# kaal:claim:5541658-012

**Claim.** Post hoc explainability techniques do not by themselves establish trustworthiness; the explanations they produce must additionally be verified against human knowledge.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- post hoc explainable AI methods such as the SHAP family of explainers

**Source quote.**

> However, post-hoc explainers still need to be verified for trustworthiness, in that the explanations comport with human knowledge.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, *The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law* (2025), C. Explainability and Trustworthiness, page 20

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law (2025). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5541658

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `e543a2d698fcd522d4d02e034cc9ee1344d0015d2c824b40b9e05ab7c0728c60` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20and%20Gray%20-%202025%20-%20The%20Evolving%20Role%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20Law.pdf

**Failure mode.** unverified post hoc explanations  (family: ai-oversight-and-alignment-gap)

**Topics.** ai-and-agents, reputation

**Keywords.** explainable-ai, post-hoc-explanation, trustworthiness, verification

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.