Stakeholders

Software development follows an implementation-verification loop in which developers or agents iteratively revise an implementation until an evaluator, such as a test suite, accepts it. The evaluator checks the implementation against a set of requirements under a model of the deployment environment. Yet even a formal proof that the implementation satisfies the requirements under the model cannot guarantee acceptable behavior after deployment. Requirements only approximate stakeholder intent, and the model only approximates the real deployment environment. We call these together - requirement gap and model gap - the two-gap framework, which unifies the main failure modes of agentic software engineer-ing: reward hacking exploits omissions in the requirements or model, while hallucination widens the gaps by fabricating requirements or environment assumptions. Because neither gap can generally be certified closed in an open, changing world, the goal shifts from closing them to continuously narrowing them. We therefore propose an assurance-revision loop that uses deployment evidence to revise the requirements, model, or evaluator when stakeholders reject the resulting behavior. We then cast assured agentic development as a resource-allocation problem over human judgment, agent capability, and compute. The two principal bottlenecks mirror the two gaps: human judgment for the requirement gap and faithful, costly evaluation for the model gap. Reality remains the final verifier: acceptable behavior under actual deployment conditions is the ultimate test, while predeployment evaluations remain proxies for it.

Enterprise Digital Twins (EDTs) promise data-driven decision support at organizational scale, but realizing them requires navigating siloed departments, tacit knowledge, and high-stakes decisions with long-horizon consequences. Existing approaches involve domain experts during model development but focus less on early organizational buy-in in EDTs. We present a vision for trustworthy EDT engineering grounded in an `involving before evolving' paradigm: rapidly involving stakeholders through a working prototype before evolving toward federation and full interoperability. Our three-stage approach combines foundation models for rapid prototyping, an ontological backbone for federated interoperability, and observability tooling for stakeholder trust. We ground our vision in an ongoing collaboration with Michelin, a multinational manufacturer, where an initial prototype has helped support stakeholder buy-in.

Firms struggle to choose AI projects that pay off: two projects can look equally promising to smart, motivated stakeholders and yet deserve opposite decisions. At the residential real-estate brokerage Compass, one AI product (Likely-to-Sell recommendations) flagged sales outreach opportunities and went on to account for nine figures in annual gross commission revenue. Another championed AI product (a Time-on-Market pricing tool) was rightly shelved. A simple ROI estimate could not distinguish the two. We present expected ROI (eROI), a framework that decomposes each bet into three components and rates them separately: Value if Successful, Likelihood of Success, and Investment Required. Each maps to a question executives can answer before building: How valuable would it be if it worked? How likely is it to work? And what would it cost to implement? Separating the three breaks a common catch-22: teams cannot estimate ROI until they know whether a project will work, yet cannot know whether it will work without building it. Judging Value if Successful on its own dissolves the loop, letting a team argue that a product would be valuable if it worked while it weighs how likely that is. The framework also asks, before ranking anything, whether there are enough good ideas on the table. After ranking, it guides assembling a portfolio of bets rather than funding only the single top-ranked project. We illustrate eROI on Compass's candidate AI products. Precise ROI estimates are hard to make given the inherent uncertainty of AI projects. Coarse business-level ratings of the three components are enough to tell strong bets from weak ones.

Cyber-physical systems built on deterministic edge inference, such as on-vehicle flood detection for agricultural fields, produce structured decision logs that must be interpreted differently by heterogeneous stakeholders. Pairing such systems with large language models (LLMs) to generate stakeholder-specific reports introduces a tension: the generative layer is non-deterministic, while the edge plane must remain replayable and auditable. We propose an architectural pattern resting on two invariants: unidirectional consumption, in which the generative layer is a strict read-only consumer of the deterministic plane and never writes back, and persona-as-configuration, in which stakeholder adaptation is a versioned prompt-template artifact rather than runtime improvisation. We instantiate the pattern as a context-aware dashboard layer over the JSON decision logs of a previously published edge-based standing-water detection system, and analyse how the integration boundary admits standard generative-reliability mitigations as configuration- or middleware-level extension points. A structured expert review rated the pattern favourably across five ISO/IEC 25010-aligned quality dimensions, with strongest agreement on separation of concerns. End-user evaluation with agricultural stakeholders is planned for future work.

