# arXiv cs.AI: Beyond the principle-practice gap: Responsible AI as situated epistemic and ethical practice [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-beyond-the-principle-practice-gap-responsible-ai-as-906c0d69) In their paper, Thao Do Ngoc and Emma Carmel argue that apparent gaps between responsible AI principles and practice are not simply failures of implementation, awareness or compliance. Based on fourteen interviews with actors designing and governing AI-enabled anti-trafficking systems across law enforcement, commercial, research and survivor-support contexts, they locate the gaps in the institutional and professional conditions that shape which issues become recognisable as ethical problems requiring action. The authors trace four connected moments: perception, judgement, situated action and socio-technical materialisation. Ethical commitments, they argue, can be genuine while competing professional roles, experience and institutional settings shape which concerns are acted on, narrowed, deferred or left unrealised. Their account makes responsible AI a question of what organisations can recognise and act upon, not only whether individuals follow principles. They argue that governance requires purposeful epistemic infrastructures that make knowledge from affected communities and potential harms receivable and actionable in design. The abstract presents this as an argument grounded in interviews about anti-trafficking systems; it does not detail how such infrastructures would be built or assess their effects. Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 4, 2026 (2026-11-04). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T11:18:10.412Z. First observed: 2026-11-05T05:03:33.043Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-09T11:17:03.452Z. - [Beyond the principle-practice gap: Responsible AI as situated epistemic and ethical practice](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06709) ## Limits The evidence provided is the paper’s abstract; it does not detail how the proposed epistemic infrastructures would be built or assess their effects. The interviews concern actors designing and governing AI-enabled anti-trafficking systems, so the abstract does not establish how broadly the account applies beyond those contexts. ## Open question What forms of epistemic infrastructures would establish conditions in which knowledge from affected communities and potential harms becomes receivable and actionable in design? ## Source-stated The authors argue that apparent gaps between responsible AI principles and practice arise from institutional and professional conditions shaping which issues are recognised as ethical problems requiring action. > such apparent gaps emerge from the varied and complex institutional and professional conditions through which actors come to recognise some issues, but not others, as ethical problems requiring action. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06709) ## Source-stated The authors trace four connected moments through which ethical concerns become recognisable, are weighed and acted on, and become embedded in technical artefacts and governance arrangements. > four interconnected moments---perception, judgement, situated action and socio-technical materialisation---through which concerns become intelligible, are weighed and acted upon, and are embedded in technical artefacts and governance arrangements. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06709) ## Source-stated The authors argue that responsible AI governance requires epistemic infrastructures that make affected communities’ knowledge and potential harms receivable and actionable in design. > responsible AI governance requires purposeful and well-developed epistemic infrastructures that can cut across these constraints to establish institutional conditions through which the knowledge of affected communities and potential harms becomes receivable and actionable in design. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06709) ## Source and contributor context Ngoc, Thao Do, Carmel, Emma · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: f0e4eaef-3aef-4a78-816a-93c73db3347a. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T11:18:10.412Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: useful\_perspective. Observation: 52be340cf18a89636ab70011cc04eb9cfcf4f35e2f05c40c51fc0068fa75fd92. Source text hash: 23d5f38488efd519c3e32bf446732e611d0ca4a652234a8582eaa5a2047da05b. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-11-09T11:18:10.412Z In their paper, Thao Do Ngoc and Emma Carmel argue that apparent gaps between responsible AI principles and practice are not simply failures of implementation, awareness or compliance. Based on fourteen interviews with actors designing and governing AI-enabled anti-trafficking systems across law enforcement, commercial, research and survivor-support contexts, they locate the gaps in the institutional and professional conditions that shape which issues become recognisable as ethical problems requiring action. The authors trace four connected moments: perception, judgement, situated action and socio-technical materialisation. Ethical commitments, they argue, can be genuine while competing professional roles, experience and institutional settings shape which concerns are acted on, narrowed, deferred or left unrealised. Their account makes responsible AI a question of what organisations can recognise and act upon, not only whether individuals follow principles. They argue that governance requires purposeful epistemic infrastructures that make knowledge from affected communities and potential harms receivable and actionable in design. The abstract presents this as an argument grounded in interviews about anti-trafficking systems; it does not detail how such infrastructures would be built or assess their effects. