aiqbench analysis
This paper reframes legal uncertainty in AI governance not as a flaw to be eliminated, but as a necessary condition for adaptive regulatory learning. By analyzing technical sandbox frameworks, it identifies specific infrastructure properties required to facilitate the negotiation between abstract legal principles and operational technical requirements. The work offers critical insights for policymakers and developers navigating the evolving landscape of the EU AI Act and similar global regulations.
Bathtubs, Boundaries, and Sandboxes: AI Regulatory Learning under Legal Uncertainty
arXiv:2601.04094v4 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Effective regulation of AI is a defining policy challenge, driven by their integration into all aspects of society. To remain responsive to their rapid development and emergent properties, policymakers across the globe rely on high-level principles and abstract legal requirements. Yet, while this flexibility supports future-proofing human-centred regulations and aligning them with socio-ethical values, it also causes legal uncertainty downstream as developers, companies, and auditors struggle with translating these abstract requirements into verifiable technical requirements. Using the AI Act as an example, this paper draws on Coleman's bathtub to analyse the regulatory learning space in AI governance. It argues that legal uncertainty cannot be fully reduced ex ante and that, within reasonable bounds, it is also necessary for regulatory learning because it creates the space in which boundary negotiation over socio-technical meaning can occur. Building on this analysis, the paper shows how boundary objects and boundary negotiating artifacts help explain the translation of legal requirements into operational practice. By examining technical sandbox frameworks, it further identifies concrete properties that technical infrastructures must possess to function effectively as boundary negotiation artifacts in AI assessment. The paper concludes that legal certainty remains the long-term aim, but that premature closure of regulatory instruments risks undermining the learning processes needed for adaptive governance.
Abstract:Effective regulation of AI is a defining policy challenge, driven by their integration into all aspects of society. To remain responsive to their rapid development and emergent properties, policymakers across the globe rely on high-level principles and abstract legal requirements. Yet, while this flexibility supports future-proofing human-centred regulations and aligning them with socio-ethical values, it also causes legal uncertainty downstream as developers, companies, and auditors struggle with translating these abstract requirements into verifiable technical requirements. Using the AI Act as an example, this paper draws on Coleman's bathtub to analyse the regulatory learning space in AI governance. It argues that legal uncertainty cannot be fully reduced ex ante and that, within reasonable bounds, it is also necessary for regulatory learning because it creates the space in which boundary negotiation over socio-technical meaning can occur. Building on this analysis, the paper shows how boundary objects and boundary negotiating artifacts help explain the translation of legal requirements into operational practice. By examining technical sandbox frameworks, it further identifies concrete properties that technical infrastructures must possess to function effectively as boundary negotiation artifacts in AI assessment. The paper concludes that legal certainty remains the long-term aim, but that premature closure of regulatory instruments risks undermining the learning processes needed for adaptive governance.
author's version of the paper to be presented at ACM AIES 2026. Updated email address of one author
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2601.04094 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2601.04094v4 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.04094 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 326 words
Related coverage
Designing a Boundary Negotiating Artifact for Collaborative Socio-Technical Sense-Making in AI Regulatory Sandboxes
arXiv · Sep 30, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

AI and Quantum Computing Briefing
livetradingnews.com · Aug 4, 2026

What are AI Hallucinations?
Databricks · Aug 13, 2026