Large language models are increasingly used to summarize clinical trial results for healthcare providers, patients, and payers, but their tendency to hallucinate poses significant risks in this high-stakes context. This study introduces a benchmark evaluation framework for measuring the faithfulness of LLM-generated clinical trial summaries across three stakeholder audiences. The framework consists of 200 stratified trials drawn from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database, evaluated using audience-specific prompt templates and a six-dimension faithfulness annotation schema. Baseline measurements were established for GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Gemini 2.5 Flash across 1,800 generated summaries scored using a cross-encoder natural language inference (NLI) model. Unsupported Claims was identified as the dominant failure mode across all three models, with a mean annotation score of 1.55 out of three. A knowledge-graph-augmented retrieval system was developed and evaluated against the baseline, producing statistically significant improvements in NLI-based faithfulness scores (entailment +0.0125, faithfulness +0.0130, p < 0.0001). Improvement pathways were model-dependent, with GPT-4o improving primarily through contradiction reduction while Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 2.5 Flash improved through increased entailment.

Research software collaborations span meetings, informal chats, pull requests, and GitHub issues. A decision surfaced in a Slack thread, refined in a meeting, and implemented in a pull request can lose its original rationale across these artifacts, leaving domain researchers and research software engineers with divergent mental models of project intent, ownership, and scientific assumptions. We argue that alignment in research software engineering is a continuous lifecycle problem, and that agentic AI can support stakeholder alignment and project-state tracking without replacing human decision-making. We present Aleena, an open-source lifecycle alignment agent that uses GitHub as a shared collaboration surface, transforming multi-modal stakeholder interactions into structured project records that surface risks, track open questions, and preserve decision continuity. Grounded in university-based research software engineering center experiences, this paper presents the motivating problem, system design, prototype, and illustrative lifecycle scenarios for Aleena.

University stakeholders often face difficulties in accessing timely and reliable information, especially in developing countries, where there are very few intelligent support systems. Existing rule-based chatbots are unable to handle complex, domain-specific queries and are not well-equipped to adapt to evolving institutional policies. As a fill-in-the-gap solution, we present the multimodal university chatbot with retrieval-augmented generation. The system combines the large language model with semantic retrieval to produce context-based responses from institution-centric resources, such as the university handbook. The system accepts text and image queries through the vision-language model and applies quantized inference for rapid deployment on constrained hardware. A scalable backend built with FastAPI, adjoined with a responsive frontend developed with Next.js, ensures real-time usability. Our multimodal evaluation demonstrates that the system maintains strong satisfaction scores across both text and image queries, despite increased response time for visual inputs. Furthermore, quantitative evaluation shows that hallucination is reduced from 31.7% to 6.6% in our proposed RAG-based system, confirming the effectiveness of retrieval grounding.

Organisations designing, developing, and deploying machine learning systems (MLS) need to be able to check that these systems are trustworthy, and communicate this clearly to their stakeholders, be they different categories of users, engineers, or wider society. By focusing on stakeholders, Requirements Engineering is well positioned to drive the design and engineering of MLS that align with the needs of their stakeholders. Yet, we still need a systematic process for modelling and reasoning about requirements for MLS that is driven both by stakeholders' needs and constraints for MLS development. This paper proposes a framework entitled REAL (Requirements Engineering for mAchines that Learn - and Fail) to help develop MLS that align with stakeholders' needs by adopting a requirements engineering approach. This model-based framework is based on three principles. First, weaving together requirements for data, models, and the system as a whole. Second, using failure to drive the exploration of alternative requirements. Third, iterative and traceable refinement of MLS requirements. We demonstrate the proposed framework using an example from autonomous driving and show that REAL supports the development of MLS that better align with stakeholders' requirements. A replication package is available online.

