ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Audit-as-code: a policy-as-code framework for continuous AI assurance.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Executable explanation traces for legal LLM predictions via retrieval-augmented codification.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Existing AI assurance and governance frameworks rely heavily on documented written policies and manual reviews of the implementation. The primary challenge is not the length of these documents, but to operationalize the gap from transforming qualitative requirements into verifiable controls. This approach makes ensuring continuous compliance through the development life cycle hard to enforce, scale, and reproduce. Methods: This study presents a continuous assurance framework called Audit-as-Code that maps governance requirements to technically-auditable rules, that can be a combination of versioned policy specification and executable checks for evidence artifacts, linked to structured evidence regarding data, models, provenance, performance, decisions, and explanations regarding the decisions being made. While the framework addresses the governance and regulatory mapping requirements, the primary focus of this study is MLOps/CI-CD (continuous integration/continuous delivery) operationalization, and turning these requirements into deterministic checks and gate decisions integrated in operational workflows. In this study, we introduce an assured readiness score that integrates the governance risk with other key responsible AI principles, such as traceability and explainability. This approach helps in aligning deployment decisions with predefined risk tiers, and the framework automates decisions on whether a system can proceed, requires remediation and fixes, or should be blocked. It also provides targeted suggestions for improvement and compliance for the lags identified. Results: We evaluated this framework on representative AI systems and demonstrated how a single evidence bundle can be used to support assessment across different governance regulations. Discussion: In doing so, Audit-as-Code ensures AI assurance transforms from a documentation-driven policy module to a quantitative, auditable, reproducible, and operationally practical module to ensure compliance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.