TRUST-ESD: A Risk-Calibrated and Governance-Aware AI Framework for Enterprise Strategic Decision Support Under Uncertainty
Authors: Tian Qiu, Li Yan, Mahabubur Rahman Miraj, Shanqin Yi, Md Intekhab Rahman Galib, Jahid Hasan
Organizations: School of Economics and Management, Xinyu University, Xinyu, China · College of Computer Science, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China · School of Economics and Business Administration, Chongqing University · School of Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China · School of Law and Public Administration, China Three Gorges University
Abstract
Enterprise strategic decision support requires AI systems that are not only accurate, but also uncertainty-aware, risk-calibrated, explainable, and governance-compliant. This paper proposes TRUST-ESD, a risk-calibrated and governance-aware framework for enterprise decision support under uncertainty. TRUST-ESD evaluates feasible counterfactual strategies through predictive utility estimation, conformal uncertainty calibration, CVaR-based downside-risk scoring, risk-memory retrieval, policy-as-code governance, explainability, and human oversight. Unlike prediction-only methods that select actions by maximum expected utility, TRUST-ESD recommends strategies that balance value, reliability, risk exposure, and compliance. Experimental results show that TRUST-ESD improves risk-adjusted utility by 7.95%, reduces risk exposure by 23.22%, reduces CVaR by 23.78%, lowers calibration error by 13.89%, improves explanation fidelity by 10.90%, and increases governance compliance by 9.76% compared with strong uncertainty-aware baselines, while maintaining competitive predictive accuracy. Ablation and case-study analyses further confirm that uncertainty calibration, downside-risk scoring, risk memory, explainability, and governance validation jointly improve trustworthy enterprise decision-making.
Organizations deploying AI face two fundamental governance challenges: managing AI risk and sustaining AI value. Both depend on evidence whose sufficiency cannot be taken for granted. We call the shared underlying challenge the AI Evaluability Gap: the condition in which organizations lack sufficient evidence to support high-confidence governance decisions regarding either risk or value. We argue that this gap reflects a category error in current practice. Existing governance approaches focus primarily on properties of systems, such as safety, fairness, reliability, compliance, and value, while paying comparatively little attention to the evidentiary foundations required to justify decisions about those properties. We further argue that AI governance encompasses both operational decisions regarding whether a system may operate and investment decisions regarding whether it merits continued organizational resources. To address this problem, we introduce Evaluability, defined as the capability of a system to generate, maintain, and renew evidence sufficient to support high-confidence governance decisions over time. We formalize governance decisions as functions of calibrated confidence Conf(D|E) and identify six properties of evaluable evidence: observability, attributability, intervenability, verifiability, calibration, and temporal validity. The framework distinguishes Operational Certification, which relies primarily on structural evidence to justify deployment decisions, from Investment Certification, which relies primarily on causal evidence to justify continued resource allocation. We argue that evidence sufficiency is a missing layer of AI governance and that closing the AI Evaluability Gap is a prerequisite for both managing risk and sustaining value in AI-enabled organizations.
Enterprise artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in decisions that must remain lawful, explainable, adaptable, and accountable despite personnel turnover, model replacement, regulatory change, and shifting organizational incentives. Existing governance frameworks provide important principles but do not by themselves supply a compact mathematical language for evaluating whether an institution can preserve sound judgment over time. This paper develops a design-science framework for institutional legacy: the durable capacity of a decision system to continue producing beneficial, lawful, explainable, and adaptable outcomes after its original designers have stepped away. The framework contributes: (i) a normalized Legacy Score based on a penalized geometric mean of knowledge retention, governance, human oversight, adaptability, feedback learning, and jurisdictional fidelity; (ii) Decision Confidence and Decision Risk models separating evidentiary confidence from consequence; (iii) authority-aware retrieval and calibrated abstention; (iv) Decision Memory for governed organizational learning; (v) Regulatory Change Velocity mapping change exposure to review intervals; and (vi) a federated regulatory knowledge-graph architecture preserving provenance and legal hierarchy. The paper also proposes eight AI Decision Integrity Rules, an evaluation protocol, and a reproducible computational demonstration. The demonstration combines a deterministic stress test with 200 Monte Carlo replications of 10,000 synthetic decisions each, illustrating Legacy Score non-compensation and comparing consequence- and authority-aware routing with a matched-coverage confidence-only baseline. The contribution remains conceptual rather than field-validated; the simulation tests internal behavior, not production performance, and all parameters require context-specific calibration.
Traditionally, decision support studies how humans use machine learning models to make better decisions. In modern agentic systems, this division of roles is increasingly reversed: AI agents act on behalf of users, while humans and tools becomes support mechanisms around them. This role reversal brings reliability concerns to the forefront, since agentic errors can be consequential and agent behavior must remain aligned with human goals and constraints. Departing from the classical view of decision support, we revisit its two basic principles, the cost--value tradeoff of seeking support and the role of uncertainty quantification, in a setting where AI agents are the central actors. We propose a framework for strategic decision support for AI agents through an optimization problem that minimizes support usage subject to controlling a counterfactual missed-support error: the probability that the agent acts alone on instances where support would have materially improved its output. At the population level, we show that the optimal policy is a threshold rule on the value of support. Building on this structure, we develop an online algorithm that adaptively thresholds such a score and uses randomized exploration to control missed-support error without distributional assumptions. We further introduce a calibration-on-the-fly method that reduces unnecessary support calls online. We instantiate this framework across diverse scenarios, including information gathering, human--AI collaboration, and tool use, showing how each can be modeled through the same strategic decision-support lens. Experiments across these settings show that our method reliably controls the target error while substantially reducing support usage in practice.