Transparency is increasingly mandated for public-sector AI systems, with organisations required to publish statements describing their AI use and oversight arrangements. However, the existence of such artefacts is often treated as equivalent to transparency itself, despite limited evidence that they proportionately serve relevant stakeholder groups. From a requirements engineering perspective, this raises a validation concern: compliance with mandated disclosure criteria does not necessarily ensure transparency adequacy for stakeholders with different levels of risk exposure, decision control, and involvement. This paper presents an empirical analysis of 92 publicly available AI transparency statements published by Australian Government agencies under the national AI governance mandate. We introduce the stakeholder Risk--Control--Involvement--Need (RCIN) framework to differentiate stakeholder classes according to their structural position and transparency needs. Using a structured rubric derived from the mandated criteria, we evaluate how both the mandate and published statements are calibrated to each stakeholder class. The findings show that while structural compliance is widespread, transparency calibration is uneven. Criteria serving high-control stakeholders are consistently realised, whereas criteria most critical for high-risk, low-control stakeholders are fewer and less substantively addressed. We conceptualise this as the Transparency Illusion: a condition in which transparency appears satisfied through compliant artefacts yet remains unevenly calibrated to stakeholders bearing the greatest exposure to AI-supported decisions. The study frames transparency as a stakeholder-calibrated validation problem, demonstrating that artefact-level compliance does not constitute requirements validation in this context.

This paper argues that Artificial Intelligence should be understood as a form of monism: a unified substance that cannot be decomposed into separate elements such as data, algorithms, or technical architectures. Drawing from philosophical traditions of monism, dualism, and holism, the paper contends that AI is not merely a collection of components but a single, indivisible essence reflecting the phenomena it replicates. Treating AI as monism has deep implications across multiple dimensions. Epistemologically, it positions AI as the central interpretive force across technological, organisational, and societal domains, while raising ethical and existential concerns regarding singularity, the homogenisation of innovation, and the concentration of decision-making power. At the organisational level, a monistic approach challenges traditional siloed structures, advocating instead for transversal, problem-centric teams whose mandate derives from the integrity of the problem rather than from departmental hierarchy. In project management, it implies a unified vision and an integrated evaluation of complexity in which no single stakeholder perspective dominates the assessment of outcomes. In data and information management, it calls for architectures that reflect the irreducible unity of the phenomena being modelled. Ultimately, this paper calls for a paradigm shift in how AI is conceptualised, governed, and integrated, suggesting that only by embracing AI as monism can organisations achieve genuine agility and avoid the structural inefficiencies inherent to reductionist approaches.

We present SpheriCity, an expert-grounded conversational prototype designed to support trustworthy knowledge sensemaking from sustainability reports. City-level circularity assessment reports contain rich information about materials, infrastructure, and policy interventions, yet their length and heterogeneous structure make cross-document synthesis and comparison difficult for practitioners and researchers working on circular economy initiatives. While large language models (LLM) promise faster knowledge access and synthesis, their opaque reasoning, hallucinations, and lack of source transparency introduce risks for trust and interpretability, and require verification in high-stakes sustainability contexts. SpheriCity addresses these challenges through a provenance-first conversational agent that foregrounds evidence traceability, structured synthesis, and interaction scaffolds to support exploratory querying and cross-document synthesis across sustainability reports. We conducted a formative expert review with six sustainability experts using representative queries spanning cross-city comparison, policy summarization, and recommendation-oriented tasks. Experts evaluated responses across dimensions and provided qualitative reflections on the system's usefulness for sustainability knowledge work. Our results reveal that transparent sourcing, contextual explanation, interpretability, and alignment with expert workflow strongly shape expert trust and judgments of system usefulness. This work contributes (1) a conversational prototype for sustainability knowledge sensemaking, (2) an expert-grounded evaluation framework for assessing AI responses in high-stakes knowledge domains, and (3) design insights into how provenance, uncertainty communication, and integration in workflow influence expert users' trust in AI assistance for sustainability decision support.

