Search

Artificial intelligence decisions are often described as explainable when a system can produce reasons, feature contributions, counterfactuals, or other interpretive outputs. Such outputs, however, do not by themselves make an institutional decision answerable. This article develops a conceptual explainable AI governance framework that treats explainability as an organizational obligation connected to transparency duties, system documentation, evidence preservation, auditability, responsibility allocation, contestability, human review, and redress. The framework distinguishes technical explanation from the governance capacities required to identify who must justify a decision, what information must be recorded, how evidence can be examined, how affected stakeholders may challenge an outcome, and whether an organization can correct errors or remediate consequences. Transparency and documentation are organized around system, model, data, dataset, and decision records, together with data, model, and decision provenance. Auditability is connected to traceability, lifecycle records, risk documentation, monitoring, incident response, and clearly allocated organizational responsibility. Contestability is connected to decision justification, appeal and complaint pathways, competent and sufficiently independent human review, escalation, correction, recourse, and redress capacity. The framework also identifies governance gaps that arise when these functions are separated across the AI lifecycle, including documentation, evidence-trail, accountability, human-review, monitoring, and remediation gaps. Its principal contribution is an answerability-oriented governance architecture that links explanation to institutional evidence and response mechanisms while preserving explicit boundaries: transparency does not independently establish accountability, auditability does not prove responsibility, human involvement does not guarantee meaningful review, and a conceptual governance framework does not establish legal compliance, procedural fairness, ethical sufficiency, or deployment readiness.

Artificial intelligence increasingly contributes to decisions that shape access, opportunity, services, evaluation, and institutional treatment. Although explainability is widely treated as a foundation of trustworthy AI, an explanation does not by itself enable an affected person to question a decision, introduce corrective evidence, request reconsideration, or obtain an appropriate response. This article develops a conceptual Human Contestability Framework for connecting explanation to actionable decision challenge. The framework treats contestability as a socio-technical requirement involving affected-person access, reason-giving, explanation quality, procedural accessibility, evidence submission, meaningful human review, override capacity, escalation, appeal, redress, correction, organizational accountability, documentation, auditability, monitoring, and feedback updating. It distinguishes interpretability and transparency from contestability, and separates human review from meaningful reconsideration, appeal from recourse, and correction from broader redress. The framework proposes that contestable decision design should begin with decision-context and stakeholder mapping, define explanation and evidence requirements, establish challenge and review pathways, assign organizational responsibilities, preserve traceable records, and use contestation outcomes to identify recurring system or governance failures. Its contribution is not a validated procedure or universal institutional model, but an integrated structure for analyzing whether people can move from receiving an AI-supported decision to questioning its basis and seeking a reasoned institutional response. Contestability may strengthen trustworthy-AI planning, but it does not independently establish fairness, legality, ethical sufficiency, accountability, operational safety, or deployment readiness. Domain-specific validation, accessible procedures, competent human review, organizational governance, and continuing evaluation remain necessary.