Compliant But Unsatisfactory: The Gap Between Auditing Standards and Practices for Probabilistic Genotyping Software

The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) imposes technical obligations on high-risk AI providers, yet Articles 8-15 were drafted for predictive AI and leave seven technical gaps when applied to generative systems, spanning non-deterministic data governance, training-data provenance, continuous conformity, human oversight, open-ended robustness, emergent risk, and generative fairness. We deliver Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework of 43 machine-checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules that run in a CI/CD pipeline and emit Article-indexed audit evidence, and we show the actual Rego policy code rather than merely describing it. Our central commitment is that the Act's open-textured standards ("appropriate levels," "possible biases") become declared, auditable numbers: robustness thresholds are derived from the provider's documented baseline and a state-of-the-art floor, and framing bias is collapsed into eight measurable proxies tested by counterfactual demographic probing. We also correct who owes what, since under Article 25 and Chapter V a downstream deployer relies on the upstream provider's Article 53 training-data summary and documents only the layers it controls, so GaC verifies that summary rather than demanding per-sample documentation the deployer never had. We validate on two enterprise deployments, a high-risk advisory chatbot and a limited-risk content generator, benchmarking against a manual expert audit rather than documentation artifacts that were never designed to enforce compliance. GaC reproduces all of the manual audit's findings, including three penalty-triggering violations, while cutting audit labor by roughly 75%.

Audits of generative AI (GenAI) systems often summarize behavior as a reported rate: how often the audited system complies with policy. Researchers and stakeholders use that rate to compare systems, track regressions, and gate deployment. A reported rate reflects both the system under audit and the measurement choices behind it, so a change in the rate can leave it unclear whether the system or those choices moved. We introduce ASSERT, a specification-driven measurement pipeline for GenAI audits that ties each reported rate to a written specification of the measurement choices used to produce it. ASSERT helps draft a behavioral rubric and test cases, then runs the audit against a GenAI system and returns a reported rate. In a case study on conversational deception, we observe that the reported rate moves substantially with the dialogue setup, the simulated user, the judge, and the evidence bar for non-compliance. These measurement choices substantially change the reported rate and can reorder GenAI system rankings. Because each reported rate is tied to an explicit specification, differences across audits are easier to attribute and interpret.

Governance frameworks ask AI providers and auditors for documented evaluation evidence, and perturbation-based construct-validity audits are a common form of that evidence. We argue the audits are themselves fragile: their conclusions can be silently manufactured by implementation details that readers cannot see in the reported numbers. We name five classes of pipeline failure and demonstrate each in a self-audit over safety benchmarks and open-weight instruction-tuned models. Under a unified six-point due-diligence gate, every cell lands in a non-confirmatory bucket, and no cell reaches confirmatory. The evidence here is a single two-model, five-benchmark case study, and F1--F5 is an illustrative, deliberately non-exhaustive starting taxonomy -- not a comprehensive partition of audit failures. We position the gate as a withholding and disclosure protocol for assurance-grade evidence, supplementary to (not a replacement for) classical construct-validity evidence, and not as a route to benchmark-validity verdicts.