kaal:position:2026-07-31-7401

Who Is Accountable? When AI Makes the Wrong Decision? Rethinking Corporate Governance presents the following source proposition: When one of these systems produces a harmful, discriminatory, or commercially damaging outcome, existing governance doctrine struggles to identify who answers for it. This proposition is pertinent to Kaal's source-bound claim that The traditional fiduciary duty doctrine is one of the most amorphous concepts in the law, and its indeterminacy produces confusion, inconsistency, and cases with problematic outcomes. The proposed response is an extension: the relationship should remain limited to the retrieved source proposition and the mapped Kaal claim unless fuller source review supports a broader conclusion.

• The response is limited to the retrieved source proposition and mapped Kaal claim unless fuller source review supports a broader conclusion.
• External evidence level: abstract indexed.
• Mapping review tier: moderate-confidence claim review.
• Primary mapping confidence: 0.4097.
• The source-to-claim mapping remains explicitly ambiguous and is published with that limitation.

Who Is Accountable? When AI Makes the Wrong Decision? Rethinking Corporate Governance

kaal:claim:2317580-001
Wulf A. Kaal, Elizabeth R. Malay, The Role of Corporate Integrity Agreements in the Expansion of Fiduciary Duties (2013). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2317580
Source PDF sha256: 50973e1e820aef47a4e7ffdbdcb513d03f1845643fcf4fa5910e9528a0b7dac2

Evidence: abstract indexed
Review tier: moderate-confidence claim review
Mapping confidence: 0.4097
Mapping ambiguous: true

corporate-governancehistorical-responsescholarly-literaturecrossref

Affirmed in kaal-review:2026-07-31:streaming-etl-0008 on 2026-07-31. Review record.

Canonical markdown sha256: 8054451a69ef32acad8547387ce1747d912e05aff545229682289c9924b7e805
curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-07-31-7401.md | sha256sum