Web agents driven by large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world environments, where they operate over untrusted web content and execute actions with direct consequences. This makes them vulnerable to prompt-injection attacks, in which seemingly benign content embeds adversarial instructions that manipulate agent behaviour. Existing security benchmarks adopt an \textit{attack-centric} perspective, focusing on the technical feasibility of injections while overlooking the nuanced distribution of resulting harms. In practice, however, prompt-injection risk is victim-dependent: a single exploit can produce asymmetric consequences for different stakeholders, and the same attack pattern may exhibit substantially different effectiveness depending on whom it targets. To capture these properties, we introduce \textbf{\sysname}, a \textit{stakeholder-centric} benchmark to systematically categorize and attribute harm in real-world web agent systems. It distinguishes between affected entities (e.g., user, seller, platform), decomposes the attacks into concrete objectives, and evaluates each case with complementary outcome- and process-level metrics. Our results reveal substantial and heterogeneous vulnerabilities: not a single attack objective is reliably resisted by current agents, and failures distribute across qualitatively distinct modes ranging from \emph{stealthy parasitism} (attack succeeds without disrupting the user's delegated task) to \emph{misaligned disruption} (task disrupted without attack success) and \emph{compounded failure} (both adversarial objective and task integrity simultaneously violated). These patterns are missed by conventional evaluation, highlighting the need for stakeholder-aware assessment of LLM-based agents in real-world deployments. Benchmark is available at https://github.com/StakeBench/SBC.

Despite remarkable progress in machine translation (MT), non-AI communities have raised growing concerns about MT systems, suggesting a noticeable gap between technical advancement and the needs of real-world users. For instance, while NLP researchers focus on benchmark performance, end users care about ethical concerns, trust, reliability, costs, and more. We argue that listening to various user communities is essential so that research efforts would be directed towards the problems that the communities care about. To this end, we present a large-scale analysis, for the first time, that investigates what four stakeholder communities (AI developers, professional translators, language learners, and language service providers) post about MT technology on social media. To do so, we construct a dataset of 79,286 posts and comments from Reddit, Facebook, Bluesky, and Mastodon from 2019 to 2025, and analyse where these communities disagree, and how and why. Overall, we find that communities often disagree, and even show strong conflicts due to polarised sentiments on topics such as translation quality, efficiency, and reliability. This is because these communities approach these topics differently: the AI community frames them as technical and computational problems, while non-AI (user) communities care more about quality nuances, time savings, user trust, and broader social issues.

This study investigates how UX research (UXR) principles, combined with Large Language Model (LLM)-supported analysis, can be used to improve the quality of requirements for mobile learning systems designed for learners with cognitive disabilities. Using the UXR Point-of-View (PoV) pyramid as a methodological framework, the study progressed through four stages: foundational structuring of psychological, behavioral, and design layers; structured validation using the DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model and Quality Function Deployment (QFD); insight consolidation through the development of nine Cognitive Accessibility UXR Play Cards; and stakeholder-specific PoV articulation to support interdisciplinary communication. LLM-supported synthesis was integrated to assist in theme clustering, requirement refinement, and hypothesis formulation under human oversight. Findings suggest that many usability and engagement challenges in mobile learning originate from ambiguous or under-specified requirements rather than interface design alone. By embedding cognitive accessibility principles into measurable and technically traceable requirements, the proposed Cognitive Accessibility UXR Playbook provides a structured pathway for aligning theory, system architecture, and stakeholder strategy.

