Finance professionals treat accuracy and regulatory compliance as non‑negotiable prerequisites for AI; explainability matters chiefly as a gateway to trust and adoption, while cost and latency determine practical feasibility.

Main Finding

The common binary framing of an accuracy–explainability trade-off is incomplete for finance. Through 20 semi‑structured interviews with finance professionals (C‑suite, developers, regulators, and other business users), the paper finds that explainability is embedded in a multi‑dimensional system of prerequisites and constraints. Accuracy and compliance act as non‑negotiable “hygiene factors”; cost and speed are operational constraints that shape feasibility; and ease of understanding functions as a gateway to adoption, trust, and defendability of AI outputs. In practice, practitioners prioritize these factors in a layered, role‑dependent way rather than as a single linear trade‑off.

Key Points

• Binary view (accuracy vs explainability) is too narrow for financial AI. Explainability competes with accuracy but also with compliance, cost, and speed.
• Hygiene factors:
  • Accuracy and regulatory compliance are treated as essential conditions. Without them, explainability is irrelevant because the system becomes a liability.
• Operational constraints:
  • Speed (latency) and cost determine practical feasibility, especially in time‑sensitive domains (trading, fraud detection) or when explanation methods are computationally expensive (e.g., exact Shapley values).
• Gateway property:
  • Ease of understanding (audience‑appropriate, non‑technical explanations) is key for adoption by business users, risk teams, and relationship managers. It affects trust, use, and the ability to defend decisions to supervisors or clients.
• Layered framing:
  • The paper frames decisions across four layers: AI model, decision‑support systems (DSS), enterprise architecture (EA), and the broader sociotechnical system (institutions, regulation, markets).
• XAI techniques discussed include ante‑hoc interpretable models, SHAP, LIME, counterfactuals, and new LLM/RAG explanation layers — with concerns about faithfulness and computational/latency costs for some approaches.
• Empirical result: finance professionals rank and justify these considerations in ways that reflect institutional needs and constraints, not purely model‑level trade‑offs.

Data & Methods

• Data:
  • 20 semi‑structured interviews conducted April–November 2025.
  • Participants: diverse finance professionals (C‑suite, developers, model validators, risk/compliance officers, regulators) across multiple regions.
  • Interview length: 30–60 minutes.
• Key interview segments analyzed:
• Role and context (how participants interact with AI).
• Relevance/formats of explanations for their tasks.
• A ranking exercise: participants ordered five factors (accuracy, ease of understanding, compliance, cost, speed) and explained their reasoning.
• Analysis approach:
  • Qualitative thematic analysis drawing on the three interview segments; authors note thematic saturation consistent with qualitative literature.
  • Findings synthesized into a systems view (four layers) and mapped to competing priorities (Table 1 in paper).
• Limitations (noted or implied):
  • Qualitative, exploratory sample (n=20); preprint/not peer‑reviewed. Results are interpretive and context‑sensitive rather than statistically generalizable.

Implications for AI Economics

• Modeling firm decisions:
  • Economic models of AI adoption in finance should treat accuracy and compliance as constraint variables (hygiene constraints) rather than utility trade‑offs. Investment choices will be constrained first by meeting accuracy/compliance thresholds, then by optimizing cost/speed/explainability.
• Cost of explainability:
  • Explanation methods carry direct computational costs and indirect organizational costs (staff time, governance). These should be internalized in cost‑benefit frameworks and pricing of AI products (e.g., explainability as a product feature with measurable marginal cost).
• Product design and competition:
  • “Ease of understanding” is a product attribute that affects demand among business users and regulators. Vendors that can provide usable, auditable explanations (faithful and tailored to non‑technical audiences) may capture market share even if their pure predictive accuracy is only marginally better.
• Procurement and contracting:
  • Contracts and procurement rules will need to reflect multi‑dimensional constraints (accuracy/compliance floors, latency requirements, explanation SLAs). This shapes vendor selection, switching costs, and potentially vendor concentration.
• Regulation and incentives:
  • Regulatory requirements (GDPR, AI Act, fair lending rules) functionally raise the floor for acceptable models, shifting marginal returns toward investments in compliance and explainability tooling. Policymakers should expect firms to substitute across layers (e.g., more documentation and governance vs. model simplicity) depending on compliance costs.
• Systemic risk and externalities:
  • The sociotechnical layer highlights market‑level externalities (e.g., vendor concentration, common model usage). Economic analyses of systemic risk should incorporate the role of explainability and third‑party providers as channels of contagion.
• Empirical research opportunities for AI economics:
  • Quantify the monetary cost of different explanation methods (compute + staff) and relate to adoption thresholds.
  • Measure how explainability affects adoption probability, user trust, and litigation/complaint rates in field data.
  • Structural models of firm choice that treat accuracy/compliance as constraints and estimate willingness to pay for ease of understanding under varying latency/cost regimes.
  • Welfare analyses comparing regulation designs that impose explanation/contestability requirements versus those that set performance/compliance floors.
• Policy design:
  • Regulators should consider how explanation requirements interact with latency and cost constraints; one‑size‑fits‑all explanation mandates may have unintended effects (e.g., pushing firms toward simpler but less accurate models or increasing reliance on third‑party providers).
• Practical takeaway for economists advising firms:
  • When advising on AI investments, prioritize meeting accuracy and compliance thresholds first; then evaluate the marginal returns to reducing latency, lowering costs, or improving explainability tailored to end‑user roles.

Limitations and next steps: results are qualitative and exploratory. To inform quantitative economic policy or market design, follow‑up studies should estimate magnitudes (costs, adoption elasticity, effect on market structure) and test causal effects (e.g., randomized trials of explanation formats on uptake and contestation outcomes).