Search

Artificial intelligence increasingly informs consequential decisions, yet high predictive performance alone does not establish that an intelligent system is worthy of trust. This systematic review examines trustworthy AI as a multidimensional, socio-technical, and lifecycle-dependent research domain. It synthesises selected peer-reviewed journal evidence addressing transparency, interpretability, explainability, robustness, safety, privacy, security, fairness, accountability, governance, and meaningful human oversight. The review applies predefined questions, eligibility principles, trustworthiness-dimension mapping, claim-level evidence extraction, and cross-dimensional synthesis without undertaking meta-analysis or inventing quantitative screening results. The evidence indicates that transparency and explanation must be assessed in relation to fidelity, stability, completeness, usefulness, stakeholder needs, contestability, recourse, and the practical authority of human overseers. Robustness and safety require evaluation under adversarial conditions, uncertainty, context shift, system failure, and residual risk, while privacy-preserving approaches must still be examined for leakage, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and governance limitations. Fairness depends on context-sensitive definitions, bias identification, distributional consequences, documentation, responsibility allocation, auditability, and institutional mechanisms for correction. Cross-dimensional analysis reveals persistent tensions between transparency and privacy, explainability and security, automation and human control, and performance and fairness. Important gaps remain in multidimensional evaluation, realistic human-oversight studies, explanation-usefulness validation, lifecycle monitoring, accountability operationalisation, stakeholder participation, and foundation-model assurance. The review contributes an integrated evidence synthesis showing that AI worthiness of trust should be supported through coordinated technical validation, human-centred assessment, institutional governance, and continuing monitoring rather than inferred from any isolated property.

Explainability has become central to discussions of trustworthy and responsible intelligent systems, yet it is frequently reduced to the technical production of information about model structure, features, rules, or predictions. This critical review examines why opening a computational black box is not equivalent to producing an explanation that people can understand or use responsibly. The review synthesises conceptual, technical, human-centred, decisional, and accountability-oriented scholarship to evaluate the shift from model interpretability toward meaningful explanation. It distinguishes technical properties such as transparency, fidelity, plausibility, completeness, stability, and local or global scope from human outcomes such as comprehension, cognitive accessibility, mental-model development, decision usefulness, calibrated trust, and appropriate reliance. It further examines how explanations may produce overreliance, underreliance, automation bias, false reassurance, cognitive overload, or explanation mismatch when their content and presentation are not aligned with users, tasks, uncertainty, and decision consequences. From an accountability perspective, explanations may contribute to auditability, traceability, contestability, and recourse, but they cannot independently assign responsibility, provide institutional authority, or guarantee effective remedies. The main contribution is a human-centred critical synthesis that treats explainability as a socio-technical achievement rather than a model output. Meaningful explanation requires technical credibility, cognitive accessibility, contextual relevance, decision-sensitive evaluation, uncertainty communication, opportunities for challenge, and governance mechanisms capable of acting on explanatory evidence. The review therefore rejects universal explanation-sufficiency claims and identifies conditions under which explanations may assist understanding and responsible decision use without being treated as proof of trustworthiness, accountability, fairness, safety, or deployment readiness.

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.