Public consultations generate large volumes of data in the form of stakeholder submissions that are practically unfeasible to analyse manually. We present an end-to-end LLM-based pipeline and interactive dashboard for structured topic extraction from regulatory consultation submissions, demonstrated on the European Commission's Digital Fairness Act (DFA) public call for evidence as a case study. The system processes raw PDF attachments and web-form responses, extracts topic annotations, and grounds every extraction in a verbatim quote from the source text. Applied to 4,322 DFA submissions, the pipeline produced 15,368 topic annotations supported by 20,951 verbatim evidence quotes. Three principles govern the proposed design: verbatim grounding, full traceability, and transparency by design. The dashboard exposes the full extraction dataset through five analytical views, from dataset-level topic overviews to individual paragraph drill-downs, with every result traceable to its source. Beyond the predefined DFA topic categories, the pipeline generated certain stakeholder concerns, such as Age Verification, Payment Processor Censorship, and Digital Ownership, that a fixed-taxonomy approach would have missed. The pipeline is domain-generic; adapting it to a new consultation requires only a prompt update and a new dataset. A live demo is available at https://dfa-dashboard.thalesbertaglia.com/. The code and processed data are publicly available at https://github.com/thalesbertaglia/dfa-dashboard.

Text embeddings are widely used to analyse large corpora of complex texts. However, it is unclear whether the embeddings capture the same semantic distances as the human experts using them. Ensuring alignment between embedding representations and human intentions is essential for valid analyses. We present the Stakeholder Grounding Exercise, a method for making expert associations explicit and grounding embedding model results in human understanding. In our primary case study on Danish policy issues, we find that neural text embeddings are substantially less reliable than human experts (19-26 pp gap), and that this misalignment propagates to downstream clustering performance (Spearman $ρ=0.9$ between exercise ranking and cluster quality). A secondary study on US Federal AI use cases replicates the gap (16pp) in English, using a digital protocol and a different community of experts -- demonstrating that the gap is not an artefact of a single instrument or domain. The Stakeholder Grounding Exercise offers a practical method for assessing whether embedding models capture the semantic distinctions that matter most to domain experts.

Multi-stakeholder tasks require one output to satisfy users with conflicting preferences. Holistic LLM judges conflate utility estimation and utility aggregation, yielding unstable implicit weights. We show empirically and theoretically that this aggregation-specific \emph{weighting noise} can create large score shifts when stakeholder satisfaction is dispersed; in our experiments, these weight-induced shifts also increase with stakeholder count. We propose \textsc{DecompR}: counterfactual-calibrated weights are fixed from query structure before candidate scoring, while per-role utilities are estimated independently, removing candidate-dependent weight drift and reducing estimation noise.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become more common in our daily lives, it is important to understand how different stakeholders comprehend and envisage the role that these technologies play in shaping social, political, and economic realities. In this paper, we investigate public perceptions of AI based on a corpus of letters submitted during the public consultation for the Trump Administration's US AI Action Plan. To this aim, we release a corpus cleaning pipeline and perform topic modelling and frequency analysis to explore predominant topics discussed by different subgroups (e.g., academia, individuals, private sector) and those appearing in the AI Action Plan. Our results show that individuals voice strong concerns related to the impact of AI on life, while other stakeholders are more concerned with AI development. Our comparison of topics suggests that the AI Action Plan reflects predominantly the concerns of the private sector on security, policies, and development, with individuals' concerns less represented.

Assurance arguments provide a clear and structured way to explain why stakeholders should trust that a system satisfies certain properties, yet widely used notations, e.g.Goal Structuring Notation (GSN), typically lack an operational semantics for deriving assurance confidence. Existing approaches address structure and soundness but largely reason over truth values, not over confidence in the justification of claims. Subjective Logic (SL) offers a calculus of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty with operators for combining opinions, enabling confidence propagation under incomplete, conflicting, or subjective evidence. However, existing SL-based approaches do not provide a uniform, compositional semantics that covers all argument elements and relations to enable overall confidence assessment. We propose a confidence semantics that represents argument elements as SL opinions and maps relations between elements to SL operators modelling how confidence flows, effectively turning the argument into an analyzable confidence network. The approach provides explicit warrants, principled handling of context, preserved provenance, and compatibility with GSN, along with practical guidance using an exemplary assurance confidence assessment.

