corporate risk managers

Abstract: Technology cannot steer itself. Strategy provides that steering, establishing the rule that purpose and judgment must precede compute capital. As the frontier artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem accelerates exponentially, the pacing problem induces severe cognitive tunneling in engineering teams, prioritizing scalar throughput over human judgment. A calibrated pacing rate is imperative to check unchecked scaling, guarantee safety, and build models in whose alignment society can place warranted confidence. Traditional oversight fails through retrospective checklists, a pathology of performative governance exhibiting high procedural maturity but alarming scientific immaturity. We deliver a dual contribution: a PRISMA 2020 review synthesizing 130 empirical studies (MMAT-appraised across 18 benchmarks; total corpus N = 130 empirical studies across 178 reference foundations), and the Strategic AI Governance Ex-Ante Framework (SAGE-X). Our synthesis exposes two systemic vulnerabilities: the Recursive Assurance Paradox (correlated, ungrounded evaluator confidence) and the Durability Deficit (guardrail decay under multi-turn shifts). Grounded in MIT Strategic Computing doctrines, SAGE-X operationalizes Four Strategic Mindset Pillars: (1) Intent over Execution (mitigating velocity myopia); (2) Ruthless Trade-offs (deterministic tripwires eliminating moral hazard); (3) Outcomes over Outputs (auditing empirical hazard endpoints); and (4) Proactive Alignment (synchronizing ex-ante gates with runtime telemetry). Governed by a calculable Moral Check Index (MCI) with an unbypassable tripwire, SAGE-X delivers an operational Enterprise Lifecycle Audit Instrument (the "Moral Check Audit Card") on Stanford WebProtégé, ensuring exponential progress never outpaces deliberative moral judgment, human agency, and societal trust.

Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) poses different levels of risk across sectors, but are these differences reflected in U.S. federal AI governance? To help answer this question, we assess 684 federal AI governance documents for their coverage of 14 sectors and 24 AI risks. We measure coverage as breadth (i.e., how frequently the risk or sector is addressed across documents) and depth (i.e., how substantively the risk or sector is discussed). We then compare sector coverage patterns for each of the 24 risks with vulnerability assessments from a Delphi study of 272 experts. Our analysis finds substantial variation in coverage: AI risks related to robustness, system security, and governance receive more attention than socioeconomic, environmental, and emerging risks, including multi-agent risks. Public administration, national security, information, and scientific services receive comparatively high levels of coverage relative to other sectors, such as finance and healthcare, which experts rate as highly vulnerable to AI risks. By mapping current coverage and identifying where it differs from expert assessments of vulnerability, we surface potential AI governance gaps which may help inform AI risk-related decisions across government and industry.