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 4, 2026 (2026-11-04). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T11:18:10.412Z. First observed: 2026-11-05T05:03:33.043Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-09T11:17:03.452Z. - [Beyond the principle-practice gap: Responsible AI as situated epistemic and ethical practice](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06709) ## Limits The evidence provided is the paper’s abstract; it does not detail how the proposed epistemic infrastructures would be built or assess their effects. The interviews concern actors designing and governing AI-enabled anti-trafficking systems, so the abstract does not establish how broadly the account applies beyond those contexts. ## Open question What forms of epistemic infrastructures would establish conditions in which knowledge from affected communities and potential harms becomes receivable and actionable in design? ## Source-stated The authors argue that apparent gaps between responsible AI principles and practice arise from institutional and professional conditions shaping which issues are recognised as ethical problems requiring action. > such apparent gaps emerge from the varied and complex institutional and professional conditions through which actors come to recognise some issues, but not others, as ethical problems requiring action. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06709) ## Source-stated The authors trace four connected moments through which ethical concerns become recognisable, are weighed and acted on, and become embedded in technical artefacts and governance arrangements. > four interconnected moments---perception, judgement, situated action and socio-technical materialisation---through which concerns become intelligible, are weighed and acted upon, and are embedded in technical artefacts and governance arrangements. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06709) ## Source-stated The authors argue that responsible AI governance requires epistemic infrastructures that make affected communities’ knowledge and potential harms receivable and actionable in design. > responsible AI governance requires purposeful and well-developed epistemic infrastructures that can cut across these constraints to establish institutional conditions through which the knowledge of affected communities and potential harms becomes receivable and actionable in design. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06709) ## Source and contributor context Ngoc, Thao Do, Carmel, Emma · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: f0e4eaef-3aef-4a78-816a-93c73db3347a. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T11:18:10.412Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: useful\_perspective. Observation: 52be340cf18a89636ab70011cc04eb9cfcf4f35e2f05c40c51fc0068fa75fd92. Source text hash: 23d5f38488efd519c3e32bf446732e611d0ca4a652234a8582eaa5a2047da05b. ### passed — 2026-11-09T11:18:10.412Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 Publication: f0e4eaef-3aef-4a78-816a-93c73db3347a attribution — pass: The reading correctly credits Thao Do Ngoc and Emma Carmel and presents the thesis as their argument rather than as established fact. The title prefix 'arXiv cs.AI' reflects the feed label. The paper's primary category is cs.CY, with cs.AI as a cross-list, so the prefix is not misleading. > Authors:Thao Do Ngoc, Emma Carmel summary — pass: The summary leads with the authors' counter-thesis to the usual principle-practice gap framing. It gives the evidence base (fourteen interviews across four contexts), the four moments, and the governance conclusion. 'Epistemic infrastructures' and 'socio-technical materialisation' are kept exactly. The infrastructures are explained functionally as making community knowledge and harms receivable and actionable in design. The four moments could use term-library tooltips, but the core idea is understandable without them. The scope caveat is accurate. > Actors often hold genuine ethical commitments, but these commitments are shaped by institutional logics and professional moral economies: some concerns are materialised, while others are narrowed, deferred or left unrealised. date — pass: The originalPublished date of 2026-11-04 matches the arXiv v1 submission date. It does not use the later feed date of 2026-11-05. > \[Submitted on 4 Nov 2026\] support — pass: All three claims carry exact supporting excerpts and are framed as the authors' arguments. The phrase 'what organisations can recognise and act upon' is a fair paraphrase of the abstract's institutional framing. The question follows directly from the abstract's unresolved proposal. The limitations correctly note the abstract-only evidence and the anti-trafficking scope. No benefits or costs are invented. > it argues that such apparent gaps emerge from the varied and complex institutional and professional conditions through which actors come to recognise some issues, but not others, as ethical problems requiring action. media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the arXiv abstract page, which is the original source. No better source media was found. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/906c0d69fb5fce423ab6b506d00b99bad49d3144410214f008398864037e285d/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-beyond-the-principle-practice-gap-responsible-ai-as-906c0d69.json)