{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "reviewed_at": "2026-10-08",
  "review_process": "Codex-assisted editorial mapping for Node & Norm; not an independent validation study",
  "source_name": "MIT AI Risk Repository",
  "source_url": "https://airisk.mit.edu/risks",
  "workbook_url": "https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15LeHcpeuZC9txkvcaMoh3sUhkMvdMMry69xxXL46DT0/edit",
  "source_version": "AI Risk Database v4",
  "source_updated_at": "2025-12-03",
  "source_checked_at": "2026-10-08T21:04:20.967959Z",
  "license": "CC BY 4.0",
  "license_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "attribution": "MIT AI Risk Repository, MIT FutureTech and collaborators. Risk metadata adapted; investigation questions and method connections authored by Node & Norm.",
  "boundary": "These editorial connections identify questions to investigate. They do not establish a legal duty, validate TAE or HIT, or make imported records admissible CEC evidence.",
  "methods": {
    "TAE": {
      "label": "TAE",
      "url": "https://nodeandnorm.org/research/human-control/tae/"
    },
    "HIT": {
      "label": "HIT",
      "url": "https://nodeandnorm.org/hit-essay.html"
    },
    "CEC": {
      "label": "CEC",
      "url": "https://github.com/node-and-norm/node-norm-control-evidence"
    }
  },
  "connections": [
    {
      "source_id": "06.12.00",
      "topic_ids": [
        "reg-eu-human-oversight",
        "roles-intervention"
      ],
      "title": "Loss of human agency and autonomy",
      "rationale": "A formal right to review is worth examining alongside the practical opportunity to question or redirect an AI-assisted decision. This is a research connection, not a legal interpretation of the MIT category.",
      "test_question": "Could an authorized reviewer examine the relevant evidence and act before the consequential step?",
      "evidence_needed": [
        "The information and alternatives available at the review checkpoint.",
        "The reviewer’s authority, timing and observable opportunity to intervene."
      ],
      "methods": [
        "TAE"
      ],
      "id": "mit-connection-1",
      "record_id": "mit-risk:06.12.00:5645dc5b0573b974",
      "record_sha256": "14196f063b6b1a4919ba162fc8b56f58953c568274bd89e6ac18c9708c16ae15",
      "classification": "5.2 > Loss of human agency and autonomy",
      "paper_title": "A framework for ethical Ai at the United Nations",
      "paper_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12547",
      "definition_page": "10.0",
      "source_row": 127
    },
    {
      "source_id": "15.01.08",
      "topic_ids": [
        "controls-intervention",
        "evaluation-control"
      ],
      "title": "Control and intervention",
      "rationale": "A recorded stop request can be compared with what the system actually did. Paired cases can distinguish an effective stop, an acknowledgment without effect and an intervention after the action.",
      "test_question": "Did the intervention reach the action it was intended to govern, and what remains unresolved?",
      "evidence_needed": [
        "An intervention record with timestamps and the applicable scoring contract.",
        "An independently retained outcome trace, separate from the assessment packet."
      ],
      "methods": [
        "HIT",
        "CEC"
      ],
      "id": "mit-connection-2",
      "record_id": "mit-risk:15.01.08:2a7abc80aa868781",
      "record_sha256": "76bb6b5c9748fc854c2aa66ef117eb01b7aa5f526eb8f06deaa09edc58177f62",
      "classification": "7.1 > AI pursuing its own goals in conflict with human goals or values",
      "paper_title": "The Risks of Machine Learning Systems",
      "paper_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.09852",
      "definition_page": "12.0",
      "source_row": 289
    },
    {
      "source_id": "17.05.01",
      "topic_ids": [
        "evaluation-human-factors",
        "roles-reviewers"
      ],
      "title": "Overreliance and unsafe use",
      "rationale": "A persuasive recommendation can affect how review is performed. Interface and workflow tests can examine opportunities for independent review; claims about actual understanding or overreliance require evidence about people.",
      "test_question": "What conditions let the reviewer question the recommendation, and which human-behavior claims remain untested?",
      "evidence_needed": [
        "The recommendation, evidence presentation, available time and intervention options.",
        "A suitable human-participant study if the claim concerns cognition or behavior."
      ],
      "methods": [
        "TAE",
        "HIT"
      ],
      "id": "mit-connection-3",
      "record_id": "mit-risk:17.05.01:d0f8247dc7a26878",
      "record_sha256": "caa2df891050845fdfc9b3a8b3c5bbeac03f3072ae83066353f0625701663cfa",
      "classification": "5.1 > Overreliance and unsafe use",
      "paper_title": "Ethical and social risks of harm from language models",
      "paper_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04359",
      "definition_page": "29.0",
      "source_row": 389
    },
    {
      "source_id": "06.06.00",
      "topic_ids": [
        "evidence-provenance",
        "evidence-reconstruction"
      ],
      "title": "Transparency and inspectable evidence",
      "rationale": "An explanation can appear plausible while the retained record is insufficient to establish what happened. Evidence completeness and provenance can be tested independently of presentation quality.",
      "test_question": "Can another assessor reconstruct the decision and intervention from the admissible record?",
      "evidence_needed": [
        "Source identifiers, record provenance and known missing material.",
        "Cases with effective control but insufficient retained evidence, preserving an unresolved outcome."
      ],
      "methods": [
        "TAE",
        "CEC"
      ],
      "id": "mit-connection-4",
      "record_id": "mit-risk:06.06.00:03213d558ba1d7a2",
      "record_sha256": "502c1a1d238d9eb8e98fd68efc5ece8458cd5603a78ba73c107483e5c5de7f03",
      "classification": "7.4 > Lack of transparency or interpretability",
      "paper_title": "A framework for ethical Ai at the United Nations",
      "paper_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12547",
      "definition_page": "8.0",
      "source_row": 121
    },
    {
      "source_id": "01.01.00",
      "topic_ids": [
        "roles-leadership",
        "controls-boundaries"
      ],
      "title": "Diffusion of responsibility",
      "rationale": "A workflow crossing teams or suppliers can leave authority and correction duties unclear. A bounded test can trace who could act and whether a correction reached the affected outcome.",
      "test_question": "Who had authority at each boundary, and where did the ability to intervene or repair stop?",
      "evidence_needed": [
        "Delegation, escalation and responsibility records for the examined workflow.",
        "Separate evidence of internal acknowledgments and downstream effects."
      ],
      "methods": [
        "TAE",
        "CEC"
      ],
      "id": "mit-connection-5",
      "record_id": "mit-risk:01.01.00:e0eaa4a003ee64ec",
      "record_sha256": "02c3f425eff228b67abce57f5f14bff3cf7524fbaab8f043b0577b0038e0b20a",
      "classification": "6.5 > Governance failure",
      "paper_title": "TASRA: a Taxonomy and Analysis of Societal-Scale Risks from AI",
      "paper_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.06924",
      "definition_page": "3.0",
      "source_row": 5
    }
  ]
}