Many organizational AI failures stem from missing representations of 'when not to follow the rule'; O‑I‑B‑A‑R formalises how to capture exceptions, runtime unknowns, and who must decide, making human–AI handoffs explicit — but the proposal remains conceptual and untested.

Main Finding

The paper diagnoses a representational problem at the sociotechnical interface that helps explain recurring organizational AI failures: organizations typically supply AI with positive procedures (what to do), but not with the negative decision boundaries, runtime judgments, responsibility assignments, and failure histories that practitioners use. It proposes O-I-B-A-R (OPEN, IS, BUT, ACTION, RESULT) — a lightweight, contrastive scaffold to externalize decision-boundary knowledge so that AI systems (and organizational processes) can distinguish when a rule applies, what variable actually determines a failure, what must be known at runtime, who must resolve it, and how to update the model after action. The framework also highlights a sociotechnical tension: durable, attributable failure records can suppress candid reporting of boundary knowledge, so externalization must be designed with incentives and organizational protections.

Key Points

• Four representational gaps that produce “lack of judgment” errors:
  • Boundary gap: explicit positive rules (IS) but tacit negative boundaries (what makes the rule fail).
  • Runtime-value gap: a decision-relevant dimension may be known but its value for the current case is unresolved.
  • Responsibility gap: “human in the loop” is underspecified — which variable/value should the human supply or judge?
  • Learning gap: organization-level updates often become action-level guardrails instead of expanding or refining the decision space.
• O-I-B-A-R components:
  • OPEN: a concrete judgment J within a domain Ω to be tested.
  • IS: the positive applicability condition (when J is justified).
  • BUT: a concrete failure case; critically NOT merely ¬IS — it should introduce decision-relevant information beyond the IS statement.
  • Decision-dimension discovery: compare IS and BUT to isolate minimally sufficient changing variable d (aim for a single variable |∆| = 1).
  • Suspension: explicit representation of an unresolved value for known dimension d (qd(x) = ?), making the missing information actionable and identifying human/automation roles.
  • ACTION: the committed decision given current model/assumptions.
  • RESULT: structured feedback that either confirms the boundary, refines thresholds, or requires adding a new dimension.
• Key theoretical moves:
  • Treat IS and BUT asymmetrically — BUTs are generative and can reveal previously omitted decision variables.
  • Use domain-relative naming and iterative abstraction (AΩ operator) to produce stable, value-bearing dimension names.
  • Represent suspension as a primitive human–AI handoff — who must resolve what.
  • Distinguish boundary refinement (threshold moves) from structural expansion (new dimension).
• Sociotechnical caveat: failure externalization carries costs (blame, exposure); organizations may withhold useful failure cases unless incentives, psychological safety, or protections are provided.

Data & Methods

• This is a conceptual, theoretical paper combining:
  • Literature synthesis across organizational studies (Suchman; Brown & Duguid; Orr; Feldman & Pentland), cognitive/task elicitation methods (repertory-grid, cognitive task analysis), machine-learning ideas (near-miss learning, version spaces, counterexample-guided abstraction refinement), and organizational learning/behavioral literatures (Argyris & Schön; organizational silence; psychological safety).
  • Formalized, operational definitions and heuristics: IS : S ⇒ J; heuristic V(BUT) \ V(IS) ≠ ∅ to screen generative failures; ∆(IS, BUT | Ω) to define minimally sufficient changing variables; representation of suspension queries qd(x).
  • Worked examples and conceptual thought experiments illustrating decomposition from action-level failures to decision-dimension attributions (e.g., “empathy was wrong” → “need type misclassified”).
  • A proposed loop (OPEN → (IS,BUT) → D → qD → ACTION → RESULT → OPEN′) and notions of local structural stability and “bounded exposure-rate certificate” (warning that absence of new-dimension discoveries over a case stream is not proof of completeness due to rare events).
• No new large-scale empirical dataset or randomized trial is presented. The paper situates O-I-B-A-R relative to existing elicitation and learning methods and lays out operational criteria amenable to empirical implementation and testing.

Implications for AI Economics

• Deployment costs and investment trade-offs:
  • Externalizing decision boundaries (collecting BUTs, building suspensions, mapping responsibilities, and maintaining RESULT-driven updates) requires upfront time, coordination, and incentives — raising short-term deployment costs but reducing costly brittle errors long-term.
  • Firms that invest in structured externalization may realize higher effective returns to AI by reducing loss from misapplied rules, lowering rework/escalation costs, and accelerating learning about rare-but-important failure modes.
• Changes in the division of labor and task complementarity:
  • Representing suspensions clarifies which parts of decision-making remain non-reducible and hence preserves or creates human roles focused on interpretation/ontological judgment rather than rote execution.
  • Demand for worker skills will shift toward resolving suspensions, naming decision dimensions, and maintaining boundary knowledge (affecting skill premia and retraining needs).
• Market design and productization:
  • AI vendors and platforms can differentiate by embedding O-I-B-A-R primitives: interfaces for IS/BUT capture, suspension types, human-hand-off workflows, and RESULT-driven model updates. This becomes a product feature, potentially increasing switching costs and platform lock-in.
  • Predictable human–AI handoffs lower coordination costs and make contractible AI services easier to price and insure.
• Measurement, evaluation, and incentives:
  • Standard ML metrics (accuracy/recall) are insufficient. Economic evaluation should include coverage of decision-boundary space, frequency of suspensions, costs of unresolved suspensions, and the nature of RESULT-driven structural expansions.
  • Organizations must design incentives (psychological safety, non-punitive reporting, audit protections, or compensation) to encourage reporting of failure cases; otherwise, strategic withholding creates negative externalities (systematic under-disclosure that raises aggregate risk).
• Learning externalities and information spillovers:
  • Failure incidents are public goods: single firms may underinvest in documenting BUTs (learning externality). Policy or industry governance (shared incident taxonomies, anonymized failure reporting) can internalize externalities and raise overall system robustness.
• Risk, liability, and regulation:
  • Explicitly recorded suspensions and decision dimensions aid auditing and regulatory compliance by making human responsibilities and thresholds auditable — but they also create durable evidence that can affect liability and reputational risk, reinforcing the need for thoughtful organizational protections.
• Empirical research agenda for AI economists:
  • Quantify the value of boundary externalization: measure error-avoidance benefits vs. documentation/coordination costs.
  • Estimate how suspension frequency and the distribution of discovered dimensions affect automation substitutability and labor demand.
  • Test incentive mechanisms (psychological-safety interventions; protected reporting) to increase candid failure reporting and measure downstream effects on system performance and costs.
  • Model markets for “decision-boundary-enriched” AI products and insurance products that price exposure to unrepresented dimensions.
• Policy suggestions:
  • Encourage or mandate structured failure reporting standards (with legal protections) to mitigate underreporting externalities.
  • Promote guidelines that require AI deployments to specify suspensions and human responsibilities in contracts and audits.

Overall, O-I-B-A-R reframes many AI deployment failures as representation and governance problems rather than mere model capability gaps. For AI economists, the framework focuses attention on measurement and incentive problems (who documents what, at what cost, and who benefits), on the economic value of explicit decision-boundary representations, and on policy mechanisms to correct market and organizational frictions that hinder candid externalization of failure knowledge.