TY - JOUR
T1 - From Prediction to Intervention: A Causal Explainability Framework for Counterfactual Reasoning, Mechanism Discovery, Confounding Control, and Decision Validity
AU - Hassan Al-Rashid
AU - Julia Schmidt
AU - Peter O’Connor
JF - Journal of Trustworthy and Explainable Intelligent Systems
JO - J Trustworthy Explain Intell Syst
Y1 - 2026
VL - 5
IS - 1
SP - 88
N2 - Explainable artificial intelligence increasingly supports decisions whose consequences extend beyond prediction, yet many explanations remain grounded in associations, feature contributions, saliency, or local perturbations. Such outputs may clarify model behaviour without establishing what would happen under intervention, why an outcome arose through a particular mechanism, or whether a proposed change is feasible and decision-valid. This article develops a conceptual causal explainability framework for moving from prediction-oriented explanation toward intervention-aware reasoning. The framework begins by separating predictive, associative, and model-behaviour claims from causal questions. It then connects explicit causal assumptions with causal structures, mechanistic reasoning, interventional explanation, counterfactual reasoning, confounding assessment, identifiability, sensitivity, external validity, uncertainty communication, and human interpretation. Particular attention is given to the distinction between model counterfactuals and real-world recourse, the risks created by unmeasured confounding, selection and collider bias, and the need to define decision boundaries before explanations inform action. Human users are treated as active interpreters whose causal literacy, expertise, cognitive constraints, and susceptibility to false causal confidence affect explanation usefulness. The main contribution is an integrated framework that organizes the evidential transition from prediction to intervention while preserving explicit no-guarantee boundaries concerning causal truth, intervention validity, recourse, identifiability, human understanding, decision validity, and deployment readiness. The framework is intended to support disciplined conceptual development and evaluation planning, not to prescribe a universal causal model, intervention procedure, or operational decision system.
UR - https://tipublications.com/j331119771
ER -