The transition toward Industry 5.0 is reshaping industrial work environments with an emphasis on human-centricity, enabling close collaboration between humans and machines to enhance productivity and flexibility. However, such systems typically require monitoring of human workers and operators, often involving sensitive data, raising significant privacy concerns. As a result, affected workers and unions frequently reject human-machine collaboration features due to a lack of transparency regarding privacy threats and implemented mitigation strategies. To enable early stakeholder involvement, establish trust, and support informed decision-making, privacy implications must be communicated in a way understandable to non-technical stakeholders. Yet, current Requirements Engineering (RE) practices provide limited methodological support for making privacy threats and mitigations accessible to non-technical stakeholders (e.g., individual workers or their representative unions). In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework that guides software design from human monitoring-related use cases and requirements to informed decision-making guidance focusing on non-technical stakeholders. Building on principles such as Privacy by Design, the framework leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to transform technical artifacts into accessible privacy reports. We share initial insights from two industry use cases, evaluate the quality of the generated reports, and outline future research directions toward integrating privacy transparency into RE processes for human-centric industrial systems.

Generative AI systems achieve impressive performance on standard benchmarks yet fail to deliver real-world utility, a disconnect we identify across 28 deployment cases spanning education, healthcare, software engineering, and law. We argue that this benchmark utility gap arises from three recurring failures in evaluation practice: proxy displacement, temporal collapse, and distributional concealment. Motivated by these observations, we argue that generative AI evaluation requires a paradigm shift from static benchmark-centered transparency toward stakeholder, goal, and context-conditioned utility transparency grounded in human outcome trajectories. Existing evaluations primarily characterize properties of model outputs, while deployment success depends on whether interaction with AI improves stakeholders' ability to achieve their goals over time. The missing construct is therefore utility: the change in a stakeholder's capability induced through sustained interaction with an AI system within a deployment context. To operationalize this perspective, we propose SCU-GenEval, a four-stage evaluation framework consisting of stakeholder-goal mapping, construct-indicator specification, mechanism modeling, and longitudinal utility measurement. To make these stages practically deployable, we introduce three supporting instruments: structured deployment protocols, context-conditioned user simulators, and persona- and goal-conditioned proxy metrics. We conclude with domain-specific calls to action, arguing that progress in generative AI must be evaluated through measurable improvements in human outcomes rather than benchmark performance alone.

Building trustworthy AI systems for mental health support is a shared priority across stakeholders from multiple disciplines. However, "trustworthy" remains loosely defined and inconsistently operationalized. AI research often focuses on technical criteria (e.g., robustness, explainability, and safety), while therapeutic practitioners emphasize therapeutic fidelity (e.g., appropriateness, empathy, and long-term user outcomes). To bridge the fragmented landscape, we propose a three-layer trust framework, covering human-oriented, AI-oriented, and interaction-oriented trust, integrating the viewpoints of key stakeholders (e.g., practitioners, researchers, regulators). Using this framework, we systematically review existing AI-driven research in mental health domain and examine evaluation practices for ``trustworthy'' ranging from automatic metrics to clinically validated approaches. We highlight critical gaps between what NLP currently measures and what real-world mental health contexts require, and outline a research agenda for building socio-technically aligned and genuinely trustworthy AI for mental health support.

This paper examines how value is constructed and negotiated in today's increasingly automated language and translation industry. Drawing on interview data from twenty-nine industry stakeholders collected within the LT-LiDER project, the study analyses how human value, technological value, efficiency, and adaptability are articulated across different professional roles. Using Chesterman's framework of translation ethics and associated values as an analytical lens, the paper shows that efficiency-oriented technological values aligned with the ethics of service have become baseline expectations in automated production environments, where speed, scalability, and deliverability dominate evaluation criteria. At the same time, human value is not displaced but repositioned, emerging primarily through expertise, oversight, accountability, and contextual judgment embedded within technology-mediated workflows. A central finding is the prominence of adaptability as a mediating value linking human and technological domains. Adaptability is constructed as a core professional requirement, reflecting expectations that translators continuously adjust their skills, roles, and identities in response to evolving tools and organisational demands. The paper argues that automation reshapes rather than replaces translation value, creating an interdependent configuration in which technological efficiency enables human communicative work.