Search arXivSearch

arXiv subjects

Tom Deckenbrunnen

Publications and source records attributed to Tom Deckenbrunnen.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

MARLA: A Conceptual Scaffold for Regulatory Learning under the EU AI Act

The EU AI Act positions regulation as part of the infrastructure for safe, trustworthy and market-ready innovation. Realising this ambition requires regulatory learning: the evidence generated during implementation must be translated into governance and legal knowledge that supports consistent interpretation, effective oversight, and adaptation as technologies evolve. Yet the actors who produce this evidence and those who rely on it operate in different professional worlds. This paper proposes MARLA (Map, Assess, Report, Learn, Adapt), a conceptual scaffold organising regulatory learning as a five-stage cycle centred on the implementation of legal requirements into socio-technical practices, situated at the Local, National and European levels of the AI Act's governance architecture. Deliberately non-prescriptive, MARLA gives technical and legal stakeholders a shared vocabulary in which each of the first three stages generates its own documentable form of regulatory learning. We illustrate the scaffold with two piloted case studies and a prospective National-to-European illustration.

cs.AI

Bathtubs, Boundaries, and Sandboxes: AI Regulatory Learning under Legal Uncertainty

Effective regulation of AI is a defining policy challenge, driven by their integration into all aspects of society. To remain responsive to their rapid development and emergent properties, policymakers across the globe rely on high-level principles and abstract legal requirements. Yet, while this flexibility supports future-proofing human-centred regulations and aligning them with socio-ethical values, it also causes legal uncertainty downstream as developers, companies, and auditors struggle with translating these abstract requirements into verifiable technical requirements. Using the AI Act as an example, this paper draws on Coleman's bathtub to analyse the regulatory learning space in AI governance. It argues that legal uncertainty cannot be fully reduced ex ante and that, within reasonable bounds, it is also necessary for regulatory learning because it creates the space in which boundary negotiation over socio-technical meaning can occur. Building on this analysis, the paper shows how boundary objects and boundary negotiating artifacts help explain the translation of legal requirements into operational practice. By examining technical sandbox frameworks, it further identifies concrete properties that technical infrastructures must possess to function effectively as boundary negotiation artifacts in AI assessment. The paper concludes that legal certainty remains the long-term aim, but that premature closure of regulatory instruments risks undermining the learning processes needed for adaptive governance.

cs.CY