Whose Good, Whose Place? The Moral Geography of Agentic AI for Social Good

Agentic AI is rapidly proliferating across diverse real-world domains such as software engineering, yet public trust has not kept pace. The central reason is that responsibility, despite being widely discussed, remains a subjective and unenforced concept, as no current agentic framework produces the quantifiable, traceable, and interventionable provenance needed to assign it when harm emerges from compositions no single party designed. We position that what is missing is not better benchmark-level evaluation but $\textbf{explicit provenance}$ across the full agentic lifecycle, which is the only viable basis for making responsibility computable and actionable. We advance this agenda along four axes: establishing $\textit{why}$ such provenance is a structural necessity by identifying responsibility gaps across sociotechnical dimensions, formalizing $\textit{what}$ it must encode through a causal attribution function and responsibility tensor, discussing $\textit{how}$ it can be made computable across four lifecycle layers with preliminary experiments showing that provenance is estimable and interveneable online before irreversible harm accumulates, and examining $\textit{who}$ bears responsibility through a concrete agentic incident. Explicit provenance is not a discretionary refinement but the necessary condition for responsible agentic AI, and no stakeholder across its ecosystem can afford to treat it as optional.

Agentic AI systems plan, use tools, maintain state, and act across multi-step workflows with external effects, meaning trustworthy deployment can no longer be judged by task completion alone. The current literature remains fragmented across benchmark-centered evaluation, standards-based governance, orchestration architectures, and runtime assurance mechanisms. This paper contributes a bounded evidence synthesis across a manually coded corpus of twenty-four recent sources. The core finding is a governance-to-action closure gap: evaluation tells us whether outcomes were good, governance defines what should be allowed, but neither identifies where obligations bind to concrete actions or how compliance can later be proven. To close that gap, the paper introduces three linked artifacts: (1) a four-layer framework spanning evaluation, governance, orchestration, and assurance; (2) an ODTA runtime-placement test based on observability, decidability, timeliness, and attestability; and (3) a minimum action-evidence bundle for state-changing actions. Across sources, evaluation papers identify safety, robustness, and trajectory-level measurement as open gaps; governance frameworks define obligations but omit execution-time control logic; orchestration research positions the control plane as the locus of policy mediation, identity, and telemetry; runtime-governance work shows path-dependent behavior cannot be governed through prompts or static permissions alone; and action-safety studies show text alignment does not reliably transfer to tool actions. A worked enterprise procurement-agent scenario illustrates how these artifacts consolidate existing evidence without introducing new experimental data.

Participatory approaches to artificial intelligence are increasingly documented across public, civic, and humanitarian settings, but evidence about how participation is organized remains fragmented. This paper reports on the construction of an open repository and interactive atlas of participatory AI initiatives, using records harmonized from Maga~na and Shilton's Trustworthy AI corpus, and additional audited cases from research and practice. We contribute three elements. First, we specify a reproducible protocol for discovery, vetting, harmonization, geocoding, provenance tracking, and release-based publication of participatory AI records. Second, we report corpus-level patterns in geography, participation tiers, lifecycle loci, organizational form, verification status, and remaining documentation gaps. Documented initiatives remain concentrated in a small number of countries, while participation is most often coded at problem formulation, evaluation, and governance rather than model development or training. Third, we show how the atlas operationalizes a design and governance framework for participatory-by-default AI infrastructures through versioned releases, record-linked issue and annotation channels, schema feedback workflows, and redaction or restricted-disclosure requests. The atlas is intended to support comparative research, policy learning, and community scrutiny through a living inventory that can be updated, contested, and reused.