legal AI, evidence, and responsibility for the recommendation Karina Carlos · Self-Conquest A professional who endorses an AI-assisted recommendation takes responsibility for the advice they give. Checking its facts is essential. So is establishing why those facts justify this action, whose objectives the action serves, and which unresolved assumptions could change the advice. My proposed threshold is that the professional can reconstruct and challenge the recommendation’s go

Preserving the difference between a plausible explanation, an established finding and a decision that must be made now Karina Carlos A record that an AI system raised an alert establishes something about the system’s output. Whether the suspected event occurred remains a separate question. That distinction can disappear when an explanation sounds convincing, a customer needs an answer and someone has to decide what happens next. The practical challenge is to act on the eviden

Four questions for leaders who need human oversight to work before consequences become difficult to reverse Karina Carlos Before an AI-assisted workflow goes live, ask the person expected to oversee it to walk through a decision they might need to challenge. Which information would they examine? What could they change? How would they prevent the action from proceeding while a material concern remained unresolved? Then ask them to demonstrate the route using the permissions, w

How security leaders can evaluate the cases that automation removes from an analyst’s view Karina Carlos A shorter security-alert queue can represent useful work. Analysts may have more time for cases that require investigation. But the queue shows only what remains available for review. If an automated system closes part of the incoming work, evaluating the analyst’s screen alone leaves part of the process unexamined. The question for a security leader concerns the cases tha

By Karina Carlos, Founder of Self-Conquest Consider a hypothetical public-benefits decision. An applicant receives a notice explaining that the household exceeds an income threshold. The notice names the program, states the result, and provides an appeal route. Yet the applicant cannot determine which income record was used, whether it covers the relevant period, or how to correct it. A caseworker can see the same result but cannot reconstruct its evidentiary basis. The decis