AI OSI (Artificial Intelligence Open Systems Interconnection) is an independent research and architectural framework for governing AI-assisted decision-making in high-risk institutional environments.

AI OSI defines how authority, evidence, oversight, and accountability should be structured and preserved, so that decisions made with AI assistance remain explainable, reconstructable, and defensible under scrutiny.

AI OSI is an architecture, not a product or service.

AI OSI addresses a recurring institutional failure:

Organizations increasingly rely on AI-assisted decisions, but cannot later demonstrate who was responsible, what constraints applied, or why a decision was reasonable at the time it was made.

Traditional governance artifacts (policies, model cards, ethics reviews) document intent, not accountability. AI OSI is designed to preserve contemporaneous evidence of decision context, authority, and reasoning.

No.

AI OSI is not:

• a software product

• a platform

• an API

• a deployment system

• a monitoring tool

• an enforcement mechanism

AI OSI is a conceptual and architectural specification. It describes how governance and evidence should be structured, not how to implement specific tools.

No.

AI OSI does not:

• make decisions

• recommend outcomes

• enforce rules

• override human judgment

• approve or reject actions

AI OSI specifies how human and institutional decisions should be governed, documented, and reconstructed.

AI OSI is intended for high-risk institutional contexts, including but not limited to:

• public sector and government agencies

• national security and intelligence oversight environments

• regulated industries (finance, healthcare, infrastructure, energy)

• large organizations with board-level accountability

• auditors, regulators, and post-incident reviewers

AI OSI is not designed for consumer AI, personal assistants, or low-risk applications.

No.

AI OSI does not claim compliance with, replace, or certify adherence to:

• the EU AI Act

• GDPR

• NIST frameworks

• ISO standards

• or any jurisdiction-specific regulation

AI OSI may align conceptually with regulatory principles, but it does not provide compliance guarantees.

No.

AI OSI is designed to complement, not replace:

• policies

• risk assessments

• model cards

• ethics reviews

• audits

AI OSI focuses on the missing layer: producing durable, time-bound evidence that links decisions to authority and constraints.

AI OSI emphasizes evidence that supports post-incident reconstruction, including:

• governing authority at the time of decision

• active constraints and risk boundaries

• decision rationale and trade-offs

• oversight mechanisms in force

• temporal context (what was knowable then)

This is distinct from performance metrics or outcome evaluation.

Not necessarily.

AI OSI does not require executives, boards, or regulators to interpret model internals.

Instead, it focuses on:

• authority

• governance structure

• decision context

• human oversight

Technical explainability may be relevant, but it is not the primary accountability mechanism.

AI OSI is not an ethics framework.

While ethical considerations may be relevant to governance, AI OSI is concerned with evidence, accountability, and defensibility, not moral judgment.

No.

AI OSI does not:

• collect data

• monitor individuals

• surveil behavior

• analyze content

• operate intelligence systems

Any interpretation of AI OSI as surveillance technology is incorrect.

AI OSI is an independent research initiative authored and stewarded by Daniel P. Madden.

AI OSI does not exercise authority over any organization, system, or individual.

Any future implementations, adaptations, or extensions would remain the responsibility of implementing parties, not AI OSI.

Organizations may choose to reference or adapt AIOSI concepts, but AIOSI does not certify, approve, or endorse implementations.

All responsibility for design, operation, compliance, and outcomes remains with the implementing organization.

No.

AI OSI does not claim to prevent failures, bias, or harm.

AI OSI is designed to ensure that when failures occur, institutions can demonstrate responsible governance and reasonable decision-making based on evidence available at the time.

No.

AI OSI Materials are not legally binding and do not impose obligations.

They are conceptual and descriptive in nature.

Any framework can be misused.

AI OSI is explicitly designed to resist:

• legitimacy laundering

• post-hoc narrative reconstruction

• retroactive justification

However, AI OSI cannot prevent bad-faith actors from misrepresentation. That risk is addressed through clear scope limits and interpretation controls.

No.

AI OSI does not train models, collect datasets, or operate AI systems.

References to AI are analytical, not operational.

No.

AI OSI is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by any government, corporation, standards body, or AI platform provider.

AI OSI is published as open research. Intellectual property terms governing reuse and attribution are described on the Legal page.

Commercial reuse requires authorization.

AI OSI should be cited with attribution to Daniel P. Madden and a link to the original source page.

AI OSI may evolve as research advances and new governance challenges emerge.

Updates are published transparently. Prior versions remain relevant for historical and interpretive purposes.

AI OSI is not:

• a product

• a service

• a regulator

• a compliance guarantee

• a decision engine

• a surveillance system

• a certification body

Any interpretation to the contrary is incorrect.

General inquiries may be directed via the Contact page.

AI OSI does not provide implementation support or consulting services.