The EU AI Act's reliance on an undefined 'accuracy' pits legal fitness‑for‑purpose demands against ML's benchmarking culture, creating compliance uncertainty; the authors call for standardized reporting, interventional validation, and new tools to extend accuracy measurements to real-world deployments.

Main Finding

Accuracy is a boundary object whose technical (E-accuracy) and legal (L-accuracy) meanings diverge in ways that matter for competition, compliance costs, and welfare. The paper argues that neither machine‑learning communities nor legal doctrine can uniquely define “accuracy” across contexts; instead, frictions between E- and L-accuracy reveal both limits and actionable fixes. The authors distill five core tensions and give concrete recommendations (R1–R10) to reduce misalignment—calling for improved reporting, new technical tools to extend validity (especially toward individuals and deployment scenarios), and interventional studies to align measurement with intended social ends.

Key Points

• Two parallel concepts:
  • E-accuracy: statistical/formal empirical measure used for benchmarking, algorithmic competition, and internal optimization (population‑level, comparative).
  • L-accuracy: a teleological, normative compliance concept tied to fitness‑for‑purpose in the EU AI Act (prevention of harms, lifecycle consistency, transferability to deployment).
• Five tensions between E- and L-accuracy:
• Nature of accuracy: formal/empirical vs. normative/teleological.
• Notion of performance: accuracy as a component of performance vs. accuracy as a certification of performance.
• Scope of validity: validity needed for high-stakes deployment (transferability) vs. validity sufficient for benchmark comparisons.
• Ends: internal optimization (developer incentives) vs. external certification (regulatory aims).
• Statisticalness: population-aggregate focus vs. legal concern for individual-level harms and rights.
• Consequences of the mismatch:
  • Measurement ambiguity fosters regulatory uncertainty and compliance risk.
  • Benchmark-driven competition can incentivize models that optimize narrow metrics rather than social outcomes (misaligned incentives, potential "accuracy washing").
  • Standardization delays (AI Act delegated details to standards bodies) leave providers to self-interpret compliance — creating heterogeneity and potential first-mover advantages/disadvantages.
• Recommendations (high level — R1–R10 summarized):
  • Require richer accuracy reporting: justify metric choice, describe data, relate target constructs to intended purpose.
  • Mandate baseline comparisons and context‑dependent interventional studies to show real-world performance.
  • Develop technical methods to assess and report validity across deployment scenarios and toward individuals (e.g., local/ subgroup accuracy, uncertainty quantification).
  • Accept and design for ongoing iterative interpretation (no final single notion of accuracy).
  • Invest in standards and tooling that make accuracy measurements more transferable and legally actionable.

Data & Methods

• Conceptual, interdisciplinary analysis rather than empirical experimentation.
• Methods:
  • Boundary object framing (Star & Griesemer) to explain cross-domain interpretative flexibility.
  • Parallel dual-thread exposition: a legal thread (L-accuracy) using doctrinal analysis of the EU AI Act and methods of legal interpretation; a technical thread (E-accuracy) using ML epistemic practices and literature on benchmarking, evaluation, and socio-technical critiques.
  • Literature review across ML, AI governance, and legal scholarship; appendices provide detailed doctrinal (Appendix L) and technical meta-reflections (Appendix E).
  • Constructive policy and technical recommendations derived from the synthesized frictions.
• No original empirical datasets or econometric analysis; the paper’s claims are normative/conceptual and prescriptive.

Implications for AI Economics

• Market competition and benchmarking
  • Benchmarks (E-accuracy) will continue to structure competition; but if legal compliance requires broader validity (L-accuracy), firms optimizing only benchmark metrics can face unexpected compliance costs or liability.
  • Diverging accuracy definitions create rent opportunities: firms that invest earlier in L-aligned evaluation and documentation may gain market/contracting advantage.
• Investment and innovation incentives
  • Uncertain regulatory requirements (pending standards) raise regulatory risk, affecting investment timing and the selection of projects (favoring products with clearer fitness-for-purpose).
  • Developers may internalize higher evaluation costs (interventional studies, subgroup analyses), shifting R&D allocation from raw model improvement to evaluation, explainability, and monitoring tools.
• Compliance costs and market structure
  • Small entrants face higher relative burden to produce legally‑robust accuracy evidence — potential consolidation toward larger firms that can absorb reporting and interventional study costs.
  • Providers may face trade-offs: optimizing for legal-compliant accuracy vs. optimizing for marketplace performance/price — with implications for product variety and consumer surplus.
• Welfare, distributional effects, and externalities
  • Aggregate accuracy metrics can mask subgroup harms; legal emphasis on fitness-for-purpose raises the need to value individual-level performance in welfare calculations.
  • Misaligned incentives can generate negative externalities (e.g., deployment of systems that pass aggregate tests but harm vulnerable groups), suggesting a role for regulation to correct market failures.
• Policy and research agenda for economists
  • Quantify compliance costs of richer accuracy reporting and interventional studies; model their impact on entry, competition, and innovation dynamics.
  • Empirically measure how benchmark‑driven competitions affect downstream welfare when regulatory definitions of accuracy differ.
  • Evaluate standard-setting timing and design as strategic complements/substitutes to firm investment in evaluation capability.
  • Design instruments to estimate individual-level or subgroup-level accuracy externalities and compute socially optimal evaluation standards.
  • Study contracting and certification markets where firms signal L-accuracy by third‑party audits, and assess potential for certification market failures (e.g., capture, low-quality audits).
• Practical recommendations for economic actors
  • Firms: invest in evidence infrastructure (data provenance, subgroup metrics, lifecycle monitoring) early to reduce future compliance risk and gain competitive signaling.
  • Regulators: prioritize clear guidance on what L-accuracy entails in deployment contexts; support standards and capacity-building to lower compliance costs for smaller firms.
  • Researchers: run interventional field studies and cost-benefit analyses comparing narrow benchmark improvement vs. investments in deployment‑oriented validation.

Overall, the paper reframes “accuracy” as an economic coordination problem between markets (benchmarks and competition) and regulation (safety, rights, and validity). Economists can help quantify trade-offs, design incentives, and evaluate policies to align technical evaluation practices with social goals.