Search

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.

Intelligent systems increasingly influence decisions, allocate attention, generate recommendations, and mediate interactions across technical, organizational, and social environments. Yet trustworthiness is often approached through isolated interventions, such as improving model accuracy, adding post-hoc explanations, documenting datasets, or assigning nominal human oversight. This article proposes a trustworthy-by-design conceptual framework that treats trustworthiness as a system-level property requiring coordinated design and evaluation across the full intelligent-system lifecycle. The framework begins with system-purpose and risk-context definition, followed by stakeholder and responsibility mapping, data-integrity assessment, provenance and lineage review, data documentation and governance, model-reliability evaluation, robustness and uncertainty assessment, and bias and fairness review where relevant. It then connects explanation quality with human interpretability and decision usefulness, rather than assuming that technically generated explanations will necessarily support understanding. Human oversight, meaningful control, contestability, recourse, institutional accountability, traceability, auditability, monitoring, and feedback updating form additional interdependent layers. The framework’s principal contribution is to clarify how technical evidence must be connected to human decision conditions and institutional responsibility without treating any individual safeguard as sufficient. Data provenance does not establish data appropriateness, robustness does not prove safety, explanations do not guarantee interpretability, human presence does not ensure meaningful control, and governance arrangements do not independently establish accountability. The framework may support conceptual analysis, assurance-oriented evaluation, and lifecycle governance planning, but requires empirical validation, human-centered assessment, domain-specific interpretation, and continuing institutional review.