The Social Responsibility Stack: A Control-Theoretic Architecture for Governing Socio-Technical AI
📝 Abstract
Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly deployed in domains that shape human behaviour, institutional decision-making, and societal outcomes. Existing responsible AI and governance efforts provide important normative principles but often lack enforceable engineering mechanisms that operate throughout the system lifecycle. This paper introduces the Social Responsibility Stack (SRS), a six-layer architectural framework that embeds societal values into AI systems as explicit constraints, safeguards, behavioural interfaces, auditing mechanisms, and governance processes. SRS models responsibility as a closed-loop supervisory control problem over socio-technical systems, integrating design-time safeguards with runtime monitoring and institutional oversight. We develop a unified constraint-based formulation, introduce safety-envelope and feedback interpretations, and show how fairness, autonomy, cognitive burden, and explanation quality can be continuously monitored and enforced. Case studies in clinical decision support, cooperative autonomous vehicles, and public-sector systems illustrate how SRS translates normative objectives into actionable engineering and operational controls. The framework bridges ethics, control theory, and AI governance, providing a practical foundation for accountable, adaptive, and auditable socio-technical AI systems.
💡 Analysis
Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly deployed in domains that shape human behaviour, institutional decision-making, and societal outcomes. Existing responsible AI and governance efforts provide important normative principles but often lack enforceable engineering mechanisms that operate throughout the system lifecycle. This paper introduces the Social Responsibility Stack (SRS), a six-layer architectural framework that embeds societal values into AI systems as explicit constraints, safeguards, behavioural interfaces, auditing mechanisms, and governance processes. SRS models responsibility as a closed-loop supervisory control problem over socio-technical systems, integrating design-time safeguards with runtime monitoring and institutional oversight. We develop a unified constraint-based formulation, introduce safety-envelope and feedback interpretations, and show how fairness, autonomy, cognitive burden, and explanation quality can be continuously monitored and enforced. Case studies in clinical decision support, cooperative autonomous vehicles, and public-sector systems illustrate how SRS translates normative objectives into actionable engineering and operational controls. The framework bridges ethics, control theory, and AI governance, providing a practical foundation for accountable, adaptive, and auditable socio-technical AI systems.
📄 Content
A CROSS industries, governments, and critical infrastructures, AI adoption is accelerating at an un- precedented pace. Organizations are deploying advanced AI systems to optimize workflows, personalize services, support clinical decisions, automate eligibility determinations, and structure public discourse. Recent advances in large foundation models [7] further accelerate this trend by providing general-purpose reasoning, coding, analysis, and planning capabilities. These models are increasingly embedded into education, productivity suites, customer-service pipelines, clinical workflows, transportation systems, public administration, and cybersecurity operations. Their generality makes them attractive, but also amplifies risk: a single model may simultaneously influence millions of users across multiple application domains.
Conventional safety engineering practices and AI ethics guidelines provide important principles, such as fairness, transparency, privacy, and accountability, but these principles are rarely expressed as binding technical constraints with explicit metrics, thresholds, and enforcement mechanisms. As a result, values often remain aspirational, difficult to audit, and weakly connected to day-to-day engineering practice, particularly in socio-technical systems where harms arise through feedback-driven interactions among algorithmic behavior, institutional decision processes, and collective human behavior. [8]- [11]. A substantial body of work has examined the ethical and societal implications of algorithmic decision-making and AI governance [1]- [6].
This gap between normative guidance and enforceable engineering mechanisms becomes especially consequential when AI systems are deployed in societal, life-critical, and mission-critical applications that shape collective human behavior and institutional decision-making. In such settings, the relevant system is not the model in isolation but the coupling between humans and algorithms: model outputs shape human decisions; those decisions reshape data distributions, incentives, and operational context;
A substantial body of work on the ethics of algorithms and artificial intelligence has articulated a broad landscape of risks, principles, and governance guidelines, including fairness, accountability, transparency, privacy, and respect for human dignity and autonomy [1]- [5]. While these efforts provide essential normative foundations, they often leave open how such principles should be operationalized within concrete engineering workflows and system architectures [6].
This gap between normative guidance and engineering realization becomes especially salient once AI systems are deployed beyond laboratory settings and into real operational environments. Socio-technical perspectives emphasize that AI systems do not operate as isolated technical artefacts, but are embedded within, and actively reshape, social, organizational, and institutional structures [8]- [11]. In deployed settings, algorithmic outputs influence human decisions, institutional practices, and incentive structures, which in turn alter data distributions, operational context, and system objectives over time. These feedback effects can amplify seemingly minor design choices into persistent distributional, behavioral, and governance-level shifts.
From an engineering and control perspective, these observations motivate the need for architectures that treat responsibility not as an external policy overlay, but as an internal system property. Specifically, normative objectives must be translated into enforceable constraints, monitorable signals, and accountable intervention mechanisms that operate over the closed-loop dynamics of socio-technical systems, rather than being assessed solely through static properties of offline models.
Three strands of technical work are directly relevant to the Social Responsibility Stack (SRS). The first is fairness-constrained learning, where social objectives are incorporated into training through constraint functions or regularizers, e.g., fairness through awareness [12], equality of opportunity [13], and bounded disparate mistreatment [14]. The second is work on human-machine teaming and human-in-the-loop systems that emphasizes appropriate reliance and division of control between people and automation [15]. The third is emerging practice around algorithmic accountability, internal auditing, and documentation [11], [16], [17].
Building on these strands, SRS is introduced as a layered architectural framework for governing socio-technical AI systems: values are translated into explicit constraints; constraints are instantiated as technical and behavioral safeguards; safeguards are continuously monitored through responsibility-aware metrics; and governance bodies retain ultimate decision authority over high-impact interventions. SRS also interfaces with research on interpretability and explanation [18], [19] and AI safety [20], [21], which provide esse
This content is AI-processed based on ArXiv data.